The flags we fly
I predicted in an Aug. 27 letter to the editor, 'Ms. Harris, Democrats add the 'genius spoonful of sugar' we all needed,' that it was possible liberals would co-opt right-wing flag-waving and start waving tiny American flags of their own.
Apparently, I was right. At the nationwide 'No Kings' protests, according to an Associated Press article, some organizers handed out little American flags.
Were those organizers outliers, or were they harbingers of changes in the left's latent vision for America?
I'm proud to fight the right's version of patriotism with our own. That version includes championing democracy and liberal causes. We are proud Americans fighting for our America. I suspect our Democratic leaders are proud Americans, too, and they should say so explicitly.
When will it become commonplace for people on the left to start proudly calling themselves patriots instead of acknowledging their nationality sotto voce? Or is that too far-fetched? The idea of progressives waving American flags seemed far-fetched to me a year ago. Look at where we are now.
Gary Milici, Milwaukee
I totally agree with Enrique Acevedo in his June 16 op-ed, 'Why we fly the Mexican flag at the L.A. protests,' that America is a multicultural society. It makes our country stronger that many if not all Americans identify with other nations, religions, cultures and holidays.
It makes sense that many Americans are waving flags from places such as Ukraine, Gaza and Israel at rallies as statements of support.
However, flying a Mexican flag at a rally protesting aggressive deportations might inadvertently send the message that the flag bearer would rather be in Mexico, an unnecessary and unproductive interpretation. For example, people against immigration who see images of Mexican flags waved at protests on social media or television might then have their belief that it is perfectly okay to 'send them back' reinforced.
Signs in Spanish are okay but put away the flags of other countries.
Barry H. Epstein, Silver Spring
Enrique Acevedo's June 16 op-ed raised some valid points regarding the complexity of citizenship and identity. We should respect the rights of individuals to protest peacefully and allow them to wave whatever flag they choose, regardless of their citizenship status. That is a right protected by our Constitution.
What is troubling, and what Acevedo failed to address or explain, are the images of the Mexican flag being waved in front of cars that had been lit on fire. Acevedo referenced people waving the Irish flag on St. Patrick's Day and their loyalty or patriotism not being questioned. That example missed the point of people's fury completely. It was the juxtaposition of the Mexican flag and violence that is troubling to many Americans. It's simply not a good look, even to those of us who oppose President Donald Trump's immigration policies.
James Regan, Oak Hill
In sharing his opinion as to why protesters in Los Angeles wave the Mexican flag, Enrique Acevedo wrote 'that being American doesn't require being less of anything else.'
My father, a native of the Bronx whose parents came from Southern Italy, flew 62 missions in World War II as a bombardier in the U.S. Army Air Forces. Most of his targets were in Southern Italy. I learned enough from my father about being an American to be able to reply to Acevedo's statement: 'Yes, it does.'
Stephen Munro, Silver Spring
Nothing hurts the cause of migrants more than the flying of the Mexican flag at protests.
Many Americans, including those opposed to President Donald Trump's policies, react warmly to minorities waving the American flag. Waving the flag says that despite the United States' past mistakes and current problems, your loyalty is still to this nation. That's important.
We're talking tactics here: Fly the Mexican flag in your home but not in public. Try to make the American flag represent something more, and greater, than what anti-immigration supporters want it to represent. Fly the American flag high, and more people will listen.
Jack Dolan, Arlington
Flying the Mexican flag at protests is not the real issue. The real issue is that protesters and sanctuary cities are opposing and hindering lawful Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities. That is what gets me upset. Flying another nation's flag, burning cars and rioting are just pouring gas on the fire.
Steve Henry, Springfield
My father was wounded twice in North Africa, and two of my husbands served in the Navy during that war, so I have the greatest respect for members of the military and their families. I do not care about the cost of the military parade, but I do care about the cost to stroke President Donald Trump's ego. There are far more important programs that the funds could have been used for.
I want to thank people such as retired National Guard Maj. Gen. Randy Manner for his courage in speaking out against the parade. More service members should have followed his lead.
I did not watch the parade because I did not want my attention to go toward Trump. I fly the flag every day, and I contribute to the United Service Organizations. I pay tribute to the military privately.
Margaret Munson, Penn Valley, California
Leading up to Juneteenth, which observes the June 19, 1865, emancipation of the last enslaved Black people, we again saw the bigotry of President Donald Trump's administration.
