I'd guess similar.

Post #63,169 by Brandioch 11/15/02 10:53:58 PM Reply	I'd guess similar. Push the mindless nationalism and it goes hand-in-hand with the mindless religion. I want to hear what they claim their rational is. What will this protect us from?
Post #63,181 by Silverlock 11/16/02 4:52:46 AM Reply	Both you and Ashton are reacting to the wrong thing A plague of patriotism infected this statehouse and they decided to send a message to the voters. Politicians don't do things that piss off voters. They'll piss of the ACLU and other watchdog groups, but not voters. This law didn't get passed with subverting the constitution as a goal. It got passed with winning votes as a goal. We can only rely on the separation of powers that gave us a judicial branch to get this overturned, as it has overturned all previous attempts. In all other cases ever brought to higher court. No forced Pledge law has withstood examination. The insidious aspect of this one is the provision for kids to "opt out". The parents of the offending (sorry... I meant non-conforming/non-patriotic) child will be notified. That provision may well allow this to stand. I thought Republicans liked keeping government out of peoples lives.
Post #63,184 by Brandioch 11/16/02 5:11:28 AM Reply	I don't think so. True, the politicians are in it for the votes. A plague of patriotism infected this statehouse and they decided to send a message to the voters. That's my point. Why was this NEEDED? Not why was it suggested. You can get just about ANY law passed by claiming "it will protect the children". This law didn't get passed with subverting the constitution as a goal. It got passed with winning votes as a goal. Maybe not the overt goal. Maybe not even conciously. But the message is the same. The children will be pressured to swear an oath to us (the politicians ruling this country). We can only rely on the separation of powers that gave us a judicial branch to get this overturned, as it has overturned all previous attempts. Yep. All previous attempts. Yet the attempts keep coming. Like I said, those idiots are arguing about how to get this passed. None of them are saying WHY we need the children to recite an oath. They're looking at how to get it passed. That provision may well allow this to stand. Okay, this is something that is completely against my political beliefs. That this law is even SUGGESTED without CLEARLY specifying the PROBLEM it is to address. What PROBLEM does this law address? That some children are NOT swearing allegiance to their country every morning? That we don't have sufficient indoctrination for nationalism? That some of these children might QUESTION whether their government is right? I thought Republicans liked keeping government out of peoples lives. Ummm, no. They want government out of business (while keeping government there to protect business). They are completely for monitoring and regulating your personal life.
Post #63,192 by Silverlock 11/16/02 5:49:23 AM Reply	Damn I got parsed. And I'm too tired to do a point by point response. I thought my point (admittedly longwinded) was that the "opt out" provision in this bill is what makes it so objectionable. What exactly is it about this observation you are disagreeing with?
Post #63,269 by Brandioch 11/16/02 5:31:10 PM Reply	My objection. #1. That ANY oath is being administered to CHILDREN. #2. The "opt-out" policy MIGHT be enough to get this passed. #3. But, back to my original point.... WHY is #1. NECESSARY? And THAT is the part that no one can answer. Not "well, would you accept it with THESE restrictions?" Not "well, it MIGHT pass the USSC with THESE restrictions". But what SPECIFIC PROBLEM is this supposed to address? I understand why we have speed limits. I understand why we have laws against stealing. I understand why we have cops. I do NOT understand what this law will PROTECT anyone from.
