Vase v. Rock - Can one win by losing

This is being written to help me make this decision

I just finished reading the Wikipedia article on Fair Use of copyrighted material.  It's probably some five thousand words or more, yet every sentence is needed to define what this means in principle and in law. If we include the links to other Wikipedia articles and ancillary references it could be a years study, but would be worthwhile.  It represents the history of the written word and how it is used to convey not only information but the ideas that have marked Enlightenment's prevailing over primitive superstition. 

Now, imagine if the demand had been, "put it all in one paragraph with bullet points."  It could be done, but oh what would be lost!  Yet this is the world that we are living in, where few want to engage in a lifelong endeavor to understand this thing called humanity.  And those institutions dedicated to scholarly study must do so with a wink, an understanding that the goal is to mete out markers of erudition that provide certification of a mastery of knowledge that transcends that of the masses.  These certifications in the form of degrees have special value among those who have lost the capacity to independently evaluate such knowledge.

It's an interesting challenge to put one's self on a ballot for an office like Mayor of a city, as it evokes responses from the public that are usually never stated.   People tend to defend that which they do, especially when challenged.  They won't let the antagonist define the weapons of the duel and will want to get off the first shot, to put an end to a challenge that could shake the coherence of the infrastructure of one's existence.  Politicians, defined as those who master the public's needs, both on surface and deep levels, to win enough votes to gain political power, either understand this or put themselves under the direction of those that do.  Personal self actualization is not the motivation for them, rather, succeeding in a career that requires mass support is the primary imperative.  So, Candidate Barack Obama eventually put on that Flag lapel pin, and when challenged about his not properly reciting the pledge of allegiance at a public forum responded, "certainly I do, do you want to do it again now?"  

His prize was certainly worthwhile, and he has the internal confidence to take every insult to his being with equanimity, something shared by those Presidents for whom the office was not soul destroying, such as LBJ and Nixon.  Those lucky ones like Franklin Roosevelt, although reviled by many, could respond to any calumny by raising his regal chin in laughter as he did in this classic riff, "you can insult me, even my dear wife Eleanor, but I will not abide the opposition attacking Fala, my little Scotch Terrier."    

I now have my required nomination signatures and even tentative approval for a highly regulated three word  ballot description, "Political Website Publisher."  With this achieved, I'm taking pause, thinking whether this candidacy will be other than the public exposure of what my life has not been, what I have not achieved, those private places that for most people are full by my age, but for me happen to be empty.  Wow, that's a lot of vulnerability, and for what? 

The "what" is the question of the moment.  Will the press attention to my positions by the few weeklies struggling for survival even reach this community, much less beyond?  Will my attempts to explain complexity, such as the bizarre referendum that defined this Mayor position being not at all what people think in spite of their vote reflecting a belief that they understood it be seen as an insult.  The first person whom I explained the actual meaning, took this as arrogance, irrespective of my being correct in my clarification of the effect of the referendum.  For him to have gone back and reviewed this law and my explanation would have meant losing the intellectual duel that he avoided by "sticking to his guns."  I learned something, but in the process lost a casual, but valued, friendship.

There are so many reasons not to subject myself to this that I want to write about the reason that I may do it in spite of these personal costs.  I have in mind the enthusiasm, the vicarious pleasure in the eyes of Len when he signed my petition.  This man, who was among those Marines who stormed the shores of Iwo Jima,  relived his personal agony of those horrible hours when we talked about invading Iraq at the Y in 2003, "Oh no, nothing is worse than war."  I will be speaking for him, continuing that chain of the hundreds of lives never lived,  horrors that he shared of that era only available first hand for a few more years as he now approaches his mid nineties, still full of the joy of life that he had come so close to losing.

Will anyone doubt his patriotism as they can so easily mine?  Would Len agree with me, when I tell him how for me, the universal coerced recital of our Pledge of Allegiance shapes the character of our country, one that made it too easy to be led into that invasion that we both deplored, that destabilized the middle east and could be a curse on a new century.  Would Len understand that this is why I can't bring myself to recite those words that proclaim national perfection, a justification to impose those obscene words,"shock and awe" on the innocent people of Baghdad because we are Americans.

