the title to this entry (look up) should be read aloud in a loud, sing-songy voice. better yet, it should be said, on-stage, with about fifty other folks, all quaking in their boots as they’re about to read their words at the podium (in public! gasp!) for the first time ever. all of those you stand with (as well as yourself) should be about 10 or 11 and completely surrounded in red, white, and blue. fireworks (later) are what you’re really looking forward to, but first you’ve got to read your essay (no more than fifty words, kids) to the assembled crowd of nervous (what the heck is my kid going to say!?!?) parents, family, and fellow citizens. don’t quake too much - you’re cute (you’re a kid) and unless you spawn something really outrageous from your mouth, no one will do anything other than clap.

i’m craving a return to that moment. craving it with the brain and political views that i currently hold. outside of the fact that i’d actually say something to the girls i had a crush on back then (or not - still haven’t grown out of that entirely) i’d have a piece or two to spout to those raising me with my civic upbringing in mind.

not that i know what it is i would say (in fifty words or less) or feel that my education was poor - but i was never taught some basic ideas that i now feel are key to life (not to mention democracy). not that i know for certain what i would say, but i have an idea.

i would ask questions.

i would ask hard questions.

i would ask for facts.

i would question how those facts are linked.

i would question assumptions.

i would refuse to accept platitudes and circular logic.

i would continue to ask questions long after eyes were rolled.

i would fight (with words - pacifist that i am) to not be deceived - by anyone or any ‘side’.

and when, inevitably, i would likely disagree with those in power, and began to be called unpatriotic, a traitor, commie, etc. i would simply respond with a saddened stare.

really.

because it might just take a look of complete sadness, of confusion and a yearn to understand - it might just take that look from an eleven year old to jog the brain of an adult. an adult who cannot understand that someone might choose to be patriotic in a different fashion, might choose to not support the status quo, might choose to play their part in a democracy by disagreeing, by agitating.

in the past several years i have continually taken positions in politics and moral values that have placed me at odds with the conservative spectrum of this country. as a result i have been labeled a terrorist, an un-american, a flag-hater, a liberal (gasp! when did that become a dirty word?), a traitor, unsupportive of our troops, and on and on.

with those who have labeled me as such, i disagree. on ideas, and on the labels that i have been given. we disagree, simply. but that does not make me any more or less patriotic, any more or less american than those i disagree with. it definitely does not make me a terrorist, unamerican, or a traitor. nor would i ever deign to call those i disagree with that either.

so far as i understand and am concerned, the constitution calls us to be active and informed citizens - to make choices based on our educated consent - to decide - whatever our ulitimate decision, where we feel our country should go. the constitution (or, considering the time of year, declaration of independence) does not ask me to follow blindly, does not ask me to trust in our elected leaders. frankly, it does a great deal other than that:

Ôø‡We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and HappinessÔø‡
— Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

it asks me to be so vigilant as to change the government if necessary. that is definitely not easy to do if i fail to ask questions, to invistigate, to force inquiry.

to be different, to disagree, should simply be that. it should not denote a person to be evil, wrong with absolute impunity, or less a person. to attribute those characteristics to one you disagree with is to fail to show respect for a fellow human being.

and that’s what this all ties back to:

respect.

the fact that in the modern world i live in and witness we lack the ability to give our fellow human beings the respect of being an equal.

that to those we disagree with (or worse yet, got to war with) we denigrate them to the level of sub-human. we force them into a category where we can justify perpetrating evils upon them that we would never do to someone we agree with. we wage a war of image first, then we wage a war against something ‘different’.

the anishinabe indians (and probably many others) refer to those they fight with as their ‘honorable enemy’. can we do that? can we offer up the selflessness required to place our ‘enemy’ on the same level as us? or will we continue to act in a selfish manner, to justify our righteousness and cloak our decisions in an ‘us vs. them’ fashion that leaves no room for a choice (and it is a choice) other than violence?

lest one assume i’m talking about the war in iraq, hold up. i’m talking larger - i’m talking life. ever once solved (with no left-over resentment to boil up again) a disagreement without giving a little? without first trying to see something from another’s viewpoint? whether you end up in agreement or not (likely not) you at least can come then to an understanding.

i’m afraid of the culture that i live in - the aspects of it that do not allow room for mistakes, for error of judgement, for the changing of minds, for the acceptance of ideas different than one’s own. afraid that, as the nation’s attention span shortens more each year, our ability to interact on a human to human level will dissappear (like so many other things) down orwell’s ‘memory hole’.

it’s evolution backwards, a return to screaming and howling monkeys.

it’s disturbing.

it needs to stop.

suggestions?

Posted by noblehobo at 07:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

it’s not often that i write about political mutterings here, not often that i say a heavy piece. perhaps that’s the minnesotan in me - trying not to offend by avoiding anything of controversial substance.

i’m on vacation, i’m playing in an island nation and doing my best to avoid the media - commercials, weighted news points, opinionated columnists, etc… i spent four months without the majority of these things and i have to say that it was incredibly refreshing.

even here, however, on vacation, relaxing on ocean beaches and in the shadow of mountains 8000 miles from home, even here i can’t escape what i feel as the heavy hand of bigotry.

i just learned that bush has officially endorsed and is now promoting a constitutional ammendment that would ban same-sex marriage, pushing an attempt to specifically define marriage in the constitution as a union between a man and a woman.

as best i know, in the 28 ammendments that have been passed and ratified in 200 odd years, only one has ever specifically limited rights and freedoms - prohibition. one more specifically revoked that former ammendment. all others were to delegate further rights (be they to states or individuals), to prevent those rights and freedoms from being trampled, and to preserve the equality of the individual in this nation. to propose an ammendment that would specifically limit the right of an individual is ludicrus, regardless of what right is limited or who the individual is.

in 1967 it took a court decision to force the allowance of interacial marriage. in that decision came a jarring definition - that:

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

— Loving v. Virginia, 1967

marriage as one of the “basic civil rights of man,” marriage as the “pursuit of happiness.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

— The Declaration of Independence, 1776

marriage has long been defined by religious institutions, has long been debated and discussed in theocratic circles. it should continue to be so. the marriage debate is best held in public, and i hope that it is a lively, open discussion. i sincerely hope that various religions are able to find and define their stance on marriage and then can actively support it - within their own congregations. the boundaries and definitions of marriage should be left up to the individuals involved in a coupling and the institutions they choose to be involved in the process, not to the individuals observing it.

for the federal government to step in and regulate marriage (particularly through a constitutional ammendment) is insidious in its trampling of state rights and individual rights. it is a movement toward a religious decision, one more step (a giant one) toward the theocracy i hope never to see in place of our democracy and the limiting rights of the countries we so vehemetly choose to hate in the shadow of terrorism.

we may not all agree with the decisions of those who sit next to us, but the beauty of the united states is that we can think, act, and live differently than one another. many, many years of toil and many, many lives have gone into protecting our freedoms - i care not to see the reversal of that process, the limiting of personal liberty, in my lifetime.

i am on vacation in a foreign country. i am 8000 miles from my home. i don’t like being ashamed of the government of my country (dirty looks abound for u.s. citizens, even in the fairly conservative nation of new zealand). i don’t want to be ashamed of our constitution (it is a proud document) and i don’t ever, ever want to feel as if i’d be better off not returning to my home.

Posted by noblehobo at 04:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)