Indoctrination? Pffffft...really?!

There are some really nasty allegations floating around various areas related to Obama's speech to schoolchildren this coming Tuesday. The big word on the table for discussion is "indoctrination"...and I can't help but laugh.

Stories like this, and this and this ridiculous bit of paranoid nonsense...though some people are recognizing that there is distinct bias (oh, but it's not a matter of race at all)...and some people are looking at the situation through a realistic lens of common sense amidst the madness.

For those who are screaming "indoctrination" - I have three words: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

Original Bellamy Pledge salute

And not just the "standard" pledge that we know today - which is the single most jingoistic piece of indoctrination we have in this country directed at schoolchildren, but my stars! It isn't even the original pledge! Considering the origin of the Bellamy Pledge...

The original pledge, from 1892, is:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Even by itself, it is an indoctrination method - but when you consider what was added to it in 1924 (changed "my" to "the" before flag, and added "of the United States of America")...and then later in 1954, the words "under God" were added on, as well...so that it is a complete take-off from the original Bellamy pledge. (And of course there are other variations of the Pledge, as noted if you read further.)

Now...interesting point. The statement of the Pledge is strictly voluntary. There is no law that says anyone must say the Pledge. I would encourage anyone to have their kids actually test this, though.

My son, when he was 13, decided to test this. In class. During the Pledge, he remained seated and didn't say a word.

Exercising his 1st Amendment-protected right to NOT say the Pledge got him criticized by his peers and scorned (heavily) by his teacher. It was an object lesson for my son, who, to this day, will not say the Pledge. He is a proud American, but he is disgusted by the truth beneath the expectation. He stands in respect, but does not place his hand over his heart...nor does he say a word. (And I am proud of his determination and perseverance.) He knows how much that flag means - he was an honorable young Boy Scout, he is the son of an active duty soldier, and he is the grandson of a decorated war veteran. He is proud of that. He does not, however, subscribe to indoctrination techniques. Why? Because he knows how to think for himself without being subjected to grotesque drills of forced jingoism.

THAT, my friends, is indoctrination.

NOT the President of the United States speaking to schoolchildren about the importance of staying in school, working hard, and being good citizens.

Troubled somewhat by the hypocrisy...

First, I'm an avid supporter of the 1st Amendment. This covers all manner of ills, in that I am support people's right to their voice and opinions regardless of how much I agree OR disagree with them. I'm not supportive of inflammatory behavior (infringement of others' rights by proxy - as demonstrated so often by both sides of the political fence in the mainstream media, but predominantly by Faux News) - that is not what the protection of the 1st Amendment is about. However, civil disagreement and rational discourse over said disagreement? Absolutely! When productive rational discourse transpires, we all benefit from the outcomes of divergent views working together to achieve a common goal.

Second, I detest email forwards of religious and/or political nature. I don't mind "feel goods" and "funnies" - even if I don't respond to them...even if I delete them...and yeah, some of those funnies include politics. I *like* political funnies that trash any and all sides of the political spectrum. Why? They're funny...but do I take them seriously? For any purpose of actual discussion? No. *rolls eyes* I leave discourse of comedic take on politics to those who excel at it - the Jon Stewarts and Steven Colberts of the world, as well as the members of the SNL casts over time. Newsflash to neocons -- they blast all sides...all the time. Nobody is immune to lampooning - nor should they be, quite frankly.

Third, in my estimation - the current healthcare debate has become, unfortunately, the civil war of our time - thanks to people on both sides spreading misinformation - and again, I am particularly critical of Faux News - so if you happen to be conservative, and see this as a bias on my part, fine. But when you watch through the lens of retrospect over the past, oh, 13 years or so - and get honest about what has been reported over that time - you begin to wonder on the glaring hypocrisy of people like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck et al...who are perfectly content with deplorable behavior - IF the behavior is demonstrated or conducted by a Republican/"conservative". Otherwise, they have their blasting coming and deservedly so. *blink* Huh...really? Unethical behavior is only worth of lambasting when it's done by a Democrat/"liberal"?!?! Did I miss the memo on that somewhere? Wait...maybe I did, in fact. See - when we look *hard* at what Faux News IS, there is little question. With something like 12 years of Republican rule between 1980 and 1992...there was little "need" for Rupert Murdoch to create Faux News, since his "views" were backed by dominant Republican reign. It wasn't til Clinton came into office that Faux News was invented - just a couple of years after Clinton took office, in fact. *blink* Don't believe me? Go look for yourself.

Taking it to a more personal level...

Fourth, what I am finding quite troubling is the anger and resentment toward me by friends and family who do not like that I fact-check QUITE a lot. I did it with Dubya, and I do it with Obama - or if you prefer..."fill-in-the-blank Congressperson"...seriously. I was not...AM not...Dubya's biggest fan, but I did work to dispell misinformation when I received it in email form - which I only received these emails from people with whom I share political views. Interesting, that. I don't have to "like" a politician to want to ensure correctness in dissemination of information. Not to say I haven't accidentally sent out a forward that was incorrect - because I have - but I at least try to confirm information before I redistribute it. I rarely received ANY emails related to Dubya from my conservative family members and friends...so they would have had no reason to know first-hand that I pick apart information about everyone if it lands in my inbox - IF I happen to read it, of course.

But since early to mid-2008, when the presidential campaign heated up royally, I started receiving emails left and right (hehe, see what I did there?) from friends & family on the conservative side of the house - and I ripped apart the information contained in the emails. Exhausting? Yes. Necessary? Yes. Funny, though, the reactions I received - YIKES! Scary. Have I stopped loving family members with whom I disagree (strongly) on a political plane? No, of course not! Have I stopped caring about people with whom I've been friends since before I became politically active on the basis of their political position??? No, absolutely not.

However, it seems that certain friends -who shall remain nameless- do not share that stance. Because I disagree with them politically (and/or religiously), and do not kowtow in silence in the face of those disagreements, I am not "worthy" of being their friend. Hell, my opinion on that is that if friendship -especially such long-standing friendships- can be torn apart so easily, then they must not have been such great friendships as I thought. Perhaps it's because I didn't email/forward vitriol about their preferred politicians and leaders when they had the helm that they assumed that I was possibly in agreement with them on some level??? *sigh*

Carrying it further - I had one friend who, on my facebook wall, told me to not post political garbage on "her" facebook. *blink* To be fair here, I don't know if this person realized that when something is posted to the wall, the update/notification goes into the main feed of anyone who is friended within facebook - but I got the impression she thought I was singling her out. Not so...but that isn't really the point. If it's "okay" to inundate friends' and family's inboxes with political content that is potentially disagreeable, how is it "wrong" for me to go about my stance - differently? I'm public about it...I don't hide behind the private anonymity of email and then paste something different in a public place.

This particular friend - I choose to not discuss politics with her. Which is fine. But in the past year, I've taken to asking how family is doing (unrelated to politics at ALL) with no response. As though because I disagree with her in one plane, that is supposed to bleed into other areas... No no no. Like I said in my status update - I find it pathetic and sad when people do that. I tend to compartmentalize things - out of necessity and context. If this person no longer wishes to be my friend, after greater than 20 years, that is of course within her rights...but that doesn't change how pathetic the cowardly behavior is. I only realized I had been "unfriended" through a mutual friend's page. *rolls eyes* Saaaaaaad...pathetic and sad.

Like I said to another friend (and yes, publicly), I find it very sad when people can't disagree with grace...it's *okay* to debate. It's *okay* to disagree - vehemently, even. But at the end of the day, the affection of friends & family should remain unchanged.

/rant

P/L/S
prosey