Rednecks vs. Californian

Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Rednecks vs. Californian

by adrien rain burke

Someone sent me this simple minded homage to 'redneck values,' that's currently making the rounds, no doubt in hopes it would get my goat. I considered tethering the goat, but she was feeling frisky - why not let her out?

The big problem would be getting the person or persons who authored this hostile little diatribe to read my answers - the author shows little tendency to entertain opposing ideas - or any ideas.

It started with this cutesy collection of belligerent platitudes:

Are You a Redneck?

We have enjoyed the redneck jokes for years. It's time to take a reflective look at the core beliefs of a culture that values home, family, country and God. It doesn't matter where you grew up, whether it was rural Mississippi or New York City. If I had to stand before a dozen terrorists who threaten my life, I'd choose a half dozen or so rednecks to back me up. Tire irons, squirrel guns and grit -- that's what rednecks are made of.

Well I did have a country upbringing - I was a 4-H project-presenting, barefoot 'n'bareback horse-riding, midnight skinny-dipping, hayriding and hayrolling country girl - but in my spare time I was reading Kerouac and Zen Buddhism and science fiction. So I'm not a proper redneck; I am a Californian.

It's a difference I wish to preserve.

And who doesn't value home, family, country & God? (or the generic equivalent of god: The Truth, The Greatest Good, etc.) Hell, Osama bin Laden values those things. Just because you don't sleep with your cousins doesn't mean you don't love your family.

As for the guns, rednecks and us anarchists have something in common there. I believe in the right of self-defense - and the defense of one's country.

Of course, I include defending the last redwoods from clear-cutting by some giant, barbaric Texas corporation (Maxxam, for instance, with its Bush administration ties) who will even have it milled on foreign boats offshore to avoid - to the greatest extent possible - employing Americans.

I'd also like to defend the last mustangs and wolves from human predators in helicopters and slaughter houses.

I'd like to defend our economy against the current redneck administration that cares more for 'free trade' than for American jobs. Apparently, their loyalty to America doesn't include loyalty to its working class.

I consider defense of my country to include the defense of individual liberty - not just the freedom to wave a flag, but the freedom to dissent openly without getting beat up or run out of town by rednecks. The freedom to protest government policies I find destructive - without having my patriotism questioned. The freedom to point out there's something very fishy about just about everything that has happened since September tenth - yes, the tenth, 2001, without being silenced or censored or officially ridiculed.

I figure It's easier to get sentimental about rednecks if you have no memory. Because I clearly remember 'rednecks' - great big grown up men and women - screaming obscenities and insults at a small black girl - for going to school. (Kind of like the Protestants who were throwing bags of urine at Catholic girls walking to school through the Prods' neighborhood) I remember rednecks setting dogs on people who were trying to exercise their right to vote in Alabama - and murdering freedom riders (evil liberal kids who went South to help other Americans get the vote) and getting away with it. I remember that friends of mine were attacked (with fists - these particular rednecks having forgotten their tire irons) just for having long hair - I still live with one of those (formerly) long-haired guys in fact - boy were they surprised when they found out he could - and would - fight back!

I remember rednecks laughing and cheering when Martin Luther 'Coon' was assassinated.

I remember the flyers rednecks in Dallas handed out when JFK went there in Nov. '63, suggesting that an assassination would be nice - and would put a non-Catholic Texan in the White House. (They must have been disappointed when Lyndon turned out to be just another pointy-headed liberal New Dealer - who risked losing the South for the Democratic Party to sign the Civil Rights Bill.)

I remember them burning crosses - not just in Mississippi - but right here in my own home town - in the 1970s! A group of friendly, liberal California-style neighbors got together & took shifts watching the house all night for weeks where the cross was burned, so the family could get some sleep (although we were - oddly, I thought - harassed nightly by the police).

Now where are those terrorists you want me to fight?