"Whether the rock hits the vase or the vase hits the rock, it's very bad for the vase," as spoken by Sancho to Don Quixoti, has personal meaning to me.  I am willing to be that vase but not to be dashed against a rock so solid, so intrenched, so immovable, that I will not even make a dent.  The polity of this city of Encinitas is that rock,  an enclave walled against the pain of poverty and violence that is the fate of most of humanity.  The closest we get to it are those buses full of refugees from the chaos of central America that shuttle back and forth on a nearby highway.  We don't talk about them, and rather focus on how we can expend resources for public art, as a way of congratulating ourselves on our municipal sponsored high culture.

And so it was a cause for celebration when a handful of enthusiasts won over that single deciding vote to purchase a plot of land just off the ocean called Pacific View to be held in trust for the city, rather than be allowed to go to developers- greedy, shallow, destroyers of all sensibilities-- for their own profit.  Those that pointed out, as I did, the serious challenges of owning such a land were consigned to the enemy camp, guilty of trying to sabotage this movement to save this "legacy property."  Feedback from the public, evaluation of potential usages along with other alternative locations, consideration of postponement of unmet needs this would cause, were not allowed to be discussed.  And certainly, the possibility of this city using some of the ten million dollars purchase price to help those children who are escaping violence in Central America was kept far from the city's agenda.    

There is another reason to "run this campaign" which is why those words are in quotes.  The passage of a series of Supreme Court decisions, culminating with "Citizens United" has allowed those with great wealth, using communication image delivery systems undreamed of by our founders, the way to turn the very concept of democracy into something unrecognizable.  The great daily newspapers are dying, which included some that delivered not only the news, but multifaceted historic context; with this loss is the expectations of the readers, the voters, who digested this in deciding on those who were vying for electoral office.  The dumbing down of America has been a long process which has reached that invisible threshold where having the requisite informed electorate may no longer exist.  I savor a single line from a long running television program. When two buddies of Homer Simpson were discussing local elections and the difficulty of deciding who to vote for, Lennie turned to Carl and shared the solution:  "It's easy -- as you drive along the streets you keep count, and vote for the one with the most signs" 

I'm about to either become a small time public figure or pull back into my hole.  As I think about being that empty vase who takes on the rock of the established social order I ask: will this a farce, a tragedy or an engaging drama that brings the public into the play.  Could it possibly be both interesting and accessible to the audience and maybe even reach outside this little city.  Is there even the remotest chance of replacing the "Lenny and Carl" system with something that demands so much more from the voters, the citizens of this country.  Or will it simply be doomed by "too many words" --  a fate that at least will protect this vase from being smashed,  as it will never have made contact with the rock of our culture. 

I guess that's not such a bad outcome, and I will have the satisfaction of knowing  that I tried.

Pledge of Allegiance personal issues

June 2014

I just returned from lunch at a local senior center, where I joined three friends in an enthusiastic rendition of "God Bless America"  including one who is in a barbershop quartet group that had rejected me previously.  So, afterwards I said, "Pretty much on tune, right."  He pointed out one missed note, but said if I could keep up this musical level he could get me accepted.   I love singing that song, standing with friends for whom it was part of our earliest memories, happy proud memories of being in this God blessed country of America. 

While enjoying singing this song, the words a prayer to God, and then even saying, "amen" to the spoken prayer at the table offered in the name of Jesus Christ;  I still do not, will not, can not, recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States.  To explain this requires telling a story, my own,

We all know the words, and it seems like we always did.

I guess I said them on my first day in kindergarten, which just happened to be the same month of our winning World War II. All I knew was that there was jubilation, that everyone was celebrating, and my mother who had spent most of her time telling me to behave, not to make so much noise, handed me a pot and a big spoon, and told me that I could march around the block with some other people and bang as loudly as I pleased. I knew this was a big day.

