"A pig is more so."

I tend to cruise blogs. On a daily basis, I look to see if I have mail, scope the headlines, read some news and, of course, I check my own blog to see if I need to vent my spleen again.
Then I do what I usually do...hit the hyperlink for "next blog." I like to read opinions. Editorial writers and opion makers make for some interesting and tasty mind-granola.
Here is something I noticed (in an ever-increasing volume): Liberal(leaning) bloggers love to quote George Orwell. I was reading one (of many) today that focused on terrorism. The old "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" newspeak was there in bold. This out of context bullshit gets quite old. You see, 1984 and Animal Farm were aimed at communism/socialism. Newspeak is the forerunner of political correctness. I could go deeper into this but that is another, longer conversatio to have at a later date.
Why (I would like to know) do these so-called liberals have to seem so hateful. The anti-Bush b.s. is getting hard to digest and takes away from a meaningful intellectual exchange. I don't love the guy but there are things that he does that I fully support. Yipee-ki-yay!
There are other things of major importance that need serious attention and, I believe, rethinking. This is also for another venting session.
There seems to be a high level of America bashing. If the US did it. It must be fucked up. There must be some conspiracy afoot. Yikes people! The hyperlinks usually are a giveaway. The Michael Moore is a genius effluence is a bit much for me. Mr. Moore(on) cannot find his dick, let alone the truth of any situation. The documentary which claims that US troops were mass-murderers Panama and put bodies in mass graves is a perennial favorite. The more updated "documentary" tells how "Iraqi Journalist Captures the Horrors of the U.S. Siege."
Then there appears a diatribe against the evils of Nationalism - equating nationalism with "National Socialists," a.k.a. Nazis. First off, forget the fact that they were socialists. Then you need to know what nationalism is. Are you discussing ethnic or civic nationalism? To given an example - "I love Canada" is civic nationalism. "I love Quebec" is ethnic nationalism. One is based on a modern construct - the state. The other is based on an ethnic and/or linguistic root.
One is inclusive. The latter reeks of exclusivity.
I am the former.
I love the United States - a state which has no one face, color, religion or ethnicity. It does not have a national language but does have a de-facto one. But it has been argued that the 21stcentury has one too (at least the front end of it).
My ethnicity is not American. My nationality is American. There is no such thing really, unless you considered North American natives who claim their own ethnicity within the native American umbrella. My ethnicity is a blend of two European extracts.
My extended family is a blending of colors, languages and multiple points of origin. (Almost)All are American. I love that. All of the cultures of the world are woven into the civic American fabric. This is a major factor as to how the United States became a global power. Global Synchronicity within national borders.
Civic Nationalism is not bad. Love of country does not mean hatred of other countries.
I also love India. This is another country that is a blending of "nations" into a modern civic construct. There are countless languages, colors, written scripts and religions. It has a Sikh PM, a muslim president, an Italian-born female as head of the ruling political party and a billion-plus population which is majority (3/4) Hindu.
I remember a joke I was told by a friend in Bangalore:
Q. What is the largest minority in India?
A. Indians! Everybody is a Tamil, a Punjabi, a Gujurati...
All countries have problems. All make mistakes. All have major things that one can embrace. Being hateful, destructive and/or self-loathing is not an answer. It is contributing to the problem. All you can do is cite your source knowing that there will always be somebody else that can and will spin it the other way.
The best you can hope for is to cite it correctly and in the proper time-sequence - for example: pre- and post-9/11 Dennis Miller. Or for that matter, George Orwell.