Meanderings of a Bad Buddhist

A work of Kintsugi, a Japanese process of
repairing a broken piece with gold.

The beauty of anything is in its flaws.

This is the beginning of what I intend to be a series of posts that accurately represent events that threaten to turn us all into “Bad Buddhists” like me. Whether I will fulfill my intentions, and the schedule and frequency of my attempts, I won’t project at this point. As Dirty Harry said, “A man’s got to know his own limitations.”

Over the last few years, I have frequently been challenged for the apparent disconnect between the anger in many of my writings and the Buddhist teachings by which I strive to guide my life. The most frequent assumption by readers most critical of that disconnect is that I’m simply not a very good Buddhist, a claim with which I must in all honesty concur. I fail, on a daily (hourly?) basis to live up to the aspirations of a practicing Buddhist, and to a great extent, those failures are borne of my responding angrily to events that shall admittedly pass in time.

I do trust that even the most destructive of those events will indeed pass, regardless of my responses or behaviors. It could even be said with some authority that angry responses such as mine only serve to prolong and exacerbate the very destructive circumstances, events, and behaviors that “good” Buddhists work diligently to nullify. I cannot honestly refute such an accusation. I don’t judge myself as a “bad” Buddhist, but as I stated above, I’m not a very good one, either. That said, a study of history hints that I am apparently in reasonably good company.

Back in 14^th Century China, during the Tang Dynasty, the Shaolin Temple – the birthplace of Kung Fu martial arts – housed within its walls a group of over 1,000 monks whose primary responsibilities involved the protection of the temple and the Tang government from assaults by warlords. Known at the time as the Dragon of Retribution, these monks were arguably the first “gathering of warrior monks,” or Tong. Member monks were as brutal in their defense of their charges as their host monks were pacifists in their devotion to the Eight-fold Path to enlightenment. In modern days, many of the Tong's actions would fall under the definition of terrorism. Brutal assassinations were not uncommon, and the Tong members were viewed by the public as either mystical super-beings on a righteous quest, or as incarnate demons. The reality lingered somewhere between the two extremes.

In later years, arguably beginning in the 17^th Century under the Ming Dynasty, many of the Tongs were corrupted, opened themselves to lay members of questionable agendas, and ultimately formed the beginnings of organized crime syndicates that continue to function and prosper to this day.

Lest anyone assert that I view myself as a warrior monk, I can assure you that I am no such thing. I am, at best, a devoted but flawed student of the Path, and I make no claim to exceptional powers of any kind. What I am is a lifelong student who sees a burgeoning rise of a profound danger to the way of life I cherish, as well as to the principles which I try but frequently fail to demonstrate in my own life. Seeing that danger, I am driven to combat the threats in a manner for which I am most qualified: sharing a vision of the truth of those dangers, reminding others of the potential harm we all face should the threats go unchallenged, and hoping to encourage others to join in that fight without adding to the inevitable repercussions of a potentially devastating descent into violence. To remind us all – myself included – that we’re all in this together, for better or worse.

The Shitgibbon’s Lies

Many thanks - and apologies - to the the great John Prine

for his tune “The Great Compromise”

I knew a man who was still just a baby

Earned billions by just bein’ born

After turning those billions to millions

Led a country that’s so horribly torn.

Well he lived in a gilded casino

Owned hotels all over the world

Never learned that his constantly bragging

Still couldn’t polish a turd.

Well, we could’ve not had Pres Shitgibbon

Destroying all we held dear

But some thought he’d get rid of them others

Muslims, Messkins, and queers.

Now he told us to beat up those traitors

Who refused to accept all his lies

Like newsmen and good politicians

Anyone who weren’t HIS guys.

Now some folks will call me a traitor

Cos I voted to see him sent home

But I’d rather be one of them traitors

Than one of the Shitgibbon’s own.

We can still get rid of Shitgibbon

And end his attempts to be king

To send him packing to Moscow

To fulfill his long desired fling

Fear and Loathing In The Mind Of A Narcissist

We've been hearing a lot of accusations directed at the media, most notably from the Trump administration, but from the public as well. According to the narrative, the media is acting irresponsibly, fomenting fear and hysteria regarding convid-19 in the populace. While some media outlets are genetically predisposed to hyperbole, I find such accusations to be ill-advised for the most part.