Living in Washington D.C., I was at the center of the celebration, with planes flying over the parades of soldiers and tanks down Pennsylvania Avenue and President Truman on the radio saying important things. My dad told me that I would soon be able to get something that was so neat I could hardly believe it, a cap gun that made such a loud noise that Roger up the block could hear it right from our yard. Since there were no toy guns being made during the war, we had to improvise, which we did using our index finger. It worked great; and even without the little percussive cap or gun, the words, "Bang bang, you're dead" if your finger was pointed at the other kid was universally accepted as a hit, requiring a dramatic two hands to the chest and a fall to the ground.

But we were all the good guys, and even if we were killed, all it took were the words, "I'm a new man." and we could get up to hide and chase each other until night started to fall or our mothers called us for dinner. ​​​Only much later did I learn that other kids, some as closely related as second cousins about my age who had been born in Eastern Europe had faced a very different fate during these years.

As the years of childhood slowly passed this Pledge started to actually have meaning. "One Nation" I understood meant America, my country represented by the flag; and that we were all good people because of those things at the end of the pledge, "liberty and justice for all." I also came to realize that my family was different from our neighbors, being Jewish, and that some people were angry at me because of this. My dad would never explain why. Finally, out of his frustration with my questions, one day I saw that he was going to explain the reason to me. But all he could say, out of deep pain, was, "we will always be cursed, they'll call us damned Jews... and that is just the way it is and always will be." He had no more to say. I thought, "but why, what did we do, why do they hate us, what should I do?"

His eighth grade education, quitting to enlist in the army at fifteen during the first world war, never prepared him to explore such questions. I learned not to ask him, or my mother, or my Rabbi about these things ever again. In school we started each day with the Lords prayer and the Pledge, and at Christmas sang praises to the "king of Israel" even if by that time I understood that the new country Israel didn't have king, and if it did, it wouldn't be the little boy Jesus who was born in a manger; but what did I care. I was eight years old, and I didn't worry about such things.

And then there was something called the "government" that was all around us and where so many of my friends' parents worked. No one could explain what it meant, but I knew it had something to do with the Capitol dome that I could see in the distance where I played ball and it was big, important, and to me something mystical. In some ways my entire life has been a quest to answer the questions of that child, to explore the meaning of the words I learned to utter at school, to find out what was happening in the world when I was growing up; and be what my father always said to me when I sat next to him in his taxi cab. I always told him that I wanted to grow up to be just like him, and he responded-- not to the child asking the question, but with a rare seriousness, to the man whom I would become--, "No, I want you to be better than me."

In 1954, when I was in the ninth grade, although it seemed earlier, our teacher told us that the Pledge of Allegiance had been changed, that there were two new words added, "under God." Most Americans now alive don't remember when those words were not there, so it seems like a part of the seamless cadence of words that you were never asked to think much about. And as a Jew, I certainly then believed in God, so there was no big issue for me. In fact, I don't remember anyone making an issue about it, at school or in the news. But these two words have become quite important, as people who didn't believe in God felt left out, and some, a very few, actually one man, Michael Newdow, decided to try to do something about it.

He got as far as the Supreme Court in his quest to remove the words "Under God" claiming it alienated him from his daughter since it was promoting such a believe while he was an atheist.  He lost, but it was an opportunity for every member of the Senate to stand on the Capital Steps, the more than ten percent who statistically are atheists included, to recite the pledge shouting out the words "Under God" -- loud enough for all the voters at home to hear them clearly. 

The addition of those words, "under God" changed what had been a patriotic rite, with all that that means for better and for worse, into something more potent, more dangerous, a sacrament that combines nationalism with religious faith, fulfilling a great writer's warning, "if fascism ever comes to America it will be wrapped in an American Flag and carrying a cross."

The candidates for presidential nomination (2012) are following Sinclair Lewis' words as if it were their script, each wielding the phrase, "one nation under God" as a threat of exclusion, a warning to anyone who would dare to challenge their view of what America has become.  This is so powerful that an early version of Barack Obama's campaign website included the description of his sponsoring  a bill in the Senate to require the leading of the Pledge in all public secondary schools, not emphasizing the fact that this was for the state of Illinois. 

