Language shapes our thought processes, according to all the psycholinguistic literature you care to read. The language we use to salute the flag of our nation and the language we use to govern the nation itself is both ignorant and obsolete. I was halfway through school before I even realized that the Pledge of Allegiance is all one sentence, and that the way it describes this nation is somebody's pipe dream.

If you check the dictionary, you will find that you cannot pledge allegiance to a flag, but only to "the nation for which it stands." The word "and" before that phrase reveals ignorance. Are we supposed to be loyal to the flag and the nation? I am loyal to the nation; I love this land with its geographic and cultural diversity. But pledging loyalty to a symbol is a jingoistic act. (Jingoism = an excess of patriotism.) We pledge allegiance, but we salute the flag. This is an important distinction. Please recognize this distinction by using the appropriate language.

Far be it from me to suggest a problem without proposing a solution. We must face the fact that the people like flags, pledges, and patriotic songs. I am recording an original patriotic song that is meant to reclaim the flag and the country for ALL Americans and call for peace and human rights in our global community. While I was at it, I wrote a Pledge that a small child or a recent immigrant can understand. The last sentence is deliberately vague since we are subject to other laws besides federal ones, and some Americans live in foreign countries to whom they also owe obedience.

"I pledge allegiance to the United States of America. I pledge respect for this nation's flag. I pledge obedience to the laws of the place I call home."

I had originally put something in there about the Constitution and its amendments including the Bill of Rights, but then I downloaded, printed, and read the documents carefully several times, and guess what? It's a mess! Many of the amendments (after the first 10) are in conflict or contradiction with the intent of the Founding Fathers, and that intent did not include the principles outlined in more modern documents such as the World Charter.

Almost all of the amendments are attempts to settle administrative problems brought on by the rapid growth of the nation and diversification of the economy after the industrial revolution. The language doesn't address human rights or other socio-economic changes that have resulted from major cultural revolutions such as the advent of electricity, communication media, and the automobile, or the evolution from the vacuum tube to the transistor to the microchip and fiber optics in the way we process information. I would remind the reader that ignoring human rights and cultural revolutions resulted in the bloodiest war in our history.

Some amendments are even amendments to amendments. How confusing is THAT? And other than granting 18-year-olds the right to vote (a no-brainer since they were eligible for the draft), there has been no attention paid to human rights and cultural revolutions since the Suffragettes won their long, hard battle. (The Civil Rights Act was a piece of legislation, not an amendment.)

I move that we convene a National Caucus and consider the possibility of replacing our worn-out, patched-up, obsolete charter with a document that addresses the priorities of the new millenium. Such a Caucus should have a newly-chosen non-partisan representative from each Congressional District. It should be moderated by peace and human rights not-for-profit organizations working in concert to insure that the selection of said representatives and the proceedings of said Caucus are transparent and that frequent feedback from the constituency is sought and heeded.