IMO, the greatest source of panic is the administration itself. Trump is clearly obsessed with painting a rosy picture of all aspects of his presidency, evidenced by his constant efforts to downplay the seriousness of the threat while simultaneously making false claims about the level of response and control over the growing pandemic and deriding scientists and particularly the media for issuing statements that are in marked contrast to his own. It is only natural for the populace to be confused by such diverging reports and the associated recommendations regarding the public's behavior in response to the outbreak.

Many if not most Americans look to the country's leadership for rational information and advice, but such advice has only begun to appear - and in small instances rather than a cohesive dialog - in the last week or so, as the administration's previous conclusions advice, and admonitions could no longer be reasonably accepted in the face of reports describing the actual progression of the disease.

In keeping with Trump's preferred narrative, the spiraling increase in infections and deaths in Italy, the bad news had been downplayed by the Trump administration, while the president's finger-pointing has continued unabated. Perhaps this New York Times article can give people a better picture of what has happened in Italy and why. If we're smart, we might even find ourselves less inclined to dismiss the potential for similar tragic developments to occur here in the US due to our clinging to the notion of American exceptionalism. We can only hope...

Planting Seeds

I have to admit, I've been perplexed and flummoxed at the insistent loyalty of Trump's "base," and by their unwavering eagerness to support his increasingly unhinged and blatantly false responses to reasonable interpretations of his most egregious (to date) actions. It seems that they are literally addicted to the most far-fetched rationalizations he can come up with, and he shows signs of getting even more unhinged and far-fetched as pressure from the impeachment investigation uncovers example after example of corroboration with the charges he will likely face in an impeachment trial - even one that shows signs of being nothing more than a partisan political sham (or a Barr for short). I have little in the way of expectations for the GOP-majority Senate to do anything other than rubber-stamp his acquittal, given their almost unanimous acceptance of Trump's "defense" such as it is, so we are left hoping that his "base" is not as afflicted with echolalia as are our elected Republican "representatives" (and I use that term very loosely).

If we have any hope of convincing what are, for all intents and purposes, a cult, that lies are NOT the truth, we need to present their candidate in a framework that will be more comprehensible to average
Americans who are not political junkies. To put things in a perspective Trump's "base" can more readily understand. Here's a first draft. See if it rings true to you.
Say you hired me to manage a gas station you owned.
Over the course of 3 years:
I lied to you virtually every single day.
I pocketed thousands of dollars people had paid for gas.
I told you that employees who "had it out for me" had been the ones ripping you off.
When you pointed out that some important tasks were being done shoddily or not done at all, I blamed my fellow workers and convinced you to fire them and give them bad references.
When you criticized me for acting unprofessionally toward customers, I spread false rumors about you and damaged your business and your reputation in the community.
When you finally started doing a background check on me, you found that every former employer had the same problems with me that you are having.
And when you confronted me with your list of complaints, I threatened to burn your gas station to the ground if you fired me.

Would you hire me?
Would you commit to keeping me as an employee for years?
Is the world your children will inherit one day soon less important to you than a single gas station? Your vote next November will be your answer.

Trump voters stay loyal because they feel disrespected

Photo courtesy Leftopia 

According to an article in The Washington Post, liberals' disrespect of Trump's supporters is making those supporters back his presidency even more, despite the fact that they are, as a group, more likely to suffer as a result of his policies, his incompetence, and his lack of fitness for the office he holds.

 

I have a difficult time respecting people whom I perceive as abandoning everything this country is supposed to stand for, who refuse to acknowledge blatant lies that the people they support feed them on a daily basis. tRump has a near-flawless record of appointing people who are either wholly ignorant and unsuited for their jobs, or are committed to destroying the departments they are supposed to lead. He clearly admires fascist dictators, yet spits in the faces of our once-devoted allies, and his supporters accept this.I want very much to respect my fellow citizens of every political stripe, but respect has to be earned. tRump's supporters don't earn respect by being complicit in the destruction of our society; they demand it and get their feelings hurt when we cannot justify giving it to them. It seems to me that they are willing to hurt their own interests and those of their children and grandchildren, rather than acknowledge the reality of what they are supporting and the very real damage that is being done. And beyond that, it is absurd for tRump's supporters to expect liberals to show them the respect they typically refuse to show their more progressive co9unterparts.