Post #64,103 by jb4 11/20/02 2:35:19 PM Reply	Oh,...the irony... I thought Republicans liked keeping government out of peoples lives. Bzzzzzt! Nice try! Thankyou for playing! Johnny has some nice consolation gifts for you backstage! The correct answer is: "Republicans like saying they like keeping government out of poeple's lives" jb4 "They lead. They don't manage. The carrot always wins over the stick. Ask your horse. You can lead your horse to water, but you can't manage him to drink." Richard Kerr, United Technologies Corporation, 1990
Post #63,190 by Ashton 11/16/02 5:47:40 AM Reply	A shameless barter.. Based upon supposing a rather retarded anthropomorphic 'God', easily duped by faux demonstrations of 'adoration', as in.. Uh look God - we just wantcha to know we're With Ya, y'know? I mean - You're the One we Adore - Really. See: We even Said So. {Umm - are Ya With Us too? Huh? Huh?} About the same utility as.. a "Dell Service Contract" ? (I have recent experience with that one. Answer: ..as tits on a board.) Or: "Now I lay me down to sleep... if my country should self-destruct before I wake? Don't wake me." Do we have a hint now ~ how the brighter Romans felt when Caligula, Nero were Selected Residents, even before each determined that he was a God (too)? Imagine the rationale offered and {urp} digested by those who wanted to continue living. Now it's 2002 - can National Unity or [You're] Bust[ed] - be far away? This would be fucking laughable all by itself - yet here we are in a looming situation - wherein maybe only the better cartoonists, with the satire of a Swift? can reverse this momentum building towards fascist insanity locally, and exponentially growing hatred from the outside. And these loonies want GOD back in a coerced 'pledge' ! Just like Caligula. PS - in the preview book, "It Can't Happen Here" - the Good Guys (some) escaped to Canada. The Canadians viewed US govt. then as 'a bit loony'; treated the emigr\ufffds well. Well, that was fiction and 1935..
Post #63,274 by Brandioch 11/16/02 5:40:29 PM Reply	You got it. Again, a LITTLE FUCKING HISTORICAL RESEARCH and it will be shown that "under God" was added because we wanted to DIFFERENTIATE our indoctrination pledges for young children from..... those GODLESS COMMUNIST's indoctrination pledges for young children. After all, it was blatant that THEIR indoctrination pledges were designed to mold those young, impressionable minds to serve the State. Whereas OUR indoctination pledges are to... ummm..... teach what our country stands for. Scenario: A classroom of children rise and recite an oath. One child refuses to recite it. Is that child a brave little hero or an unpatriotic brat? I'll supply the locations, you supply the times: Germany The Soviet Union Iraq The USofA Hey, it's only ONE TINY STEP towards a totalitarian socialist state. I'm sure it won't hurt anything.
Post #63,302 by Ashton 11/16/02 8:21:44 PM Reply	Tell ya what I find rilly discouraging about this thread ..Given that just about everyone (?!!) here could type: dir <return> ls <return> pipB:=A:./V <return> and know WhatMeans other rilly Complicated Stuff like these subtle er.. commands - yeah that's it: 'commands'! It's a bit boggling that there should be anyone arguing the affirmative [Oaths Be Good? or at least OK? or.. not Tooo Bad?] - or questioning the need for opposition to this entire sordid idea. (no matter how long-running.. by neglect of the sentient? and by usual mass ennui) Obv the concept of Why the State must remain secular is NOT being taught at all, of late: like, you-know, "in order to fulfill the Guarantees! of 'religious freedom', basic within the founding documents" and even (for many who fought) the USA's virtual raison d'etre! - as much as any 'freedom from Kings and such'! So.. I wonder, given the various trainings and certificates amassed here - how such a proposition could engender This Much Ink - as if it were /. kiddie night on 'history of da country fer d0ODz'. Further - any near+ argument on this 'issue' - implies 0-knowledge of Mc Carthy, of HUAC, of SISS (Senate Internal Security Subcommittee) of the Berkeley Professorial Oaths and the many learned screeds generated by just that fiasco alone.. ie of DECADES of recent U.S. History. WTF - we haven't even remembered.. what we learned from Prohibition! and internment of the Japanese Americans only NOW... You don't have to be Japanese!!! to be interned incommunicado and indefinitely! And few even SQUEAK about THAT. {sigh} Maybe we deserve what's on the horizon. We just may have become dumbed-down to the stage: Too Stupid to Survive.
Post #63,317 by wharris2 11/16/02 8:51:28 PM Reply	Ashton, are you arguing against automatic citizenship? If someone isn't willing to pledge allegiance to the United States of America, then renounce the citizenship and be done with it. Oh, yeah, children can't do that. (Amidst other minor obstructing details such as when you pledge allegiance to someone they owe in return certain responsibilities and duties... like following the constitution...)