And by the way, wasn't McVeigh some kind of redneck? The rednecks who ruled the roost in the South in their bedclothes with lynchings and rape and KKK mumbo jumbo were terrorists, in my book. And the rednecks who dragged the black guy behind their pickup till he was dismembered, were terrorists just as much as any 'raghead' with a box cutter.

Turbans is as turbans does, I always say - and that goes for rednecks too. Because after all, Jim Hightower is a redneck, & Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, and Will Rogers (and many more like them) - all decent Americans who believe in liberty and equality and stick their (red) necks out to work for it- and I like them just as much if they're in coveralls or levis and stetsons, as if they wore tie-dyed sequined loin cloths or tuxedos.

You Might Be A Redneck if...

It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, "One nation, under God."

OK - let's go to the Source - to the founders of this 'one nation' - did they intend the nation to be 'under God?'

JAMES MADISON:

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
(Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation.)

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:

"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."

Well, what about WASHINGTON? He rarely spoke about religion, but he went to church - mainly to please Martha- and he always walked out on communion.

" The Rev. Dr. Wilson, who was almost a contemporary of our earlier statesmen and presidents, and who thoroughly investigated the subject of their religious beliefs. . . . . . affirmed that the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that, of the presidents who had thus far been elected -- GEORGE WASHINGTON, JOHN ADAMS, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JAMES MADISON, JAMES MONROE, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, and ANDREW JACKSON -- not one had professed a belief in Christianity. From [a]. . . . sermon I quote the following: 'When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and, after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it. ... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity. ... Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian.'

THOMAS JEFFERSON,

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."
--Thomas Jefferson, Elementary school Act, 1817.

In an 1813 letter to Jefferson, JOHN ADAMS wrote, ". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

And I am sure y'all know about the writer of Common Sense:
THOMAS PAINE: Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

Oh dear. I'm guessing he wouldn't have cared for the "Under God" thing.

I was going to mention ABRAHAM LINCOLN and U.S, GRANT at this point, because Lincoln comes very close to being a redneck himself & US Grant was a real tough guy - but rednecks hate those guys - they freed the slaves, & (best of all) beat the Confederacy. (you know - those rednecks in the South who revolted against the Union in order tokeep their slaves? How patriotic is that?)

So - were they not patriots? They were patriots, but I guess they weren't rednecks, & this guy seems to put redneck-ism above patriotism. For instance, does he realize the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist minister, who didn't include 'under God' in the original? Does he realize the author's descendants were among those who objected to the addition of 'under God' to the Pledge?

And what does that 'under God' mean, anyway? Does it mean God automatically approves of whatever we do? Does HE call the shots here or do our leaders have a special ability to know & follow his wishes?

Should we just take their word for it? After all, George Bush told an ambassador God told him to 'smite' Saddam Hussein.

Does it mean other nations offend God when they disagree with us?

Does it mean if you question the existence of God or practice some other religion you're not a real American? If so, was Jefferson an American?

Is it blasphemy to disagree with the president?

If, as a Christian, you believe our government is not acting in accordance with Jesus' teachings (Blessed are the Peacemakers, etc.) what are you to think? That Jesus didn't intend the Beatitudes for a nation that claims it's 'under God?' Maybe that God and Jesus had some hitherto unrevealed disagreement? Or does it mean we've recently adopted the 'Divine Right' doctrine? So many questions!

But I think saying 'under God' means you aren't supposed to ask.

You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.

OK. . . . . what about the Buddhist Eightfold Noble Path? The Egyptian Book of the Dead? The Starfleet's Prime Directive? The Jedi Code? Because in order to avoid the appearance of establishing one religion over all of the others (the Establishment Clause), you'd have to put up a very large number of religious codes, wouldn't you? Just so no one would feel left out. Hell there'd be no room for wanted posters at the P O! Otherwise, to put them alone in a courtroom is to equate them with our laws - a slippery slope and here's why: the Ten Commandments (which, by the way, are not exactly the same for Catholics as for Protestants - which version do you think will get the Redneck Seal of Approval?) present a very particular religious view.