This is the quandary that progressives face; if we don't give tRump and his supporters the respect they demand, their collective will is hardened and their allegiance to tRump is strengthened. But in order to give them the respect they demand, progressive voters must abandon their own sense of right and wrong, and give legitimacy to a president who repeatedly demonstrates a willingness to ignore the law and commit acts of treason for his and his genuinely wealthy supposed peers' enrichment and benefit. We are expected to lie, and to give legitimacy to lies, and if we fail to do so, tRump's base will push even harder for a party that is bent upon the destruction of our democracy. I cannot help but wonder; how do THEY define "enemies, both foreign and domestic?"

Sorrow In The Land Of Cotton

As a man raised in the South, and who attended Robert E Lee and Mirabeau Bonaparte Lamar High Schools, I can relate to the almost visceral admiration for General Lee. At the same time, however, I learned, long after graduation, how "the South" I was taught to revere was not the idyllic milieu that was presented in my classes.

I remember our third-grade Texas History textbook actually using the phrase "nigger slaves," and how, in the '50s, the use of the phrase didn't seem inappropriate. i remember not being shocked at the existence of "white only" drinking fountains, the sign announcing "colored entrance" to the cafe adjoining the bus station in Lufkin, Texas, and even one forbidding "colored people" from using the x-ray machine in the shoe store that showed how a pair of shoes fit. And I remember my high school graduating class of nearly a thousand people, all but a handful of which were white.

My time at college changed my perspective dramatically. I was shocked to learn of the atrocities that "colored" people endured under slavery, and that they still endured in East Texas in the late '60s. A good friend in college - who happened to be black - had to leave Nacogdoches with his white girlfriend out of fear for their lives. And Leon Russell had to flee his native Oklahoma, just because his wife, Mary, was black.
Fast forward to today, and I can see how the hate that drives the white supremacist movement is still as virulent as ever, and how the efforts to stem that hate are actually exacerbating it. I don't think the answer is to attempt to redact anything that was borne of an earlier period of our history. Destroying the symbols of hate won't eliminate the hate, any more than the pre-penicillin treatment of syphilis - cauterizing chancres - cured the disease. All we are doing is hiding the symptoms, while allowing the disease to fester.

I agree with the removal of monuments to the worst of our past, but think it more effective and less inflammatory to move them to museums than to just tear them down and destroy them. At the same time, we need to ensure that we are more honest in our reporting of history in our classrooms. As it turns out, my high school has been renamed and stripped of any association to General Lee. But my nostalgia for that mythical South is outweighed by my awareness that we need to not idolize our darkest times, for while there were countless acts of heroism on both sides during the Civil War, it was, in and of itself, certainly not a heroic effort. It was an ugly, horrific war, fought, as are most wars, for the least noble of reasons.

We won't eradicate racism, Nazism, and all the other ugly ism's in our lifetime. What we CAN and MUST do is put a halt to the violence, and commit to teaching our children (and their parents) that the nobility of war is an illusion. its deep flaws hidden behind grand statues, its anguished cries silenced by songs that praise death. We need to learn that our real enemies are our own ignorance and fears, and that the only way those enemies can be vanquished is by a commitment to a compassionate resolve that stops violence in its tracks, and builds upon a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood. We can do it. It will be slow, and will involve compromise, not of our deepest values, but in the way we share and impose those values. It is not a time for ideological purity, which is itself the breeding ground for intolerance. It is a time for honesty, for real strength, and for patience with each other. Because lacking any of these qualities, we condemn ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren to a world where fear and hate reign. We can and MUST do better.

A Turning Point to Tyranny?

One need not be a die-hard liberal to notice an alarming trend as we move closer and closer to a Trump presidency. Neither does that trend rely upon hyperbole in order to be genuinely alarming. The president-elect apparently sees no value in the daily security briefings that every modern president has received, detailing the most imminent threats facing the country. He is more concerned with using his Twitter account to strike back at perceived slights, no matter how slight they might be, from union leaders, comedians, journalists, and anyone else who dares to call him on his fondness for conspiracies, his misstatements and misrepresentations, and especially his outright lies.

His further efforts to do away with the freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment are well-documented: Unilateral actions against all followers of specific religions, his desire to establish and maintain a registry of Muslim Americans, his stated desire to revise libel laws so that journalists and regular citizens who speak out against him can be subjected to litigation - perhaps even criminal prosecution. The list goes on.

