REMARKS: THE FOURTH BRINGS OUT MY 'INCORRECT' FEELINGS

Somehow, the Fourth of July has a way of making one stop and think about the heritage of the United States -- which, of course, was exactly the idea behind making July 4 a national holiday. It is hard to see the flag unfurling in the wind or honor guards standing at attention, or even fireworks going off, without pausing a moment to reflect.

As someone now working on his MA in history, I am very aware that history (as predicted by George Orwell) is being constantly rewritten. The settlers at Plymouth and Jamestown were only interested in money. They were religious bigots, who stole the Native Americans' land and plundered it. Our Founding Fathers were deists and hypocrites, again more concerned with economics than either freedom OR religious ideals. African-American Christianity was an opiate to keep the slaves in line and is BARELY tolerated today, only as an artifact of black culture. (And I wonder how long THAT lasts, considering current trends!) I could go on and on about the mad dog imperialist capitalists who took over the continent by force, then became imperialist tyrants on an international level ... but you can read any of this yourself, in your kids' history books! Personally, I would love someday to be able to write some politically incorrect, but ACCURATE history books of this nation and its faith.

Trying to imagine the United States as a sovereign nation, based on freedom, equality and all the other virtues we still claim to take pride in, but without the basis of the Judeo-Christian beliefs as the backbone, seems ludicrous to me. So many (or so FEW, in the right places, perhaps) today want to ignore that spiritual backbone of America -- or, at least to distance themselves from it.

Today the same basic religious freedoms our forefathers fought to obtain are being stripped away from us. The Supreme Court case involving prayer before athletic events was a real blow -- but not a huge surprise. Time after time, one or two individuals, unearthed by the ironically-named American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are poked and prodded into saying they feel uncomfortable when the other 98 percent of their neighbors exercise their beliefs. Now, for the sake of the two, we strip the rights of the 98.

At the same time, we are constantly warned and reminded that we cannot discipline a child, speak our mind, eat an animal, or do anything else that is not deemed "correct" by the far left. Of course some in the far right don't help matters any by taking extreme stands of their own at times.

Although I have always been a person who would vote for the best person in each race, regardless of party, I've considered myself one whose party is represented by a pachyderm since I was nine. Hearing this organization called the party of the rich, unconcerned about the poor, etc., has always bothered me. I'm not denying that some of the criticism has been earned over the years. I think it is really just a question of approach. Members of the other party traditionally have wanted to solve problems by giving federal money directly to the people/institution in question -- sometimes on a one-time basis, but frequently by launching ongoing programs.

Pachyderm backers have traditionally believed in "priming the machinery," encouraging business and economy in general, in the belief that workers and consumers of all income levels cannot help but benefit.

I think both approaches have their place. FDR and his New Deal was about the only thing that would have gotten America through the 1930s (other than jumping in W.W.II several years earlier). Personally, I would like to see Republicans put a little more emphasis on education. (I think the move toward vouchers, etc., is a positive step.)

Obviously pure liberal and pure conservative ideologies both have flaws. If you and I and everybody on our street or highway got the same amount of money, were guaranteed the same level of health care and had everything else in life doled out equally by Uncle Sam, it would be kind of nice -- kind of. On the other hand, if I really don't want to do much more than the minimum work required of me and am not interested improving myself, why should I be guaranteed the same as my neighbor, who comes home, works to start a home business, goes back to school, or invents a better mousetrap in his basement?

I agree that we in the Pachyderm camp DO need to show a little more heart for the poor -- or at least to let others see that we (already) do. I guess the big thing with me is this: I'm sure my parents were -- and I imagine I am -- technically below the poverty line. Yet my goal, my dream, has never been to get the softest job I can, with the most benefits; my dream has always been to own the company, to find that better mousetrap idea. I guess I'm just a capitalist at heart. I hate to see taxes increased for those in the $100,000 range because I still have this (silly) dream that one day I'LL be there ... and I'd hate to finally have my dreams come true, only to lose 80 percent of what I've made to a poor-first British-style tax system or other welfare state.

I guess I'm guilty of hanging onto the old "American Dream," that any kid with a bright idea, some gumption and enough elbow grease, can MAKE that move into the upper class. I don't know if they've found a way to classify THIS as "politically incorrect" yet, or not. If they do, then I guess I'm just that much more out of step with today's drummers.