Mitt Romney went further, the full story described in this link,  While the inclusion of "Under God" was accepted as a way to differentiate our country from our geo-political enemy atheistic communism, it has remained in place even though now our enemies are those with a more fundamentalist faith in God than we that includes accepting his biblical Sharia Law to control all aspects of life, including provisions that we now find reprehensible.   Yet Romney, who is the titular leader of almost half of the voters in our country, demolished the legal argument that reciting these words were mere "ceremonial deism" not to be taken literally.   The New York Times article states:  "But at a Saturday afternoon rally here, Mr. Romney did not just recite the Pledge of Allegiance; he metaphorically wrapped his stump speech in it, using each line of the pledge to attack President Obama."

 “The promises that were made in that pledge are promises I plan on keeping if I am president, and I’ve kept them so far in my life,” Mr. Romney said, standing among old airplanes in a hangar at the Military Aviation Museum here. “That pledge says ‘under God.’ I will not take ‘God’ out of the name of our platform. ”

The reporter summarized it as follows:

"He speaks of the "promises that were made in that pledge" as if it were a solemn personal obligation that binds each American who says the words, emphasizing "Under God."  Thus the elementary school children who are cajoled under fear of social ostracism to recite words, the meaning of which they could not comprehend, are bound to their oath of fealty to God.

There are many people who share my sentiments, so why would I choose to make this a public issue, when it's so much easier to just stand quietly when the pledge is being recited, or only mouth the words "under God" if saying this bothers me, and just go along with my life. That's what my dad would have done, and that's what every elected official does, Republican, Democrat, Jew, Evangelical or atheist. But that's exactly the point; that's why I have to make it clear that I am not going to recite this pledge, and to give my reasons. I realize that this may inspire rage among a few, but would advise anyone who wants to act on this impulse that this is a personal message, having nothing to do with any of my friends or family, who may or may not share these views.

This public statement has become necessary for a mundane reason, that I am currently a member of my city's Traffic Commission, which means that I must attend a public meeting where they begin each session with the Pledge.   In the past I have just stood out of respect, and when once asked by the then mayor to lead it, politely declined, with a senior member of the council immediately taking over. No one was forcing me to say anything.

The paradoxical nature of our Pledge of Allegiance is illustrated by the past director of Planning of the City of Encintas who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness. While this religion now maintains a low profile; during WWII, when threatened by a people deluded into believing they could dominate the world by military power, thousands of Witnesses chose to die in Nazi concentration camps rather than accede to the edicts of hyper nationalistic ritual. They could have lived if they only extended their arm and proclaimed, "Heil Hittler." Neither this city executive, nor any of his co-religionists, any longer defend these foundational principles; rather they avoid such situations. While once those of his faith sacrificed their lives to oppose the evil of hyper nationalism, now none will risk his job.

At that time Jehovah Witnesses in this country were challenging laws that compelled recitation of the Pledge in schools. The highest court in a landmark decision in their favor closed with,

"But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."

These ringing words articulated by Justice Robert Jackson during the darkest days of WWII, were a statement of the essential quality of this country.  It is this that makes us exceptional, rather than our overwhelming military power. It was why we fought against a regime where its leader had abolished due process, and those of his countrymen who had resisted such national grandiosity had all been eliminated expeditiously. We have come a long way since those days seven decades ago, when such ideals inspired a nation, individually and collectively, to risk all to protect these founding principles. We have allowed the most sacred of these principles, freedom of expression, to be diminished without a shot being fired by a foreign enemy.

Many who recite the Pledge of Allegiance do it with the same simple pleasure that I get out of singing God Bless America with my friends at a social setting -- the difference for me being that there we all attend, or join in song, only if we choose to.  Those words quoted above by Justice Robert Jackson, are not self enforcing.  They require individuals, whether courageous or misfits to actually take the heat of whatever reaction is elicited by others, to affirm the principle that he articulated.  When the last person has refused to act on his words, they will be gone, even if they still exist in dusty old law books,  or pop up when googled on the internet.

To me, this would be a national tragedy.