Mr. Trump's transition team has circulated a questionnaire to Department of Energy personnel in an effort to obtain the identities of anyone who has worked in support of President Obama's climate change initiatives or attended the U.N. Climate Change Summit. It is not a stretch to assume that the purpose of such a database would be to punish or at least marginalize those whose findings might challenge his industry-centric narrative
In addition, for the first time in memory, the Lincoln Memorial, a preferred site of gatherings and protests, has been designated off-limits to the Million Women's March scheduled for the day after the inauguration, with the only possible explanation being his desire to squelch dissent. And lest one think he is singling out the ladies, the Lincoln Memorial and numerous other public sites are being closed to virtually all demonstrators ahead of the inauguration and for weeks afterward.

I believe that we will see, in the very near future, the tipping point, at which the nation will either remain free or step finally into the brand of tyranny that Mr. Trump seems to be seeking. The Army Corps of Engineers has announced that it will not issue permits to allow the pipeline to be installed in the protested area, citing both the treaty agreement outlining valid Native American tribal claims and the very real potential for devastating ecological impact. It's an impact that could, among other things, poison the drinking water for millions of people, should a rupture occur such as has happened with alarming frequency in recent months and years. In response, the company building the pipeline has stated that it intends to proceed according to plan, ignoring the Corps' denial of permits and paying whatever fines are levied, since doing so wold be more economical than compliance.

It is the government's response to this action that I believe will be the "canary in the coal mine," as my wife describes it, after which we will remain a relatively free state or descend fully into a tyranny. Simply put, will the law enforcement agencies that have been aggressively going after the water protectors/protesters thus far change their focus to the pipeline company employees, whose defiance of the Corps of Engineers and resumption of construction is a clear breach of the law?

If law enforcement enforces the Corps' ruling as one would hope, it would be a very good sign, However, if law enforcement agencies continue to go after the peaceful protesters who are engaging in legal protest, and actually protect the construction workers who are breaking the law, it must be assumed that the march to tyranny has become the official policy of the land. At that point, each citizen must decide whether they are willing to allow the country to undergo a fundamental shift that literally brings to an end this remarkable exercise in democracy that the founders envisioned. If this is unacceptable, the only alternative is to resist in any manner we can.

Our first effort must be to convince our elected officials that allowing such a shift in our political structure is a clear breach of the oaths that all elected officials and military personnel have taken, and to pressure these oath-takers to fulfill those oaths. I'm still hopeful that there is enough love of country to outweigh the partisan pressure and outright manipulation that has become the norm over the last few decades. If that hope proves false, however, each of us must decide whether we are willing to end this experiment.

The choices facing us at that point will be hard, indeed. But democracy, by its very nature, is difficult and messy. I, for one, think it is worth it, and intend to fulfill my oath. I would hope that every other citizen would take that decision into prayer, however they might be inclined, and to seek whatever guidance rings most true to them and choose the path that will best provide their children and their children's children with the same freedoms we cherish, rather than sitting silent and allowing it to slip away forever.

How Did We Come To This?

In a little over a month, we, the citizens of the United States, will be electing a person to the most powerful job in the world, one that has the capacity to improve lives across the face of the planet, or to set in motion events that could very easily lead to human extinction, all at the stroke of a pen or the utterance of a few words. We will be electing the 45^th President of our young country.

What is both sad and truly frightening is that it has become abundantly clear that far too many who have the power of their vote are not taking the heavy responsibility that comes with that power seriously. Too many pay heed only to things that reinforce their heavily biased likes and dislikes, and they ignore even what should be the most worrisome aspects of their chosen candidate’s actions, words, history, and character. No matter how well-proved a concept, or how well-documented an event or statement, the decision is too often made to rationalize, twist, and spin an event sufficiently to reinforce a chosen narrative, rather than consider it on its own merits.

I frequently find myself referring to a brilliant passage, written by Kurt Vonnegut in what is, for me, his seminal work, “Breakfast of Champions.” In the passage, the book’s protagonist, Kilgore Trout, describes the absurdity, the dangers, and in the final analysis, the futility of ideas in our modern culture. I offer the passage here, for your review.

And here, according to Trout, was the reason human beings could not reject ideas because they were bad: “Ideas on Earth were badges on friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter. Friends agreed with friends, in order to express friendliness. Enemies disagreed with enemies, in order to express enmity.