Now I realize that the Ten Commandments are a lot like the bible itself. Most people who recommend them haven't really read them much or thought about them at all. There's a lot of pious talk about their being the Source of our Laws, but in fact we have no laws against blasphemy, atheism, talking back to your parents, or idol worship. . . . .and very few against adultery or working on Sunday.

So let's go over them once, just to be very sure of what we are not protesting:

"I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

In other words, not only must you believe in God, but you must believe in THIS god, forsaking all others.

That's fine as a private article of faith - especially if you think you might go to Hell for not doing it. But when it becomes a national policy displayed in courtrooms & classrooms, it comes into immediate conflict with the First Amendment to the Constitution (remember the Constitution? That's the source of our laws), which guarantees freedom of religion - & that includes, whether you like it or not, freedom to be a Pagan or a Hindu or Muslim, even an atheist - and to pass on your belliefs to your kids- until they reach their majority (& their own conclusions).

And note please that the first Commandment does not deny the existence of other gods - only forbids this one tribe of desert people from worshipping them. There's nothing in the Old Testament to indicate that this god gave a fig for any other people in the world, or intended his Commandments for those Others. It's entirely likely that a "Gentile's" obedience or disobedience to these commandments is of no interest to Jehovah whatsoever.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Whew! That kind of puts my St. Francis of Assissi garden statue in a new light! Not to mention the Kachina doll I keep around the house. ( And it surely rules out any public display of the Nativity Scene - would it be illegal for a church to put a creche on its lawn?) OK, I don't bow down to St. Francis or the Kachina, and I didn't make them either, but I really wonder whether this rule can claim any legitimacy in a secular nation, since it condemns just about everyone except Orthodox Jews and a few very tightass Protestant sects - unto the fourth generation! Ummmm - is this 4th Generation-thing going to be honored in our courts? Will the great grandchildren of people who put pictures of angels on their walls be subject to punishment? And don't forget, it says 'graven image. . . . . of anything on earth or in the water - some Muslims have taken this to mean photographs are forbidden, as well as all representational* art.

So there goes the wedding photography business.

*That means art that presents a recognizable picture of something.

(Verse 7): "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

Oh God! Is this to be the Law of the Land? Now, some Jews will not even say the name of God and write it as G-d - the rest of us, they might say - are taking the name of the Lord in vain. Other people - the Lord knows! - call upon God & the saints to witness their trials at least once a day. Incidentally, the nuns told us that using 'gee' & 'gosh' was wrong - God wasn't fooled, they said, by these little subterfuges. Will they pass the new legal test?

Some interpret this commandment to mean one should never take an oath, by God! Now how seriously can we take this commandment if it is posted in an effing courtroom? What should we do when we are asked to 'swear or affirm?' Does its presence mean that disobeying this commandment should be a punishable offense - or does it mean that the laws of the land can be as safely disregarded as this rule is several billion times daily?

(Verses 8-11) "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Yeah, right. Well everyone mostly ignores this, and Christians have even changed the day from the Sabbath ( meaning the 7th day) to Sunday (the first day of the week). In some parts of our country it is still taken seriously. In Colorado, you can't buy liquor on a Sunday (although real wine is consumed during certain Sunday religious services), and at one time, contracts signed in California on a Sunday were invalid, which was very useful to some used car salesman, as I recall. So for a long time, tv car salesmen boasted 'no Sunday selling!" Meanwhile, Seventh Day Adventists do their religious thing on Saturday.

For Jews, the Sabbath begins on Friday evening (remember, it's their book) & ends on Saturday evening. God knows when they get to party! Those who practice it faithfully won't even flip a light switch on the Sabbath - they often hire a gentile to do such things, which kind of puts the hapless gentile on a lower footing than, say, the cattle. If this one were made law, nothing would be open on 'the Sabbath' - but I guess the first order of business is agreeing on which day is the sabbath anyway - then we can go on to debate what "work" means.

