[Vision2020] City Council and the Pledge

[Joan Opyr]

On 22 Jan 2006, at 20:27, Phil Nisbet wrote:

> Joan
>
> Actually, Tom and every person in the service is required to take that 
> oath every time they enlist, so repeating it more than once is 
> actually required.  And Tom did not note that as a member of any of 
> the major Veterans Organizations, we repeat the oath on joining and 
> repeat it on our annual renewing of membership as part of the charter 
> we have as Vets with the US Congress.

I knew this; my father was in the Air Force and, later, the National 
Guard.  I also live with a career Marine, Capt. Donald R. Huskey, USMC 
(Ret.)  Don had a very interesting career -- he was an enlisted man who 
"mustanged" up.  I don't know if the Corps still makes a distinction 
between "regular" officers and Mustangs, but back in the day, there was 
separate housing for the two groups.  Also, the former thought the 
latter were declasse, and the latter thought the former were 
candy-assed.

> I wrote a fairly good poem at one point about the lack of faith in the 
> real portions of marriage vows and failing to actually think about and 
> renew them.  I have to think that had I been wiser and repeated them 
> to myself, I might just have managed to be a better husband and still 
> married.  And that is not about chasing tail, but about forgetting the 
> real parts of those vows that were about supporting through thick and 
> thin and not being too tied up in oneself alone.
>
> Many people proclaim that they have allegiance to the United States, 
> but that includes people like David Duke and a host of people who have 
> no desire to see the Constitution or the Bill of Rights upheld.  Many 
> people give tribute to the flag, but refuse to stand up for the 
> principles that the flag itself represents.  The Pledge at least 
> forces some to look at what being an American is really about.  
> Perhaps it should include more of what you have in the Pledge you 
> designed for yourself and I for one would be glad if the council 
> started its meetings with just such a pledge.

You and I are in complete accord on both of these points.  Marriage is 
not about the wedding day; it's about constantly renewing the 
commitment to one another.  And that is hard.  That takes practice.  
I'm sorry to see the Bush Administration wasting my tax dollars pushing 
marriage; most people want to get married.  That's not the problem.  
It's actually being married that's the trick.  The gap between the 
fantasy and the real day-to-day is immense.  I love Jane Austen's Pride 
and Prejudice, but try to imagine life in the after marriage 
Bennett/Darcy home.  Elizabeth is still Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy is 
still Mr. Darcy, and, suddenly, one of the world's best-loved romances 
morphs into Cool Hand Luke.  "What we have here is a failure to 
communicate."

This is no reflection on Melynda (though it might well be a reflection 
on me) but I feel an irresistible urge to quote Lord Byron:

"It is easier to die for the woman you love than to live with her."

[I hope you'll share your poem, on list or off.  I enjoyed the other 
poems you gave me at the Grange meeting.  For those who were unaware of 
this, Phil is a very accomplished poet.  I'd like to read some of his 
work on the radio show sometime.  How about it, Phil?  Now I've 
publicly exposed your deep, dark secret -- your talent for composing 
verse!]

> If there is no higher power, than men have the right to tell us what 
> our rights are.  That means that human beings who happen to come to 
> power have the right to distribute rights to the people who are in the 
> minority.  So to me I would have to say that we would have to invent 
> G-d if he does not exist, because only the presence of a higher power 
> demands that feeble men not grab and assert control over what our 
> liberties should be.
>
> The G-d mentioned then is not anybody's G-d, it is the higher power 
> that Jefferson refered to as "their creator", which in its very 
> construction tells you he meant that not to be one single religions 
> G-d, but all the G-d's that men worship.
>
> The same goes for the generic In G-d We Trust which is a statement 
> that we do not put our trust in men to uphold our rights. but rather 
> place our trust in which ever G-d we worship and keep our powder dry 
> to defend our rights.

You're right about keeping the powder dry.  Though Jefferson wrote that 
we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, we must 
rely on mere men to ensure that those rights are respected and 
protected.  God did not see fit to intervene in Dred Scott, and I also 
fail to spot His fine Italian hand in the 19th Amendment or the 1964 
Civil Rights Voting Act.  Though I believe in God (my God), I see that 
men who also claim to believe in God (their God) make power grabs, 
attempt to disenfranchise the opposition, and assume the right to tell 
us what our rights are on a regular basis, God (all gods) be damned.  
Yes, the Lord is my Shepherd, but I've got a great sheep dog and an 
electric fence to help me keep out the wolves.  God helps those who 
help themselves.

I have to admit that talk of a "higher power" makes me nervous.  Why?  
Too many years attending Al-Anon meetings, at which I was assured that 
if my drunken relatives would just surrender their lives to a higher 
power -- and, for some reason, the AA people always feel obliged tell 
you that that higher power doesn't have to be God; it can be a 
Greyhound bus -- all would be well.  Phooey.  I lost count of the 
number of times that blasted Greyhound bus failed to help me hide the 
whiskey bottle or unload the shotgun before Drunken Bumpkin got hold of 
them.  We surrender too much to fate and the four winds and take too 
little responsibility.  My powder is dry, and I am always loaded for 
bear.  Always.

Just a few pleasant thoughts on this pleasant Sunday evening . . .

Joan

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
www.joanopyr.com