Post #63,324 by Brandioch 11/16/02 9:23:21 PM Reply	Ah, the traditional response. If you don't support something I support, then you can just leave the country. Fascinating. And yet it reveals a complete lack of historical knowledge. Since Senator McCarthy was willing to swear many loyalty oaths, would the nation have been better off with him or without him? Also, please note, that this position does not IN ANY WAY specify what this law is supposed to PROTECT or PREVENT. Strangely enough, I am not in the least bit surprised at this oversite. Nor do I expect that the omission will be rectified in the future. Rather than explaining WHY this law is needed, detail how the people who do not support it are "unpatriotic". Rather than specifying what this law is supposed to prevent/protect, demand that anyone who doesn't support it renounce their citizenship. Because that is the SOLE reason for this law. To identify those who are REAL patriots from those OTHER people. Dude, why don't you leave the US to us REAL patriots and take your wannabe Reich ass over to Iraq where they think that indoctrinating children is a GOOD idea.
Post #63,330 by Ashton 11/16/02 9:44:13 PM Reply	Believe in being as honest with my gov as they are with me\ufffd
Post #63,338 by boxley 11/16/02 10:09:34 PM Reply	where in the hell do you pledge alegiance to "someone"? that is something the monarchists might instigate but we got rid of that shit in the 1700s I have oathed allegiance to the constitution, everyone else can go fuck themselves with the flag if they wish. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,375 by wharris2 11/17/02 7:23:57 AM Reply	What is the pledge? You pledge allegiance to the flag and to what it stands for. Liberty and justice for all. Perhaps not to a person, but the idea is the same. It doesn't say "I pledge allegiance to the constitution" but it comes close. If you are a citizen in this country, live here, work here, play here, and aren't willing to pledge your allegiance to it, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Post #63,385 by boxley 11/17/02 9:08:25 AM Reply	Sorry my constitution doesnt deport citizens for not taking a loyalty oath. That sounds somewhat Islamic to me. Mindless adherence to form over substance. What country do you live in anyway? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,427 by bepatient 11/17/02 3:07:06 PM Reply	Why thats simple... ...it was designed by Hitler to indoctinate all young minds and develop them into good little soldiers to fight for the cause. [image\|/forums/images/warning.png\|0\|This is sarcasm...] Why...the very essence of allegiance precludes freedom, yes? How about the Y Smirnov pledge instead...everyone get up at the beginning of class and say "What a country"...then sit. ----- Before we all get too wrapped up in this (again)...lets see if it actually makes it passed judicial review (where all of the other attempts have failed)...if it does...then lets all cry about the new Nazi party in PA. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #63,443 by Ashton 11/17/02 5:44:41 PM Reply	React early - or watch attention span wane via next Warz ads
Post #63,454 by wharris2 11/17/02 6:51:00 PM Reply	Re: Why thats simple... Yeah, the pledge will turn all those impressionable minds who haven't been turned into mush by PC, bad teachers, bad teaching techniques, and so forth... into mush. I'm beginning to like the Starship Troopers citizen model a lot more than I used to.
Post #63,471 by boxley 11/17/02 7:18:00 PM Reply	that was the Roman model a citizen was called into the legions and stayed there until the age of forty. How is your manual of arms drill? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,480 by wharris2 11/17/02 8:37:25 PM Reply	Never had the option, here I might have considered serving in the army, only they would have invalidated me because of my scoliosis. Basic training in a back brace, heh.
Post #63,486 by boxley 11/17/02 9:14:25 PM Reply	that is the problem with military service being a prereq for citizenship. There is more than one way to serve your country and you with your skills are valuable here. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,320 by Brandioch 11/16/02 9:07:59 PM Reply	Because those oaths have worked. "Hell, saying them EVERY DAY in school didn't hurt ME!" "And it damn sure didn't hurt my COUNTRY!" Of course, this is a country that has recently forgiven MS for being such a mis-understood company. And is planning on a "pre-emptive" invasion of another country. And is "detaining" some of its own citizens without recourse to legal counsel. And has, recently, decided the client/attourney relationships aren't as sacred as they once were. It's a bit boggling that there should be anyone arguing the affirmative [Oaths Be Good? or at least OK? or.. not Tooo Bad?] - or questioning the need for opposition to this entire sordid idea. What kind of man would REQUIRE a CHILD to swear obediance to a flag? Well, I can think of a few kinds. #1. Pervert. But we'll leave that for now. #2. Control freak. Train them while they're young. Obey the flag! Did I mention that I represent the flag? #3. Fear. Someone who is afraid that the next generation just might change things that he's used to. Further - any near+ argument on this 'issue' - implies 0-knowledge of Mc Carthy, of HUAC, of SISS (Senate Internal Security Subcommittee) of the Berkeley Professorial Oaths and the many learned screeds generated by just that fiasco alone.. ie of DECADES of recent U.S. History. Yup. Don't forget the Hitler Youth and the Soviet indoctrination programs for their kids. Rather simply put, a FREE society does not REQUIRE that CHILDREN recite oaths. Oaths are for ADULTS who can understand the words and the meaning and the implications. Maybe we deserve what's on the horizon. We just may have become dumbed-down to the stage: Too Stupid to Survive. Evolution. We've stopped breeding for intelligence. Even amongst the, supposedly, educated crowd here. Look at the arguments FOR it. Nothing about what it will ACCOMPLISH. Just "I don't think it's as bad as you say it is". Bell curve. While there are some people who are just not as intelligent as others, could it be that there are individuals who DESIRE more external control in their lives? I believe that to be so. In a random group, you will have leaders, followers, those who don't do either, the leaders who want more control over the followers, and the followers who want to turn all the "hard" choices over to their leaders. Think about it on a continuum. At one extreme, the anarchist. At the other extreme, the submissive who actively seeks authority figures. That isn't quite correct but it will do for now. The search for absolution in a world of too much choice.
Post #63,339 by boxley 11/16/02 10:11:30 PM Reply	nit when did we ever breed for intelligence after slavery was abolished? most people breed for fun, others shouldnt be allowed to reproduce. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,348 by Brandioch 11/16/02 11:41:10 PM Reply	Many years ago. Before the invention of the "grocery store". If you couldn't out think and out fight a yam or a grub, you didn't eat. Since then, things have been going downhill.
Post #63,591 by mhuber 11/18/02 11:53:16 AM Reply	The link was broken way before that The utility of intelligence beyond that of yer basic squirrel for raw survival just isn't demonstrable. Brandioch's examples show that: you don't have to be a rocket scientist to outsmart yams and grubs. And in the wild, all the cleverness in the world isn't as handy as fast feet or good tree-skills when a tiger identifies you as lunch. Intelligence is for outsmarting other humans. The fact that it is also handy for other things is purely accidental. ---- Whatever
Post #63,644 by Ashton 11/18/02 3:54:10 PM Reply	Even more basic - Language was invented that men might disguise their thoughts from one another. ;-)
Post #63,650 by Another Scott 11/18/02 4:03:57 PM Reply	Evolution. Hi Mike, The utility of intelligence beyond that of yer basic squirrel for raw survival just isn't demonstrable. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=40358\|Post 40358] might be of interest to you. Some researchers believe that excessive brain power evolved to attract mates. Cheers, Scott.
Post #63,659 by Arkadiy 11/18/02 4:37:12 PM Reply	You can't be serious, can you? Please say you aren't. Things like spears arrows and stone cutters, and use of sinew to sew and fire and domestication of animals- they were all feats of intelligence. Our megahertz count advances are just pale shadow of that intelligence. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #65,078 by mhuber 11/26/02 2:32:00 AM Reply	100% serious. I agree that the advancements of prehistoric people reflect intellectual acheivements that make our technological wonders look pathetic. And that they have survival value. But in the huge span from the brain of a badger to that of something able to grok the value of saving a good pointed stick for later, much less sharpening it, a big brain is good only for dealing with other members of your pack. Not that the advantage is entirely sexual - a smarter social animal is often able to get a bigger share of the food, a sleeping spot next to a cliff where there is less rain, etc. But for raw survival against the rest of the world? Nah. ---- Whatever
Post #65,149 by Arkadiy 11/26/02 11:12:14 AM Reply	In that huge span brain was used mostly as signal processing instrument. Dolphin's brain is huge, and 2/3 of it is dedicated to echolocation. Do you think it has no survival value for dolphin? The appearance of stereo vision required a huge growth in brain power. Do you think it has no survival value for predators? You seem to assume that animal brains are used for thinking. I don't think so ( :) ). Every major advance in capablities requires some more processing power to control it. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #65,167 by mhuber 11/26/02 1:24:50 PM Reply	What advance in capabilities? Other than intelligence, humans are remarkable in: 1) Manual dexterity - unless compared to other primates. 2) Color vision 3) extreme endurance in a patheticaly slow run None of which seems to me to require the hardware capabilities that make Einstein and Mozart possible. Granted, binocular color vision requires some rather major signal processing capabilities. But not enough to explain a brain that big. And what does that signal processing buy you in the wild? Particularly when driven by relatively weak eyes and ineffective predatory capabilities. A human without tools is a lousy enough predator that binocular vision is an almost complete waste. Prey that is slow enough and close enough that you or I can kill it without tools we can find with one eye. We'd get lots more milage, as predators, out of better fingernails. Actualy, there is one raw survival capability that a big brain could give a non-tool-user: orienteering. A smart critter can go places - and get back - better than one that is only able to outsmart a yam and realize a large predator is trouble. But there are lots of ways to develope that capability without going to the trouble of a brain size large enough to commonly kill a mother in the birth process. No, I'm pretty sure that our species has big brains for, well, politics. That they are also good for arts and sciences is a happy accident. ---- Whatever
Post #65,171 by Arkadiy 11/26/02 1:35:58 PM Reply	You're mixing 2 discussions here... First, what was driving brain size before humans. My answer - things like stereo color vision and echolocation and dexterity. Kind of hard to live in trees without binocular vision. Easy to miss a branch. Second, whether another wave of brain size increase, between monkeys and humans provided humans with some survival advantages. My answer is yes, see a post above. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #63,696 by ben_tilly 11/18/02 10:23:57 PM Reply	Can't find a reference right now... But I believe that coevolution towards increased brain size as a portion of body weight has been demonstrated in predator prey interactions. Actually I found several references that did say exactly that, but buried as a line item in class lecture notes. I would probably have better luck if I had (and could point you to) a standard textbook.. Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #63,708 by boxley 11/18/02 10:43:04 PM Reply	are you implying meateaters are smarter or that carrots are prey :-) thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,709 by ben_tilly 11/18/02 10:48:24 PM Reply	Neither I am saying that over millions of years both lions and gazelles are gradually getting smarter as each adjusts for the capability of the other. (As well as faster, with better vision, etc.) Humans are, of course, well off the trendline. :-) Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #63,715 by JayMehaffey 11/18/02 11:26:04 PM Reply	Gould questioned that Stephen Jay Gould did an article for his long running series where he argued that the intelligence of herbivores was actually a random walk. If I understood and am remember it correctly, it went like this. For any particular species of herbivore, if you trace the cranial capacity of it's decendents, there is an equal chance of it having a higher and lower capacity. With the exception of course that there is a practical mininum necissary for the animal to function. This sort of bounded random walk creates the illusion of a directed trend because the the highest value and the average value tend to go up over time. Jay
Post #63,717 by ben_tilly 11/18/02 11:45:07 PM Reply	If he wrote about it... then that article is slipping my mind. Based on [link\|http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Book_Reviews/gould-full_house.htm\|http://fp.bio.utk.ed...ld-full_house.htm] I think I know which book to look in to see if he talks about the far more restricted herbivore example that I had in mind. Furthermore even if Gould did talk about it, he is not always right. Or he might have been talking about a more general trend which this specific subtrend is an exception of. My recollection is that this was somewhat of a standard textbook example. For instance look on page 4 of [link\|http://biosci.usc.edu/courses/2002-spring/documents/bisc313-Coevolution.pdf\|http://biosci.usc.ed...3-Coevolution.pdf] to see it listed along with other standard exmples of coevolution. And [link\|http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL107/w02_cowen/coevolutionadv.html\|http://www-geology.u...evolutionadv.html] gives me the following reference: Radinsky, L. 1978. Evolution of brain size in carnivores and ungulates. American Naturalist 112, 815-831. Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #63,916 by JayMehaffey 11/19/02 9:54:33 PM Reply	Overstated the case What I was thinking of came from Full House, but the argument I mentioned wasn't against intelligence specifically. It was against the idea that there is a tend in increasing animal size over time. In the book he argues against tends towards increasing size and increasing complexity. But he only mentions intelligence in passing, while pointing to research that shows that the increasing development of the vertebra over time is a random walk Jay
Post #63,942 by ben_tilly 11/19/02 11:11:52 PM Reply	That fits my recollection as well :-) "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]

Welcome to IWETHEY!