(Verse 12) "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

I have no quarrel with this, although I'd make an exception in quite a few cases. I certainly wouldn't make a criminal case of it. You have to remember that in those days, parents could have their children executed for disobedience . . . . . or less. Jereboam killed his daughter 'cause he promised god he'd sacrifice the first thing he saw when he got home if he won a battle, which he did - and she was it. I guess you could call it a bet - or even a dare - and she could have gotten away, but she agreed that her father should keep his promise and murder her - these things just don't mean what they used to mean, do they?

A modern American kid would probably not go along with their dorky dad's stupid bet, fifth commandment or no.

Also - and I hate to nit-pick, but it is rather glaring - Jereboam's nameless daughter's 'honoring' of her father definitely did not make her days "long upon the land." So when you start quaking at all the horrible punishments promised in that old book, you might take comfort that so many of the nicer ones were ignored.

(Verse 13) "Thou shalt not kill."

At last we've gotten to something that actually makes sense. And it sounds so simple. Trouble is, that the State (any state) kind of hogs the killing fields, doesn't it? Can any serial killer hope to match the record of the Guatemalan government, for instance? Or Chile or Cambodia or Rwanda? And if this is in a courtroom, where people are routinely sentenced to death. . . . well, you see the problem. And then there's war - it has been estimated that up to 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq - all 'collateral damage' - whatever that means.

(Verse 14) "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

I can't say Americans break this one more often than the 3rd Commandment. . . . . . but they would if they could. They do it a lot - especially rednecks, if their music is any indication.

In biblical times, adultery was punishable by death.

But that commandment didn't mean that one husband and one wife were required by law to be faithful to each other. Far from it.

It meant that no man should have unpermitted sex with someone else's wife or daughter (someone else's property), and that both would be stoned to death if it happened. Her husband, however, was free to have an unspecified number of wives and concubines, and to lend her out - or lend his daughters out - willing or not - for sex with other men on occasion.

Since this is the commandment that concerns itself with sex, it is instructive to mention what is not forbidden by the bible.

Polygamy and concubinage are not forbidden, and the rape of young virgins acquired in conquest is specifically recommended in the bible, as are marriage by capture and purchase. A few of the old patriarchs kept huge harems, and David, though beloved by god, arranged the death of a man in order to get to the guy's wife, Bathsheba.

On the other hand, masturbation was - at least on one occasion - punished by death. And bestiality would result in capital punishment for both man and the dishonored beast.

Yeah I know this is unpopular stuff. Read the bible - it's all in there.

(Verse 15) "Thou shalt not steal."

How can I argue with this? Especially when I seem to be a victim of theft myself.

Is what Enron did to California stealing? Halliburton has seemingly 'lost' or misspent millions or billions of dollars in US taxpayers' money - if they don't return it, is that stealing?

Or what about invading another country for the OIL? You know: 'Kick their Ass - Take their Gas!'

Or is 'stealing' limited to us peasants? I could go on with a hundred examples of legalized theft, but we all know them and see them - we just don't punish them. or demand they be punished, because we've somehow accepted the right of the rich to take whatever isn't nailed down.

(Verse 16) "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

(Which is usually interpreted to forbid every kind of lying, although it seems to apply only to perjury.) Just think how ordinary conversation would be changed if this commandment were law:
'If that's my boss (wife, business partner, nosy neighbor, mother, husband, creditor, Avon lady) tell 'em I'm out. . . . . .'
'What do you mean I was staring at that girl? I wasn't even thinking about her.'

. . . . . and public life . . . . .

REAGAN:
'The reason I invest in cattle ranches that lose money isn't for the tax break - I'm just sentimental about the Old West.' . . . . .also:

'We did not trade weapons for hostages.'

CLINTON:
'I never had sex with that woman.'

W:
'We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.'

WOLFOWITZ;
'We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.'

