Pulp Diction
I have been pretty busy recently, dealing with some of both the beautiful and horrible things in life, as we all likely are. Recently, on a site on the information highway known as facebook, some guys I've known since grade school have been ranting about disrupting various No Kings! rallies. Their fearless leader actually went to disrupt last weekend. Bad timing! Anyhow, this afternoon I posted the following essay in response. Last week I had posted a similar essay regarding some of the religious nonsense the same guys were posting. An area minister contacted me to ask if he could read it on Sunday.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “ – Amendment 1
I've read some curious posts & comments from some people that I've been friends with since grade school regarding both war and the first amendment. I have no desire to argue with or insult old friends, so I try to express my thinking on my own page. For I have no interest in arguing with anyone, at this age of life, or have the need to try to convince anyone of anything. Being a grandfather, I am not interested in wasting time that my generation should invest in being Elders.
Let's start with the war. People may approve of it, disapprove, or have no opinion. Polls document that a significant number of Americans oppose the U.S./Israeli attack on Iran. This includes some republicans who are opposed for a number of reasons. These include the president's campaign promise that he would not get our country mired in yet another foreign war. Others are opposed to Netanyahu dictating American policy. And there are retired military and intelligence officers who appear on podcasts to voice opposition to a war that they are convinced will damage our country in the context of the economy and in relationships with other nations.
I have old friends who served in the military who are maga supporters of the war. Some of their friends insult those who oppose the war, even calling them “enemies” of our country. Many of them verbally attack those who exercise their Amendment 1 rights in the “No Kings” rallies. I have more friends who served in the military, including as a career, who are opposed to the war. They are patriots, not “enemies.” They will be attending No Kings! Rallies, should anyone want to chat with them.
Those in the military, like those serving on school boards right up to the presidency, take an oath to uphold the Constitution. This includes honoring Amendment 1, even if one does not agree with how others legally and non-violently exercise those rights. Obviously, that does not include actions that violate the law, such as burning and looting during riots, or taking a dump on a member of Congress's desk after breaking into the Capital Building.
In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Skokie case that, offensive as it was, the nazi party had a right to parade in an Illinois community. The neighborhood they marched in had about 50% Jewish residents, including over 100 survivors of the death camps. Thus, since Supreme Court decisions, all specific to constitutional issues, become Constitutional Law. As obnoxious as nazi-types may be, demanding today that all Muslims be deported, I respect their constitutional rights. I would hope they would respect the constitutional rights of those who would ask, “Wait a second – you would have wanted to deport Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X? Don't you understand that there have been Muslims here since before the Revolutionary War?”
I am not in favor of religious zealots running any government, be it in Iran, Israel, or the United States. As a citizen of this country, the political influence of christian nationalists concerns me. It's more than simply that they would agree with deporting the Champ and Malcolm. And both Ali and Malcolm delivered truth at a time that were essential to their era. I encourage people to watch old debates Malcolm was in, on this new thing called “youtube.” Very, very few wanted to debate Malcolm, because they had as much chance as Pee Wee Herman would have had against Mike Tyson.
Now, I'm not opposed to open, serious, and sincere debates. For example, I recommend that everyone on every side watch the discussion between Tucker Carlson and a zealot, as well as ambassador to Israel, Michael Huckabee. This was about the then possibility of again breaking off negotiations without warning, and attacking Iran. Carlson was opposed to such a scheme, because he could process reality in such a way that he knew it would be a failure in the manner we witness today.
Carlson asked Huckabee some questions about Iran, its people, culture, and history. He was admittedly unable to answer a single question on Iran, but was a strong advocate for destroying the country. Why? It is 100% based upon his biases, rooted in his unripe, rather superstitious ready of the Good Book. I prefer opinions rather than biases, for the same reason that the only ones who can express opinions in court are those deemed “expert witnesses” based upon education and experience. Other witnesses can testify to facts, but not “opinion,” for reasons including potential bias.
I, for one, would prefer that experts be in charge when it comes to issues such as war. Since experts on things such as this war, Congress should hold televised hearings allowing all sides to be heard, so that the public does not have to depend on corporate news sources, which almost always contain bias. Heck, I'd even be in favor of local debates, scheduled other than the days of rallies, done respectfully in towns and cities across America. If such debates are rooted in logical and rational thought, rather than emotional outbursts, I would surely consider participating.
= new reply since forum marked as read