During President Joe Biden's term, his administration rightly re-designated several military bases that had been named for Confederate generals. The new names honored true American heroes such as President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Now, the Trump administration has restored the names of Fort Bragg in North Carolina; Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Pickett and Fort Lee in Virginia; Fort Benning and Fort Gordon in Georgia; Fort Hood in Texas; Fort Polk in Louisiana; and Fort Rucker in Alabama.
To do this, the Trump administration named the bases for decorated but mostly obscure soldiers who just 'happen' to have the same last names as the Confederate leaders. In this transparent ploy, Fort Bragg, which the Biden administration renamed Fort Liberty, is supposedly being renamed to honor Roland L. Bragg, a World War II paratrooper, instead of Braxton Bragg, a Confederate general. Every intelligent, decent person should be offended by this duplicity.
Today's U.S. soldiers will serve at bases that share the name of some of our nation's most shameful figures — some of whom, such as Braxton Bragg, were enslavers. It's an insult to our service members and to the principle of freedom for all, which those soldiers are expected to defend.
What a country commemorates — in statues, flags, monuments and names — shows what it stands for. They are statements both reflective of us and influential to us. They are symbols that create models, good or bad, for Americans to emulate. We should learn from our country's dark side and glorify its bright side. Hopefully, in time, the recent regressions will be rectified as the United States reaffirms its highest values.
Roger Buckwalter, Tequesta, Florida
The writer is a retired editorial page editor of the Jupiter Courier.
The parade on June 14 was unforgettable. I'm incredibly proud and grateful to be part of our Army's 250-year legacy of service to the nation. Serving as one of many ambassadors on the National Mall — supporting the parade and engaging with thousands of fellow Americans — I was filled with powerful reminders of why I serve.
This celebration gave the American public a rare chance to connect with soldiers up close and in person, to experience the Army's proud traditions, capabilities and people. These kinds of moments showcase the professionalism and heart of our force and open the door to real conversations.
The exchanges that stuck with me most were the ones I had with young people who were curious about what I do, and how the Army and its core values (loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage) have shaped my life. I had a moment of revelation on the Mall talking to a young man thinking about his future: So many young people don't know anything about the military, and what they do know is colored by bias, distortions perpetuated by the media and fiction.
The Army isn't my whole life, but it has been the most formative experience of my life. Reconnecting the public to the people, sacrifice and history that define our military helps avoid diluting our American story to meaningless pageantry and hollow patriotic platitudes. The memory and legacy of millions of soldiers who sacrificed for our freedom in blood endure only if we take time to understand and honor our past.
Think of the Americans who held the line at Cantigny, our first major offensive in World War I, or the 77th Division trapped behind enemy lines in the Argonne Forest, surviving days without food, water or relief. Think of the soldiers at Omaha Beach, who waded through gunfire and surf on D-Day during World War II, or those who endured the siege of Hürtgen Forest, fighting inch by inch through freezing mud and relentless artillery. In Korea, soldiers froze in place at the Chosin Reservoir, outnumbered and surrounded, yet fought their way out with courage that defined a generation. These are not just stories; they are the foundation of our service. That legacy lives on in every soldier who raises their hand today, choosing to serve something greater than themselves.
If we don't tell these stories — if we don't show our citizens who we are and what we stand for — how will our children understand the cost of the freedoms they enjoy? We owe it to them. We owe it to every soldier who never made it home. And we owe it to the future of our Army.