CHENEY:
'We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.'

RUMSFELD:
'We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.'

TENET:
'We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.'

BLAIR:
'We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.'

NIXON:
'I am not a crook'

ROBERT MACNAMARA:
'There is light at the end of the tunnel.'

ANONYMOUS:
"It will be a cakewalk."

Well, unenforceable as it appears, it is a nice idea.

(Verse 17) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

. . . This covers two sins: jealousy and envy - both of them are 'thought sins," of course and require no action on the part of the sinner. I suspect this one would be hard to enforce - at least I hope so.

Well, no worries here anyway - Americans don't covet stuff much. Mostly just lots of oil to keep their tank-sized hummers and Ford Valdezes running - and the two TVs, and the ipod . . . . . .

I notice that the wife comes in AFTER the neighbor's house (and before his ass). Maybe that's because men could have as many wives as they 'coveted' and could beg, borrow, steal, buy, or capture.

You still say "Christmas" instead of "Winter Festival."

Well, duh. I say Christmas, 'cause I was raised Catholic; it's a habit - but I have Jewish friends and Pagan friends and I try to remember not to wish them a Merry Christmas. Wouldn't it be thoughtless? Do you think maybe Christians shouldn't have Jewish or Pagan friends to wish Happy Hannukah or a Cool Yule? (How would this redneck react if he ever had a friend who disagreed with him? Get out the squirrel gun?)

Maybe Christmas is just the season to bully people and berate them for their religious beliefs. To run up the cross and take note of who falls to their knees - or doesn't. See, this redneck's 'patriotism' has nothing to do with freedom of speech or conscience or religion; if he could, he'd put even our minds in a vise.

The fact is everyone on earth (except the Jehovah's Witnesses, who insist, correctly, that Xmas is a Pagan-derived holiday) celebrates some damn thing during the Winter Solstice. Before Christianity triumphed, Dec. 25 was the birthday of Mithra, and the season was also celebrated in Rome as Saturnalia - with lights and greens, much partying, gift-giving & excess drinking. Saturn was born each year and grew to old age (Father Time) by the last day of the year, when he was reborn as Baby New Year. Even then, some sober Pagan elders complained about how the True Spirit of the Season was being drowned in hedonistic partying and materialism.

Do you notice a pattern? It seems rude to mention it, and I wouldn't, except I'm defending my own belief in religious tolerance here, but all of these celebrations involve the Birth of a Child. Coincidence, maybe?

In one Middle Eastern tradition, the Perfect Mother (a goddess of grain and fertility) gave birth in Midwinter to a 'corn baby.' To honor the sacred birth, little 'babies' were fashioned from straw, & hidden in the stable - in the manger, swaddled in cloth (so the horse wouldn't eat it I suppose) for children to find in the morning.

But maybe the important part is the gathering of family and friends against the darkness of the season, the revelry, the exchange of tokens of affection. Maybe the gift-giving and partying are the priceless kernel of this Chestnut Roasting on an Open Fire . . . . .

These 'rites of reenforcement' are intrinsic to being human (note to rednecks: 'intrinsic' is in the dictionary).

So, after a great deal of early resistance, Christianity adopted these old heathen customs - but they didn't originate them - and they don't exclusively own them - sorry.

Besides, Christians still celebrate 'Easter' - named for the Goddess of Spring. They've adopted all of her trappings of dyed eggs. baskets & bunnies - how dare they tell other people what to call their holidays?

And btw, Bubba, it's my language - I'll call it whatever I want.

You bow your head when someone prays.

Well yeah, I really can't see the point of gratuitously insulting people, even though the writer is perfectly willing to insult me - but for all anyone knows, my straight face and bowed head during such solemn & self-righteous public displays of piety, is really suppressed amusement - or boredom, if the prayer is particularly long.

Truth to tell, if I were visiting a madhouse, I would take pains not to laugh at the guy who says he's John the Baptist, too.

