• Home Page
  • About this website
  • Biography
  • Dr. B's Notes
  • Contact
Richard S. Beam

​103     Some Thoughts Precipitated by Ken Burns & Lynn Novick’s The Vietnam War and Other Recent Developments

9/29/2017

0 Comments

 
I’ve been watching The Vietnam War by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick on PBS over the last couple of weeks, and it has put me in a contemplative mood over a number of recent developments in the current political scene.  Now, while I was teaching, I always felt that it was important to do everything I could to keep politics outside of the classroom as it was not a part of the subject matter I was responsible for.  As a teacher, and a public employee, I felt that my personal political opinions did not belong in the classroom.  I was probably not always completely successful in this, but I did try to maintain a neutral position in the classroom.  I have tended to try to continue this sort of policy in this blog, at least most of the time.
 
However, watching both this film (which I recommend) and recent news coverage, along with my stated interest in First Amendment issues (see “About This Website on this web site) has precipitated such strong emotions that I cannot, in good conscience, let the situation stand without comment.  I refer, of course, to the recent statements of He Who Will Not Be Named (a.k.a. “Big D”) regarding the flag and the National Anthem protests which have become something of a preoccupation by so many.
 
While watching the movie’s episodes, I could not help but remember how I felt during the time period being discussed.  I lived through this period.  It was an important part of my youth.  I (like all other male citizens of the time) was required to carry a “draft card” and I was subject to being summoned for possible service in the military.  I was even “ordered to report” for a pre-draft physical twice.  For reasons which I don’t intend to discuss, I was not required to actually report for service, but that is (in my opinion) irrelevant.  I WAS subject to call and I did live through the period and am still grateful that I was not required to make a decision about either serving or fleeing the country to avoid service in a war which I always felt was immoral and unjustified.  If Burns and Novick are correct, our political leaders throughout this period knew that this war was unwinnable and was based on a theory that we (the United States) had a right to interfere with another country’s destiny, because it was felt to be in OUR interest.  But, I won’t dwell on that.
 
What the film brought to me was a sense of déjà vu over the attitude, quite common at that time, of the necessity for anyone who wished to be considered a “patriot” to support all actions of the country, whether one actually agreed with those actions, or not.  The slogan “My country, right or wrong” was pretty common and anyone who did not “fully support” the country was often viewed as a traitor and certainly should have no right to express opinions contrary to established political policy.  This led to the attitude that the flag was sacred and could not ever be used as a symbol of protest against established policy in any way.  It even led to the now (seemingly mandatory) practice of political figures wearing a flag-shaped lapel pin.  I remember such pins as first appearing during the Nixon presidency influenced, I believe, by The Candidate, a movie starring Robert Redford.  Nixon, so the story goes, liked this lapel pin so much that he wore one and required it of his aides.  I am told that ABC News (perhaps others) prohibited reporters and anchors from wearing them because it suggested a lack of appropriate neutrality for what wished to be seen as an “objective news source.” 
 
However, in 1989, burning the flag was ruled by the US Supreme Court as “… symbolic speech that is protected by the First Amendment” as a form of protest  (Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397).  That ruling makes it acceptable (under law) to “disrespect” the flag as an act of protest.  While probably not specifically covered by this ruling, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that actions which some might see as “disrespecting” the National Anthem (by Francis Scott Key, which was not written until the War of 1812 and set to a popular British tune of the time) wasn’t established by Congress as “The National Anthem” until 1931, or the Pledge of Allegiance (which was altered in 1954 to include the words “under God”), nor the US motto, “In God We Trust” (which didn’t become official until 1956) are also protected.  I remember the changes to the Pledge and the creation of the motto and I have always felt they were dangerously close to violating the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment, but I digress.
 
What bothers me, as someone who has studied symbols all of his life (Theatre IS symbolic in nature, after all.) is that far too many people seem to have confused symbols (“something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance”) with reality.  It seems to me that there is also some confusion over the purpose of our patriotic symbols.  These symbols represent the country by representing the principals of the country.  They are NOT the country, itself, and they certainly are not the property of any specific political leader or philosophy.
 
Andrew Shepherd (a character in The American President by Arron Sorkin) said it pretty well: “America isn't easy.  America is advanced citizenship.  You've gotta want it bad, cause it's gonna put up a fight.  It's gonna say ‘You want free speech?  Let's see you acknowledge a man who's words make your blood boil, and who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.’  You want to claim this land as the land of the free?  Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag.  The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.  Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.  Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.”         
                 
I believe in the First Amendment.  If NFL players wish to protest what they see as racial injustice by peacefully and quietly taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem, that is their right!  If Neo-Nazis wish to march in the streets of Charlottesville, that is their right!  If the Westboro Baptist Church wishes to protest against equal rights for people whose sexual behaviors they deplore, that is their right!  HOWEVER, they must do so peacefully and in compliance with reasonable laws regarding times and places of such protests.  All Americans should support this. 
 