The ideas Earthlings held didn’t matter for hundreds of thousands of years, since they couldn’t do much about them anyway. Ideas might as well be badges as anything.

They even had a saying about the futility of ideas: ‘If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.’

And then Earthlings discovered tools. Suddenly agreeing with friends could be a form of suicide or worse. But agreements went on, not for the sake of common decency or self-preservation, but for friendliness.

Earthlings went on being friendly, when they should have been thinking instead. And when they built computers to do some thinking for them, they designed them not so much for wisdom as for friendliness. So they were doomed. Homicidal beggars could ride.

Over the course of the last decade or so, we have not only programmed our machines so as to reinforce our “badges,” we have taken to structuring our approach to governance and even our closest relationships in like manner. We have no qualms about berating friends and loved ones for not wearing our chosen badge, and have shown an escalating willingness to abandon even those ideals we claim to hold dear if those ideals are actually demonstrated by someone with a different badge. Too many people bellow their patriotism at the top of their lungs, even as they demand that the core principles upon which that patriotism is supposedly based are discarded and damned.

A twice democratically-elected president is reviled, disrespected, and sabotaged, even in the House and Senate, by those who have taken oaths to fulfill the responsibilities of their offices, to work in tandem with fellow officials who may or may not share their political or religious ideologies. They demand that the will of the majority be ignored, and the laws they have sworn to uphold be broken, rather than work with a man they didn’t vote for.

They do everything in their power to discredit, delegitimize, and even destroy a politician they do not like, even threatening to imprison or kill her, should the voters decide that she is their preferred candidate.

They bloviate about their commitment to a Constitution most have never read, yet pick and choose which aspects of that Constitution they are willing to acknowledge. They demand the right of mentally unstable citizens to purchase weapons of destruction, but demand the silencing – or the heads – of journalists who seek the truth. They scream about what they perceive to be government overreach and tyranny, yet clamor to the side of candidates who profess their desire to be unencumbered by any laws or Constitutional limits.

As we near the day of the election, I cannot help but wonder what lies beyond. I sense that a cataclysmic sequence of events is all too possible, no matter which way the election goes. If a tyrant is elected, we will almost certainly lose most of our allies around the world, and will definitely lose their trust. At the same time, our enemies will be emboldened, knowing that they no longer face a united front consisting of all rational nations and their leaders. Actions once considered unthinkable are now very much a part of the debate. Torture, genocide, and nuclear holocaust are considered by the worst among us to be viable tools for achieving our goals, and the kind of rhetoric we as a country and a world rejected over 80 years ago has become mainstream and deemed worthy of consideration. And if the tyrant loses, a significant number of his supporters - self-described as "patriots" - threaten to overthrow the government to which they so loudly and proudly proclaim their allegiance.

I think we all need to listen to our own words, and ask ourselves, Is this the kind of country and world we want to leave our children and their children? Are the lessons we are teaching them really consistent with our proclaimed values as Americans? Or do we want to leave our children a world in which they can feel valued and safe from rage, both within and beyond our borders? If nothing else, do we really believe our children will look upon us with pride if we leave for them a world – or a country – always on the brink of war, over badges? And what if you learn that your children choose not to don the badges you prefer? What then?

Womens’ Equality Day

August 26, 2016 is the 96th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment, granting women the long-overdue right to vote. This date was officially designated as Women’s Equality Day in 1971. It is, I think, only fitting on this day that we commit ourselves to making women’s equality a reality, rather than just the reason for yet another designated “special” day. That reality will naturally mean different things to different people, but there are a few core precepts that deserve a place on anyone’s list.

• – For the abrogation of both “men’s rights” and “women’s rights,” replacing both with “human rights” that are acknowledged irrespective of gender. Rights exclusive to one group or gender cannot exist without denying those rights to the other.
• – For ideas to have value on the basis of their logic, benevolence, and integrity, rather than being accepted in spite of or because of their having been put forward by a woman or a man. The first step toward the realization of such a goal is for both men and women to set aside defensiveness when considering a perspective that appears different on the surface that our own, and to recognize that using dismissive terms like “womansplaining” and “mansplaining” fail to further the dialog, much less the understanding or changing of others’ perspectives.
• – To recognize and address sexism when it taints a discussion or behavior, but to not strive to brush aside every point of disagreement or every personal dislike by deeming it an example of sexism. Men and women are genetically and culturally-inclined to perceive some things differently, and while the cultural imperatives can be revised over time, genetic conditioning is the product of many millennia, and therefore slower to be revised. Both are better discussed and understood than attacked, if one’s commitment is to achieving gender cooperation and consensus.
• – And ultimately, to strive to be respectful and fair in one’s dealings with others, including those with whom we disagree. Just as a true friendship cannot be based in absolute agreement, neither must enmity be based in different points of view. By granting to others the benefit of the doubt until such time as it proves unwarranted to do so, we enhance the likelihood that other people’s understanding will grow more sophisticated and accepting of us. It is only through such mutual understanding and respect that we can hope to transcend the ugly realities of sexism, misogyny, and misandry and enjoy living in a state of genuine rather than forced or feigned equality.

News In A Post-TMZ World

I watched a couple of on-air interviews yesterday, with George Stephanopolous interviewing Donald Trump and his campaign manager, and Leslie Stahl, interviewing Trump with his running mate, Pence. When Trump's campaign manager told George that "Hillary created ISIS," George started to challenge the accusation, to which the surrogate said, "I'm not going to go down that road with you." And the subject was dropped. And when Stahl tried to press on one of Trump's many accusations of Hillary, he merely talked over her, and she allowed the subject to be changed.

 I worry as much about the decline of real journalism as I do about the rise of bullies who would lie, threaten, bully, and frighten their way into public office, because journalists who are brave enough to demand truth are our single best weapon against tyrants.

 I worry that younger generations have never seen the likes of a Walter Cronkite, or seen a reminder of what freedom of the press is supposed to stand for. I wish we had someone like Edward R. Murrow, who dared stand up to Joseph McCarthy - my generation's Trump - and expose him for what he truly was. As Murrow said:

 “It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the junior senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.”

 Next time you're asked to sign a petition, consider instead starting or signing one that will *not* fall on deaf ears, directed to those media owners and executives who control what will be covered, said, and accepted as truth. Because the harsh truth is that your viewership means infinitely more to media bigwigs than your vote means to elected officials. And that desperately needs to be reversed.

I've seen this collection of whines on Facebook a number of times, and decided it was about time to offer what I believe to be a reasoned, more educated response, regardless of the flames it might elicit among the members of the fringe right who can see my timeline.

• Deriding everything a mixed-race president says, does, or tries to do might not make someone a racist, but it sure acts like one.
• Threatening bodily harm against someone who doesn't share your ideology - particularly threatening "2nd Amendment solutions" - does constitute terrorism.
• Understanding the Constitution rather than bending it to match one's politics is an essential element in defending it. Teabaggers don't even know or acknowledge the agendas of those who fund and orchestrate the movement.
• When "speaking your mind" becomes an attempt to silence others and abandon basic American values such as "innocent until proven guilty," it constitutes a national security threat greater than that which jihadists present.
• One who rejects clear and well-proven answers to questions, simply because they don't conform to their own preconceptions is a troublemaker, operating from a place of cognitive dissonance at best, and willful ignorance at worst.
• One is a birther when... well, just read the item immediately preceding this one.
• Nobody has claimed that exposing corruption on "the other side's" part while condoning, denying, characterizing, or ignoring corruption on "your side" constitutes treason. Lying (or blindly accepting lies) accusing political enemies of corruption in an effort to undermine the orderly, legal fulfillment of governance can rise to the level of treason (or sedition under Logan Act definitions). Ignoring corruption on one's own side at the same time isn't treason; merely hypocrisy.
• Conspiracy theorists rely solely upon "facts" that support their preconceptions. See cognitive dissonance / willful ignorance, above.
• The Teabaggers are the primary group that claims a failure to toe the (TEA) party line constitutes un-American behavior.
• Those who support rushing into wars for economic reasons, yet fail to support measures to support and provide care for troops who are damaged or killed in those endeavors are worse than war-mongers. One who lies to justify a war is clearly a war-monger.
• Anyone who demands the benefit of all the perks of a developed society, but refuses responsibility for contributing to the development and maintenance of those perks IS a greedy capitalist. Or a spoiled child.

Take pride in working to improve the country, rather than trying to blame others for things the country does in your name and with your at least implicit support.