Roxanne Wegman, Fort Belvoir
The writer is a major in the U.S. Army. The views expressed herein are her personal views and do not reflect an official position of the Army or the Defense Department.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump looms large over a Fed likely to again defy his call for cuts
President Trump will loom large over the Federal Reserve's policy meeting this week, even if the central bank does what the market expects and keeps interest rates on hold. Trump and other top White House officials have been hammering Fed Chair Jerome Powell for months over his wait-and-see rate stance and his insistence that more time is needed to assess how the president's tariffs will affect the path of inflation. The president took that message directly to the Fed last Thursday as he toured a $2.5 billion renovation of the central bank's headquarters and confronted Powell in person while the two argued in front of reporters over the true costs of the project. "I just want to see one thing happen, very simple: Interest rates have to come down," the president told reporters. Traders widely expect the Fed's Federal Open Market Committee to defy Trump and once again keep rates unchanged this Wednesday, as they have for every other meeting so far in 2025. The market expects the first cut of 2025 to happen on Sept. 17, the third-to-last meeting of the year. But at least two of Powell's colleagues are warming to Trump's near-term rate cut call, which could produce some disagreement this week behind closed doors in Washington. One Fed governor, Christoper Waller, has already hinted that he may publicly dissent Wednesday if his colleagues vote to keep rates unchanged. His opinion is that any inflation from Trump's tariffs will prove to be temporary, and he's concerned that the labor market may soon worsen. But many other Fed officials have backed Powell in his view that more time is needed to assess the impact of Trump's tariffs on inflation. They also note that the labor market is holding up, removing any urgency to act in the way that Trump wants. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments "This is a campaign of undermining the chairman's credibility and really trying to undermine his public support in the face of what I think is the real objective, and that is to get a lower rate environment in place," former Kansas City Fed president Esther George said. A Powell press conference following the meeting on Wednesday gives the Fed chair a new chance to respond to the White House's escalating pressure campaign and mounting questions about the $2.5 billion renovation of two Fed buildings along the National Mall. Trump considered firing Powell in recent weeks but has now appeared to back away from doing so, telling reporters this past week that "he is going to be out pretty soon anyway" — a reference to the fact that Powell's term as chair is up in May. While touring the Fed's construction site on Thursday, Trump said of firing Powell: "To do that is a big move, and I just don't think it's necessary." Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? New headaches But that doesn't mean the White House is going to let up on Powell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this past week called for a review of the central bank's $2.5 billion project and an "exhaustive internal review' of its non-monetary policy operations. He argued that "significant mission creep and institutional growth have taken the Fed into areas that potentially jeopardize the independence of its core monetary policy mission." The Fed also got another new headache last week when a money manager — and Trump ally who recently served as an adviser to the Department of Government Efficiency — filed a lawsuit arguing that the central bank is violating a 1976 federal law by keeping its policy meetings behind closed doors. That money manager, Azoria Capital, is asking for a Washington, D.C., federal court to issue a temporary restraining order compelling the FOMC to open its deliberations to the public this week. Some on Capitol Hill are also getting louder about more scrutiny of the Fed. Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania, a subcommittee chair on the House Financial Services Committee, is reportedly moving forward with a congressional investigation of the Fed, according to PunchBowl News, even as many of his Senate colleagues have shied away from that idea. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, another Trump ally, formally requested that the DOJ investigate Powell for perjury over June comments about the renovations, although that is seen as a long shot at best. House Speaker Mike Johnson said in an interview with Bloomberg reporters and editors last week that he is "disenchanted" with Powell and is even open to modifying the 1913 act that created the Fed. That would be a major change, but it is not expected to come before Congress in the near term, as the House of Representatives went home Wednesday evening for a recess that is scheduled to last for the rest of the summer. Powell has repeatedly stated that he does not intend to leave as chair until his term is up, that his removal is "not permitted by law," and that he was honest and transparent about the Fed's construction project while testifying before Senate lawmakers on June 25. In a July 17 letter to White House budget director Russ Vought, Powell wrote that "we take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources" and offered a point-by-point response to Vought's concerns about cost overruns and certain design elements. Read more: What experts say about the possibility of additional rate cuts 'I do think it's damaging' Trump and his allies have taken to several new lines of attack against Powell, even beyond the building renovation, as they argue for rates to be as many as three percentage points lower. They cite what they predict will be savings on US debt if the rate is lower, as well as how a lower rate would make borrowing for a home less expensive in the US. Trump has even hinted that he has more than just Powell to blame for the fact that rates have remained unchanged since he took office. "The Board should act, but they don't have the Courage to do so!" Trump wrote on his social media platform this past week, referring to the larger Fed Board of Governors on which Powell serves. StoneX senior adviser Jon Hilsenrath told Yahoo Finance that he expects Trump's attacks to eventually extend to the regional Fed presidents based around the country. They have rotating positions on the Fed body that makes the final call on rates. The president does not appoint the regional Fed bosses, who are instead chosen by banks in those Fed districts. One of them, Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee, defended Powell in a July 18 interview with Yahoo Finance, calling the Fed chair a "totally honorable guy." He also expressed concerns about Fed independence. "It pains me to hear people actively discussing whether the central bank should be independent. There's nothing good can come of discussion like that." George, the former Kansas City Fed president, said of the president's pressure campaign targeting building renovations: "I do think it's damaging." "It's when we undermine institutions and create suspicion in the public that something is wrong here, I think credibility suffers," she said. "This is a time when the Fed needs its independence," George added. "It is a time when, yes, lower rates would help the federal government, but we know countries that have gone down that path, and we know in this country going down that path does not produce good outcomes in the long term." Last Thursday, though, Trump sounded confident during his tour of the Fed's headquarters that Powell would see things his way. "I think he's going to do the right thing,' the president said. "Everybody knows what the right thing is.' Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