That does not mean that I have to agree with them.  It does not mean that I have to abdicate my right to protest against them.  It DOES mean that I have to grant them the right to have an opinion, no matter how much I disagree with it.  HOWEVER, they must also allow me the right to have that differing opinion!  And, as a citizen, I have the right to present that opinion, provided that I do so peacefully and legally!
 
This is the especial obligation of our political leadership.  Disagreement was the basis for the foundation of this country.  I once quoted the character Stephen Hopkins (from Peter Stone and Sherman Edward’s 1776) during a potentially controversial discussion in the WCU Faculty Senate saying “Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about.”  We OWE it to our country to be willing to talk about anything and to insist that our leaders do the same. 
 
I believe it was Edmund Burke who said "that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion."  That suggests a major obligation on those of us who elect our representatives at all levels (all too often far too few of us, I’m afraid).  We should be electing people whose judgment we trust, not those who create their opinions by just responding to the polling data or the desires of their donors. 
 
Another notion which has come to the fore recently is to refer to “our heritage” as if it was sacred and is often used to represent the idea that it is a denial of history to consider the removal of symbols of the Confederacy, be they flags, statues or other symbols.  Now, I am not going to deny the historical fact of the Civil War, nor do I wish to get into a debate about its causes.  Those issues go back a good deal further than many are aware.  In 1776 (yes, I am VERY fond of that musical and movie) it is pointed out that the original Declaration of Independence included an anti-slavery section.  In the script, part of the debate on that section runs as follows:
 
John Adams:  That little paper there deals with freedom for Americans!
Edward Rutledge:  Oh, really.  Mr. Adams is now calling our black slaves "Americans!"  Are they, now?
John Adams: Yes, they are.  They are people, and they are here.  If there's any other requirement, I haven't heard it.
Edward Rutledge:  They are here, yes, but they are not people sir, they are property.
Thomas Jefferson:  No, sir, they are people who are being treated as property!
 
Obviously, the anti-slavery section was ultimately deleted in order to allow the Declaration to be passed, which may be too bad, but IS a fact.  It is also a fact that the whole idea of a colony, or group of colonies, rebelling was an unprecedented action.  Again from 1776:
 
John Dickinson:  … are you seriously suggesting that we publish a paper declaring to all the world that an illegal rebellion is, in reality, a legal one?
Benjamin Franklin:  Oh Mr. Dickinson, I'm surprised at you.  You should know that rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion."  It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it is illegal.
 
Yes, it is a fact that our “Founding Fathers” were traitors to the British crown.  That is not debatable.  But, as Franklin states, they won, so they became (at least on this side of the Atlantic) our “patriotic Founders” instead, at least in our history.
 
However, when the Confederate States was formed, its citizens (including its leaders) had been citizens of the United States.  Now, I won’t debate the question of these men being caught in a difficult situation between their duty to the US and what they felt was their duty to their States.  I see a parallel here with many men about my age who faced a difficult choice during the Vietnam era between “duty to country” and personal beliefs.  On the other hand, the Confederate generals, in large part, were commissioned officers in the US military, hence they had taken an oath to defend the US.  When the war broke out, many of them resigned those commissions in order to take up arms against the US.  That would appear to be a textbook example of treason, which, I feel, in my own perhaps prejudiced way, is not paralleled by those of us who disagreed with the Vietnam War and were being forced to join the military against their wishes or to lose our citizenship. 
 
I have often thought it odd that some people wish to honor a “heritage” of treason through honoring statues, flags, etc. which are symbols of those traitorous acts on the part of Confederates.  When one combines that oddity with the fact that such Confederate notables as Robert E. Lee did not wish for monuments to be erected in honor of their defiance of the United States, it becomes even more puzzling.  “It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments,” said Jonathan Horn, the author of the Lee biography, The Man Who Would Not Be Washington.
 
It is also, I believe, worth noting that many of the statues of Lee and other Confederates were not raised until well after the Civil War during the rise of “Jim Crow” laws, the KKK, etc.  I find it strange that many people should wish to declare their pride in a “heritage” which was based on divisiveness, racism, hatred, and treason.
 