You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem. You might even sing along, and you DO know the words.

Yes I do - I even sing it . . . . . although I can't reach the high notes. The American Revolution, after all, was one of the greatest events in history, and the Constitution is the most liberating document in history. Of course, the Revolution isn't quite safe in the hands of knuckle-draggers like this guy, and protecting the Constitution from vandals like Rumsfeld & the Rednecks is the greatest challenge we've faced since the Civil War.

Under the circumstances, I respect the rights of those who choose to show their skepticism about the course our country is taking by refusing to salute. Or those who prefer America the Beautiful to The Star Spangled Banner - for its more peaceful content.

It is ironic that the tune for the national anthem was taken from an old drinking song with many Pagan references, called, "To Anacreon in Heaven." Here's the ending:

"May our Club flourish Happy, United, and Free!
And long may the Sons of Anacreon intwine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."

I wonder if they had trouble with the high notes. . . . .

You treat war vets with great respect, and always have.

Of course I do. They are not responsible for the fact that our leaders have been willing to send them to die for less than noble causes.

For instance, why are our boys - and girls now - killing and dying in Iraq? Every reason we were given has evaporated. For 9/11? Demonstrably not - Iraq had nothing to do with that and Saddam feared and hated Al Quaeda as much as we do - more maybe, since at one time, our government generously funded Osama's activities. To get those WMDs? Nobody ever really thought Saddam had them. So was it to liberate the Iraqis? What business is that of ours? If we'd wanted Iraq to be a democracy we might have opposed Saddam in the first place, instead of supporting him. Most rednecks hate Arabs, especially Muslims, and could care less whether they were liberated or not.

And it could be argued that Iraqis are less liberated than they were before we got there - certainly the women are worse off. Somewhere between 10,000 and 600,000 (reports vary due to the stated unwillingness of our military to take note of such trivia) are dead - well that's a kind of liberation, but few would choose it.

Our conquest has liberated Shariah and the religious police (Muslim fundamentalists with guns - and just possibly - tire irons). Christian-owned liquor stores are destroyed and their owners killed. Doctors and professors are murdered. Children are kidnapped and held for ransom. Women are afraid to go to school, to work, outdoors - they are reluctantly taking up the veil again, in self defense. Intellectuals - and Christians - are leaving in droves.

And when it comes to the "market place of ideas" in Iraq, Wwe control that - and actually forbade the political parties to ask the U.S. to leave as part of their campaign platform.

The only theory that holds water is this: we went there for OIL - Texas Tea, that is: Black Gold. Not our OIL, but oil for the enrichment of the OIL executives with which this administration is so well staffed.

One of the first things we did was to make a law that Iraqi resources could be 100% owned by foreign interests. I say, son, That's 100% - all of it!!!

So the purpose was theft. (For more on theft, you might want to check out those commandments.)

And the poor kids whose asses are at risk over there won't see a penny of the loot - that's the difference between an Empire and a band of pirates:
pirates share.

And when I say 'poor' kids, I mean it, too. Rich kids just aren't usually available for these military adventures - like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, they have "other priorities," and their parents - even the ones who support the war and the warmakers - rarely encourage THEIR children to go to nasty old places like Iraq.

Look, the current administration has repeatedly tried to stiff veterans on medical care, to downplay their deaths and disabilities - sneaking the injured into hospitals in the dead of night or flying them to Germany, charging them for the meals they ate in the VA, and docking their pay for dying before the month was out.

When Barbara Bush was asked about casualties there, she wondered out loud why she should waste her 'beautiful mind' thinking about things like that. Does that amount to respecting veterans? Is there something about the notion of respect that I am missing here?

I am a peace activist and have been for a long time - since the 60s. I've never attended a peace rally or march or any antiwar event at which no veterans were present - and I've never seen them treated with disrespect.

You've never burned an American flag.

