Q. What do you get when you mix the War on Drugs with compulsory schooling?

A. Children forced to endure this.

Gene Healy at Cato has written an article called What’s Conservative About the Pledge of Allegiance? In it, he criticizes conservatives who posture about preserving this glorious tradition, and reminds them of the nationalistic socialism of the Pledge’s creator, Francis Bellamy. But, I doubt this will affect those who love the Pledge, because they don’t really care about its origins. What they care about is the symbolism of the flag and the appropriateness of
indoctrinating youth by coercing them to profess allegiance repeatedly until they actually believe they have some obligation to the state. Fortunately, this doesn’t really work.

The recent Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case, which the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, is not about the entire Pledge, but the question of whether the “Under God” phrase constitutes a First Amendment Establishment Clause violation. It seems to me that pressuring children to say “Under God” or be isolated and disfavored by the teacher and peers does violate the Establishment Clause at least as much as other things that have been found in violation. It’s worth noting that “Under God” wasn’t in the original pledge, and was added in 1954 as an attempt to distinguish the U.S. from atheistic communism.

But, I’m not just annoyed by “Under God.” The entire pledge should go.

I always found it stupid to pledge allegiance to a flag; especially since the pledge is to the flag and to the republic for which it stands. I understood that it’s symbolic, but I always thought it was odd that millions of children were pledging something every day without knowing what it meant. What exactly is one promising when one pledges allegiance to the flag? What constitutes a violation of that pledge?

I love the founding principles of the U.S. These include individual liberty and the idea that the government doesn’t rule subjects who owe it allegiance; but rather the government exists to serve the people; and when they think it errs, the people should correct it, not stupidly cheer it on. I always found it ironic that people who really love these principles would hate the idea of a government pressuring its citizens to pledge allegiance to it, rather than encouraging them to support it when they approve of it and denounce it when they disapprove. It’s interesting that the original pledge was performed with a gesture similar to a Nazi salute, and only changed to the hand-on-heart form
after the rise of actual Nazism.

I think genuine American patriots should not only disapprove of the Pledge, but of the entire notion of government schools. But, that’s a post for another day.

I was born Jewish. My parents were Jewish. But, from a young age I resisted a Jewish identity. I rejected the mysticism of religious belief; the seemingly mindless rituals; the unearned guilt; the collectivism. I was outraged by being (briefly) forced to attend hebrew school, and offended friends of my family with criticisms of Judaism and Israeli policies.

I’ve often said that I don’t really consider myself to be Jewish…unless there is an anti-semite in the room. I might not agree with all of Judaism, but I know which side of the Jew/Anti-Semite battle I belong on.

I’ve always found anti-semitism difficult to understand. Why would people hate me, and the wonderful Jewish people that I know? It just made no sense. I understood that unsuccessful leaders wanted scapegoats, and that many people resented that Jews kept separate (resisting inter-marriage, conversion, local customs, etc.). But that didn’t explain the persistent hatred of Jews for thousands of years. I had a sense that it was because Jews were often successful where others were not; that Jews pursued the “Western” values of knowledge, justice, human rights, before these gained popularity in the West. I’ve heard many theories, but none have been entirely satisfactory. I still don’t understand anti-semitism, but I think it’s about more than reasons to hate Jews. It’s about real problems with many people’s values.

And now, anti-semitism really seems to be on the rise again.

All of this is just an introduction to my encouragement for you to read Natan Sharansky’s powerful examination of this question.

(Thanks to The World for the pointer.)

I’m one of those unusual people who actually listens to lyrics.

Just tonight, I was listening to (Sittin’ On) The Dock of the Bay by Otis Redding. I like the song, but whenever I hear:

And this loneliness won’t leave me alone

I think: “Make up your mind! Do you want to be left alone, or not?”

I realize that this might have been intentionally ironic, but it bugs me.

Also, from the Bread song “If“:

If a man could be two places at one time I’d be with you

Tomorrow and today, beside you all the way

Huh?

Isn’t that being in one place at two times?

Am I the only one bothered by stuff like this?

Kieran Healy at Crooked Timber cited this article (titled: Bush Says Attacks Are A Sign of U.S. Progress) with a blog entry lampooning Bush’s comments as Orwellian (“War is Peace,” etc.)

While it may seem counterintuitive, I think the recent attacks are an indication of progress.

Here’s what I wrote in the Comments:

I think Bush is right that these attacks indicate progress on our part and desperation on the attackers’ part, and these Orwellian eferences
are silly.

When they attack the Red Cross (Crescent), the average Iraqi knows that these people are not on his side. It’s clear that they are attacking people who are there to help Iraqis, not oppress them. It seems that they have given up on trying to rally popular support and are pinning their hopes on driving away helpers before the imminent political changes can become irreversible.

That seems like desperation to me.

Jacob Levy has a great post today at the Volokh Conspiracy that started from a discussion about whether displaying the Darwin Fish is inappropriately disrespectful of other people’s religious beliefs.

I think I agree with everything Levy said, so I might as well just leave this as an encouragement to go read his post.

This Philadelphia Inquirer article quote has already made the rounds, but it’s just too good to not repost:

Concerned about the appearance of disarray and feuding within his administration as well as growing resistance to his policies in Iraq, President Bush – living up to his recent declaration that he is in charge – told his top officials to “stop the leaks” to the media, or else.

News of Bush’s order leaked almost immediately.

Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he “didn’t want to see any stories” quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.

Retired general and Democrat presidential hopeful Wesley Clark has unveiled his plan for a “Civilian Reserve”.

On the surface, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with using the wide array of talents of citizens to help in times of crisis. But, I do think there’s something wrong with this form of the idea. For one thing, this struck me as suspicious (emphasis mine):

Members would be offered the opportunity to serve as the need for their skills arose. And the call to serve would, in almost all cases, be voluntary. For the most part, Civilian Reserve members could choose whether or not to accept the call to action.

Under circumstances of grave national emergency, the president would have the authority to issue a mandatory call-up. But this would be exceedingly rare.

I’m afraid that what starts off voluntary (“For the most part”) will become mandatory, and not just for what all of the volunteers would agree is a “grave national emergency”.

But, what bothers me more is that Clark seems to think of patriotism and service to our country as synonymous with placing our lives and freedom under the control of the government. That might be the type of service he chose for himself, but he should understand that this country is much more than the government. The government is supposed to be our servant, to protect our rights in cases where the use of force is appropriate. It has become much more than that, of course, but that’s a bad thing. Many good, patriotic, citizens will stay vigilant against rising government power, and not blindly relinquish their liberties to the whims of future representatives.

So, while I agree that there are great resources that could be used more effectively in times of need, I’m leery of the government organizing it and formalizing commitments that can be expanded at the whim of politicians. I’d prefer collaboration with private organizations that marshal genuine volunteers to help when they agree it’s needed.

There has been an interesting series of events recently:

First, my son and I enjoyed the film Secondhand Lions; particularly Robert Duvall’s performance.

Then, Roy Horn of ”Siegfried & Roy” got injured by one of their tigers during a performance.

Finally, and ironically, bear activist Timothy Treadwell and his companion were killed by bears in Alaska.

In the story of today’s suicide car bombing in Baghdad I noticed:

The vehicle’s driver and a passenger also died in the blast.

Passenger?

Is this really a two-person job?