The coming battle among YIMBYs
The YIMBY ('yes in my backyard') movement has achieved remarkable growth in the past few years, uniting people across the political spectrum who share a common belief: It should be easy to build more housing. You can find shared interests among unlikely alliances when you step out of political tribes. People who label themselves as socialists and capitalists are standing at town hall podiums to support and promote abundant housing. High fives! Hooray for unity, right? Insert record scratch. Socialists and capitalists have economic worldviews that are incompatible with each other. There's definitely consensus about the ends (plenty of homes), but the means will be hotly debated. The clash was inevitable, and the recent book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Abundance, has keyboard warriors starting to realize there are a host of competing opinions on how to get past the gatekeepers who would have homes remain scarce. You might think something as apolitical as a townhouse wouldn't be a lightning rod for a populist left-versus-right debate. The reason is economics. Considering the surge in populism in recent years, it's worth understanding why economics, not 'neighborhood character,' is at the heart of the argument. The Socialist YIMBY Socialist YIMBY advocates believe housing should be universally accessible, treated fundamentally as a human right rather than a commodity to be bought and sold for profit. Prominent democratic socialists, like New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh, argue for 'decommodifying' housing, where the government would guarantee homes. Market forces are not part of the equation. A socialist YIMBY is going to want state-managed housing solutions, price controls, rent freezes, and strict regulations on private ownership. Mamdani even said he'd be open to the abolition of private property if it meant getting people places to live. Socialist YIMBYs build their case on fairness, social justice, and community stability. They argue that a free market creates disparities, displaces vulnerable populations, and commodifies essential human needs. The belief here is that removing profit motives from housing reduces speculation, stabilizes communities, and ensures housing stability and equity, prioritizing human dignity and communal well-being above private gain. The Capitalist YIMBY Capitalist YIMBY advocates believe in leveraging market mechanisms. To them, the root cause of housing shortages lies in artificial restrictions imposed by zoning laws, burdensome permitting processes, and other bureaucratic interference. Their economic rationale hinges on the concept of supply and demand, and prices as crucial signals. Capitalist YIMBYs argue that when the price of a type of home goes up in an area, it signals to developers, investors, and builders that demand is high and supply low. Rather than suppressing these signals through artificial price controls, they propose getting rid of laws that prohibit housing and streamline approval processes in order to spur rapid and flexible housing production. They argue that robust competition among builders and investors inherently leads to diverse housing options, lower overall costs, and more innovation in housing solutions. The Perplexed YIMBY A person is standing at the philosophical crossroads to abundant housing and two fellow YIMBYs are giving conflicting directions: 'We have to go left.' 'No, we have to go right.' Socialists look at capitalist solutions as inherently exploitative, always creating more inequalities, and they believe profit motives are what make homes too expensive. Capitalists look at socialist solutions as inevitably leading to inefficiencies, housing shortages, and stagnation. When I've asked people about their take on this conflict, a common response is something like 'We'll have enough homes for everyone if building regulations are relaxed and the government is in charge of low-income housing.' I believe that's wishful thinking, since it brings us right back to the fundamental disagreement on economics. A capitalist will say, 'There is a market for small and modest housing, so get the government out of the way.' The socialist will say, 'We don't believe you.' I truly believe that populists on the left and the right want there to be enough homes for everyone. But it's also clear that the populist left and right will forever treat each other like they're living in a cartoon or comic book. 'I'm the good guy and you're the bad guy.' In spite of their shared interest in abundant housing, the socialist YIMBYs and capitalist YIMBYs are never going to agree on the means to the end. The best first step is something both sides claim to support: getting rid of the local regulatory barriers that are preventing anyone from building a granny flat, a townhouse, a duplex, etc.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Odd Lots: This Is How Chinese Manufacturers Are Countering Trump's Trade War
President Trump has announced tariffs on basically every trading partner. However there is a real sense that the ultimate goal is to hamper the growing perceived economic threat from China. One vision, for how the trade war could be "won" in some sense is by isolating China from the rest of the world. But that's not happening. And in fact, if anything, China is deepening its relationship with other trading nations, particularly in Asia right now. On this episode we speak with Cameron Johnson, a partner at the consulting firm Tidalwave Solutions. Cameron is based in Shanghai, and has an on-the-ground perspective on the state of Chinese manufacturing, having worked alongside producers and end buyers. He talks about the scale of Chinese manufacturing dominance, what Chinese firms are doing to counteract the tariffs, and he argues that in artificial intelligence, China is already way ahead in many respects.