Why would I? It's a perfectly good flag (nice design) and a perfectly innocent piece of cloth (though it might be manufactured in China by underage sweatshop workers these days) - I am really sorry our leaders have wrapped so much rotten fish in it.

Unfortunately, the flag is a helpless symbol; it can't speak for itself any more than a crescent or a cross can - and thus is useful in persuading people to go along with strangely unAmerican policies and laws. Such symbols are notoriously subject to misuse - even the swastika was once a good thing; now it is shameful and ugly. I wince to see it even in connection with cultures that predate Nazism by millennia.

I never really understood that saying, "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," till I saw the flag used as an excuse to rob us of our freedom and privacy under such atrocities as the Patriot Act. Someone has said a flag-burner wraps himself in the Constitution to desecrate the flag; and our current crop of 'patriots' wrap themselves in the flag to shred the Constitution.

But if I had to choose (and I shouldn't ever have to) between the flag and the Constitution, I'd pick the Constitution every time. It's dirty pool to demand unAmerican uniformity of opinion in the name of the flag. It's undemocratic, and I deeply suspect the motives of anyone who would demand it. But the redneck writer doesn't even mention the Constitution. Doesn't he like it?

Flags are not ideas. If the flag stands for anything, it's freedom - and freedom to dissent is the one freedom without which the rest is bullshit. Every country has a flag. I'll bet most people in Stalinist Russia would have objected to burning the hammer and sickle - even if they secretly agreed with the burner - because it's a cheap and easy kind of patriotism, worshipping a symbol instead of living a difficult ideal.

Parroting the Pledge of Allegiance is easy - like the Lord's Prayer. You can say it without thinking about it and many people say the wrong words all the time. What is difficult is practicing tolerance, taking responsibility for the actions of one's country, or, for that matter, forgiving our trespassers.

You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.

What kind of courage does it take to repeat the platitudes we've heard all our lives? Would this guy be so willing to say what he thought if it were not the popular, safe opinion? If he had come to the conclusion that the flag is an insensate, badly designed rag on a stick? Or that the bible is a collection of archaic threats and superstitions concerning a Middle Eastern thunder demon who occupied Mt. Sinai?

He has already expressed contempt for those who disagree with him on religion, on the 'sanctity' of the flag, even on how people should GREET EACH OTHER during a holiday that's celebrated by every human culture in the world under a different name!

He believes what he does because it's easier than thinking about it, and it gives him a sense of self-righteous superiority with which to censure others. If he were living under a dictatorship, he'd be the neighbor ever looking for dissenters to rat on. If he'd lived during the Burning Times, he'd be on the lookout for heretics to denounce.

He's not afraid to say what he believes because he is a bully - he knows most people will either agree with him or will pretend to - he will shout down the others - or resort to the ol' tire iron.

You respect your elders and expect your kids to do the same.

Well, like every parent, I have a share of this particular stock, don't I? Sadly, I am running short on elders of late. (I think that means I am one of the elders, now.)

I honor the experience and intelligence that is often gained through living awhile (though it is disconcerting to consider how many of my contemporaries weren't paying attention.)

Sometimes it's hard for me to realize that lots of Americans are too young to remember the reasons for the War on Poverty - that children in America were suffering from malnutrition; or that before the women's movement, women weren't covered by minimum wage; or that, before Roe v. Wade, orphanages were overcrowded with children whom no one wanted - and young girls died all the time from botched attempts at abortion.

People who didn't live then can't imagine some of these things. And for some my age, the reasons have faded.

But I also respect the right of young people to look at the world with fresh eyes, and to say what they think, too - after all, there's plenty of stuff around here that could use some fixing. My generation certainly did not live up to its early promise, and some respectful criticism may be due here.

You'd give your last dollar to a friend.

Keep your Confederate money, boys, the South is gonna rise again. . . . .

If you got this email from me it is because I believe that you, like me have just enough Redneck in you to have the same beliefs as those talked about in this email.

God Bless the USA!

God SAVE the USA. . . . . . .

HOME