Of course, much of my concern about this may be my concern over the conflation of the ideas that patriotism means support for political leadership.  I will acknowledge that “Big D” is the President, but I refuse to accept that that means I have to blindly accept his tweets as equivalent to Gospel.  This is to say nothing of the fact that I believe that it is against established ethical rules for a publically elected official to interfere with the employment practices of a private company.  If professional sports teams wish to try to create rules to abolish the First Amendment for their employees, that is their right, but I doubt if that view will stand up to scrutiny of the courts.  But it’s not up to “Big D.”  If members of any group don’t wish to support the policies (tweets seem to be all most of them are) of “Big D” and his buds, he doesn’t have to like it, but it is their right to do so.  AND WE AS GOOD AMERICANS HAVE TO SUPPORT THIS!  It’s what the flag, the pledge, and the anthem SYMBOLIZE!  Not supporting the stated values of the country is the real way of “disrespecting” those who died to defend those values.  They didn’t fight for a piece of cloth, a song, or a pledge; they fought for the IDEA of America!  And that idea includes the right “…peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
 
LLAP
0 Comments

102     Heard Any Good Ones Lately? #5

9/14/2017

0 Comments

 
After TWO hurricanes devastating parts of the South, DACA in real limbo, Facebook apparently used by the Russians to try to influence the last election, Congress planning to work only 12 days this months with many major items on their plate, etc. etc. etc. it’s just too difficult to even think much about a normal post, so I won’t even try.  Perhaps I’ll feel more like the usual thing in a week, or two.
 
For Harry Potter fans, someone sent me sent this pictures of the Sept. 1 train schedule at King’s Cross station in London:

Picture

Now the Hogwart’s Express (according to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone) is normally scheduled for 11:00, so it either it had already left, it wasn’t really “On Time,” or the schedule has changed, but I found this amusing and have to give them points for the effort.
 
As I think I’ve said before, one of my favorite sources for this material is a restaurant and seafood monger here in Omaha.  They recently sent out the following to explain why some poor guy retired:
 
I worked in the woods as a lumberjack, but I just couldn’t hack it, so they gave me the axe.
After that, I tried working in a donut shop, but I soon got tired of the hole business.
I manufactured calendars, but my days were numbered.
I tried to be a tailor, but I just wasn’t suited for it.  Mainly because it was a sew-sew job, de-pleating and de-pressing.
I took a job as an upholsterer, but I never recovered.
I tried working in a car muffler factory, but that was exhausting.
I wanted to be a barber, but I just couldn’t cut it.
Then I was a pilot, but tended to wing it, and I didn’t have the right altitude.
I studied to become a doctor, but I didn’t have enough patients for the job.
I became a Velcro salesman, but I couldn’t stick with it.
I tried my hand at a professional career in tennis, but it wasn’t my racket.  I was too high strung.
I became a baker, but it wasn’t a cakewalk, and I couldn’t make enough dough.  They fired me after I left a cake out in the rain.
I was a masseur for a while, but I rubbed people the wrong way.
I managed to get a good job working for a pool maintenance company, but the work was just too draining.
I became a personal trainer in a gym, but they said I wasn’t fit for the job.
I thought about being a historian, but I couldn’t see a future in it.
Next I was an electrician, but I found the work shocking and revolting, so they discharged me.
I tried being a teacher, but I soon lost my principal, my faculties, and my class.
I turned to farming, but I wasn’t outstanding in my field.
I took a job as an elevator operator.  The job had its ups and downs, and I got the shaft.
I sold origami, but the business folded.
I took a job at UPS, but I couldn’t express myself.
I tried being a fireman, but I suffered burnout.
I became a banker, but I lacked interest and maturity, and finally withdrew from the job.
I was a professional fisherman, but I couldn’t live on my net income.
I next worked in a shoe factory, but I just didn’t fit in.  They thought I was a loafer, and I got the boot.
I worked at Starbucks, but I had to quit because it was always the same old grind.
So I’ve retired, and I find I’m a perfect fit for this job!
 
 
For those folks (like me) who simply do not, and cannot, comprehend why Facebook exists:  I am found this explanation of how someone tried to make friends outside of Facebook while applying the same principles.
 
He walked down the street everyday telling passersby what he have eaten, how he felt at the moment, what he had done the night before, what he was doing now, what he would be doing later and with whom, and where he was going next… and asking them to follow along with him and watch him be important.
 
Then he gave them pictures of his family, his dog, and himself gardening, taking things apart in the garage, watering the lawn, standing in front of landmarks, washing the car, driving around town, eating lunch, getting a haircut, and doing what anybody and everybody does every day.
 
He also listened to their conversations, gave them the "thumbs up" and told them he liked them and would be friends with them.
 
He said that it all worked just like Facebook…. only he did it face to face… not on a little glass screen.
 
He already had four people following him: two police officers, a private investigator and a psychiatrist.
 
                                                                                    Joke Courtesy of Marilyn Titze
 
For anyone who loves coffee as much as I do, yet worries about not getting enough exercise:

Picture
If any of this makes your day just a bit happier, so much the better, it’s helped me a bit just to put it together.
 
LLAP

0 Comments

    Just personal comments about things which interest me (and might interest others).

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly