Yesterday, Cassy posted a piece about a bunch of proto-communists (yeah, I know that’s harsh, but I think it’s a fair assumption about a bunch of high-school twits who call themselves the “Student Workers Club,” whom I doubt any of them have ever held a job) who re-wrote the Pledge of Allegiance to suit their own agenda.
Before I go into that specific rant, however, I have a few other things I want to clear out of the way.
First, I was pretty damned disappointed in some of you folks in the comments. Yes, the young lady shown in the picture is comely. And yes, her ideas are aggravating. But that’s no excuse to resort to objectifying her or threatening her with violence (no matter how seductive the pun about “hitting it” might seem). Her person isn’t the objectionable thing here, but her ideas. Going after her is little more than “shooting the messenger.” While I have no doubt she was chosen as the figurehead at least partly based on the “pretty girls get more attention” factor, that’s no reason to play along with the game.
Secondly, I agree that the Pledge needs to be reworked. Or, rather, un-reworked. The “under God” was added in the 50’s as a reaction to “godless Communism,” and tends to exclude people who either don’t believe in God or prefer not to say His name. As an agnostic, I find myself simply dropping that phrase when I recite it, and I wonder what Orthodox Jews (the first group that doesn’t say “God” that comes to mind) do.
(A quick note: if I get one more e-mail from that raving psychotic asshole who wants EVERYONE IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE TO KNOW HIS CRACKPOT ARGUMENT THAT THE PLEDGE IS A NAZI PLOT, I may punch something. Like a wall or a couch. And I will report that raving psychotic asshole to his internet provider if he e-mails me yet again.)
Anyway, back to that revised pledge. Here’s what the little collectivists want us all to recite:
“I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all.”
Let’s take that apart, shall we?
“I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes.”
In other words, I pledge allegiance to ME. After all, it’s all about ME, not my country.
“And to the diversity, in which our nation stands…”
I’ve stood in “diversity.” It reminded me of the time I walked through a cow field, and found myself standing in a rather sizable portion of diversity.
It’s not even good grammar. “Diversity” is an abstract concept, and an incredibly vague one. In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that, politically speaking, “diversity” boils down to “anything that does not describe me.”
I am a heterosexual white male, with a libertarian/conservative bent. (The former by nature, the latter by choice.) Whenever I hear someone say that we “need to promote diversity,” I translate that as “screw you.” It means that they want to hire/promote/bring in/elect/choose someone that is, in at least one major factor, not me. I need not apply. Because of those factors cited above, especially the ones in which I had no say, I am already privileged and rewarded enough; it’s time to give someone else a hand up — anyone else. My abilities, my status, the content of my character, all those other factors are trumped by my whiteness, my maleness, my heterosexuality.
If that isn’t clear enough, let me spell it out: I am against diversity. I am wholly in favor of discrimination in the interests of homogeneity.
I want discrimination based on merit. I want a focus on uniformity of excellence. I want positions filled on the basis of who is the best person for the job, not on tokenism and symbolism.
The ultimate expression of “diversity,” to me, was made by Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior, James Watt. Watt was an idiot on many, many levels, but one of them was being a bit ahead of the curve on “diversity,” as well as being too honest about it: He once said of his staff: “I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple.” He resigned less than three weeks later.
To me, the ideal would be “we’re going to recruit the absolute best people we can. We don’t care about their race, sex, color, creed, medical conditions, sexual orientation, national origin, hair color, eye color, shoe size, political beliefs, or carbon footprint. We want the best. If we end up with all white men or all left-handed lesbian Eskimo midget albinos, so be it.”
Um… where was I? Oh, yeah, the pinko punk high schoolers and their daffy pledge.
Hey, what happened to “the Republic for which it stands?” I guess recognizing and honoring our form of government — a Democratic Republic, a Representative Democracy — is rather gauche. Especially when you’re plotting an uprising among the proletariat.
“…one nation, part of one planet…”
So much for statehood for any space habitats or lunar colonies. Conveniently, they’ve replaced the field of stars (one per state) with a chicken’s footprint, so we wouldn’t have to worry about reworking the flag anyway.
“…with liberty, freedom…”
Not much superfluous redundancy there.
I kicked that around last week; I really don’t feel like repeating myself.
“…and justice for all.”
Young lady, if there was true justice, then a bunch of whiny, dippy high school students would not be allowed to call themselves “student workers” until they’d held down a job for at least a month. And while I’m wildly speculating and stereotyping and assuming, I’ll go so far as to say that not one of your fellow “student workers” actually intends to ever become a “worker.” You have no interests in actually working for an hourly wage, doing actual labor — you most likely want to be professionals or, more likely, academics, never leaving the womb of academia for the real world. (Except, of course, for politics or government service — but without that icky whole “campaigning among the sweaty masses” that Hillary Clinton so obviously dislikes.)
All in all, it’s a pretty mediocre re-write. They kept the beginning and ending intact, along with a couple of phrases in the middle, but filled it out with their own ideology and fantasies.
I take a bit of pride whenever I recite the Pledge. To me, its power is not in the words, but that I recite them freely and willingly, and believe in what I am saying.
But between these worthless gits, the militant athiests, and the above-mentioned obsessed asshole, I’m wondering if we’d be better off just getting rid of the whole thing.