I wrote about my experience speaking before the Encinitas City Council in a diary last night. Before I went out there, I wrote a letter to a friend, Mike Newdow, who challenged "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance right up to arguing before the Supreme Court.
This was the first diary that broke the story two weeks ago.
Busby Fundraiser Police Fracas
This is the one I wrote after returning from the council last night.
Just back from speaking at City Council
After the break is my letter to Mike:
Mike,
Don't know whether this little bit of right wing police over-reach made it to Sacramento. I had an essay that describes it that you can read here, Busby Fundraiser Police Fracas.
This is a hot issue locally on many levels, and I'm thinking of using my allocated three minutes tonight at the city council, which contracts out law enforcement to the San Diego County Sheriff's department. The council is under the impression that this absolves them of responsibility to monitor the actions of the department, and to some degree it does. But it is not absolute, as they seem to have a certain duty of oversight.
As I think about my words, if I choose to speak, what comes to mind is that old issue of the Pledge of Allegiance, but not the part added in 1954. There is something quite inappropriate in the very first words, that Americans, whose ethos was formed by denying "allegiance" should as an act of solidarity with the nation's values, make such a pledge.
The root of "allegiance" is subservience to a sovereign, as this discussionin Wikipedia explores. The mood is of passive acceptance, of obedience; and the reference to the deity only reinforces this pre-existing implication.
The City Council members that I may address all regularly recite the pledge of allegiance....to a nation with "liberty and justice for all." So they have agreed to follow some concept, the power represented by the flag, that they trust will provide this liberty and justice.
What if instead they recited an alternative statement, "I dedicate myself to the pursuit and defense of the constitution of the United States of American and principles of liberty and justice for all"
No allegiance to anything, since these things, "liberty and justice" are only there if the people decide to ensure they be there. It would become an active statement rather than a passive one, an acknowledgment of Benjaman Franklin's answer to the question of what kind of country the Constitutional Convention is providing, "A republic, if you can keep it."
As I have dug deeper into the defects of our city's police agency, what is actually undeniable is there is a right wing tilt that was expressed by the actions at the fundraiser. I won't go into the details, and it was not a planned conspiratorial action, but rather a reflection of a para-military organization that has devolved into a predictable pattern. Power thrives on more power. Once an entity finds it can rule by fear, why should they accept anything less. Yet, such pathologies will probably grow in the absence of a populace who has a dedication to ensure their own liberty and justice for all.
Meanwhile, this arcane issue of minor civil right denial dovetails with the issue of financial insolvency of a great state. Somehow, those deputies with a high school degree (minimum educational requirement) with little understanding of complexities of civil rights laws, are allowed to interpret, and then enforce these laws (they receive well over a hundred thousand dollars a year in total remuneration); those who challenge the disproportionate amount of public resources expended are castigated by liberals as being anti-union, and conservatives as being anti-law enforcement.
I should stay home tonight, have another shot of scotch and watch an old movie; rather than attempt to change our national mindset. But I'm tempted to state my position.
Whats a good medication for incipient delusions of grandeur?
Al
His prescription for my "mental illness" (he's a doctor) is one word, "Writing."