PeterDavid.net

So, I wonder what would happen if he said the real Pledge, but without "under god" in it.

They'd probably tie the kid up to a stake and burn him alive.

This country truly does disgust me any more.

Maybe the teacher was more of a Star Wars person.

I can't help thinking there was a better way for the school to handle this, but I don't see any real reason for them to encourage being a class clown. (I don't particularly see the Pledge as something that's inviolable, but I think a protest should've been more along the lines of refusing to participate.)

Though, I'm all for respecting the Bill of Rights. I suggest that they start with the 2nd Amendment.

That's wonderful! And scary.

Well, there's a connection between this story and the flag burning amendment.

Over-reliance on the formalities in both cases. And it actually encourages MORE cynicism and MORE disrespect for authority in the end; why respect people and procedures who get way too hung up over the superficial surfaces while ignoring the substance of the law and princples.

'Mrs. Jaworski. This isn't humorous. The Pledge is an extremely important and patriotic moment each morning in the classroom."

Please. Everytime we had to say the pledge when I was in school, it was an intense struggle to get everyone to STAND UP, let alone say the damn thing. It is actually kind of disturbing when you think about it. All over the US, every morning, children pledge their "Allegience" to a symbol. In essence, they say that they will always be loyal to the flag, even up to dying for it. Most 3-5 graders don't even know what allegience IS let alone why they should be pledging it. I don't see why, in a public building in a country with freedom of speech, you can't exercise your right to freedom of expression by NOT pledging allegience, or by simply saying whatever the hell you want.

I'm waiting for the Snopes report on this. Might be true. I have no doubt it could happen in any school in any state. It's just all I have seen is the post on the blog, and the BoingBoing link to that post on a blog. No reason for me to believe, or disbelieve.

The blogger is selling tshirts with the Star Trek pledge printed on it. This isn't evidence for either possibility, and is Capitalism at its finest either way.

That is actually quite funny. If i had kid who did that. I'd prolly laugh too. I mean sure the pledge of allegiance is a serious thing. But then again i remember when I was a kid and I'd always get the thing wrong. Hell I remember seeing a comedian say that how kids usually say it. "I Pwedge allegiance to the republic, four midget's stand." or something.

Still I think the school couldv handled it better then suspending the kid. He's 8. What do you expect an 8 year old to do? follow the rules and do what their told? lol

Kids dont understand what the Pledge is for. And they most likely wont tell they are in middle school or high school.

Robin Sizemore says: "but I don't see any real reason for them to encourage being a class clown."

In her comments, Birdie pointed out that he didn't say it to be "cute" or to cause trouble -- he said it because he *believed* in it. I have to give kudos to Birdie for standing up for her son's sincerity, and jeers to the teacher, principal, and the other parent who *ratted him out* for taking a crap on another kid's deeply held beliefs.

If you think about it that way, this is almost a freedom of religion issue...

Wildcat

Kids dont understand what the Pledge is for. And they most likely wont tell they are in middle school or high school.

Which is what I find most amusing because my wife and I, having grown up in different parts of the country, as well as having attended middle/junior & high school year in different states than our elementary years, both distinctly remember saying the Pledge in elementary school.

But never after elementary school.

Maybe somebody realized you couldn't indoctrinate middle/high schoolers as well? I dunno.

Otherwise, yeah, an 8 year old has no concept of what the Pledge is supposed to mean, if they even know how to say it.

"This country truly does disgust me."
--------------

Right on!

Because one person somewhere did something stupid, AMERICA SUCKS!

Way to be!

"The Pledge is an extremely important and patriotic moment each morning in the classroom."

And we will force you to be patriotic even if we have to beat you with this here "Freedom Stick"!

Sometime in 9th grade I decided I wasn't going to recite the pledge in the morning anymore because I didn't believe in this blind, mindless recitation of patriotism.

Our class SGA representative was HORRIFIED, but I told her they couldn't force it.

I respected the concept and would still stand during its recital... if anything so the teacher's couldn't yell at me for a) being lazy or b) trying to incite something.

And every once in a while, I'd feel motivated to actually say it - when it really meant something.

I wish more people would realize the pledge doesn't mean anything if you require everyone to say it.

Isn't being made to recite a pledge pretty much an accusation of treason? "Say the pledge and prove you're not a traitor!" It gives you an image of being EXTREMELY paranoid.

But, ummm... didn't Kirk himself say the Pledge, in that episode about The Holy Aypledjalee?

Wouldn't it be ironic if, twenty five or thirty years from now this kid became an astronaut or scientist that would make a world changing discovery that would change our current view of traveling in space?

I usually just omitted "under God" when required to stand for the Pledge in Catholic school.

But, ummm... didn't Kirk himself say the Pledge, in that episode about The Holy Aypledjalee?

Nat, Nat, Nat... Kirk was reciting the Preamble to the Constitution, and it was in "The Omega Glory".

Your fanboy license is hereby suspended.

I got in trouble doing the pledge of allegance the old fashion way, in second grade.

http://rexcurry.net/pledgesoutherners.html

Craig J. Ries: This country truly does disgust me any more.

X-Ray: Right on! Because one person somewhere did something stupid, AMERICA SUCKS! Way to be!
Luigi Novi: I agree. Characterizing the country by one isolated incident, and judging the 296,000,000 people in this country using an example of one a silly bit of reasoning, Craig.

Oh dear Lord. Someone gave XRay a chance to look smart. This is one of the signs of the apocalypse, right?

kk49, I i was turned off by your web site (if not yours, the one you linked to) once I got to the phrase "War of Northern Aggression," but I managed to soldier through the rest of that tripe before writing this response: it's remarkably stupid. "Fans of the Confederacy are owed an apology by people who blame racism and segregation on the South. The Confederate flag is sometimes criticized. How does it compare with the U.S. flag?" Well, let's see here, which one was carried by General Sherman, and which was carried by Nathan Bedford Forrest? And which of those worthies founded the Klan? Hmm. Blaming institutional racism on the socialist tendencies of the post-Reconstruction Federal government, as exemplified by the Pledge of Allegiance, isn't bad history; that argument doesn't demonstrate enough historical understanding to qualify as bad history. (Classic put-down: "Not even wrong.") However, the difficulty with the website is not merely a fact of a disturbing misunderstanding history; that could be corrected. The worse thing is that it demonstrates a frightening world-view when it excoriates these proto-national-socialists who "loved the military and the War of Northern Aggression against southern independence. The pledge memorializes their view, especially the phrase “one nation, indivisible.”" You're damn right it's one nation, indivisible. Let's get something straight: I live in North Carolina, I've spent 27 of my almost 32 years living North Carolina and Virginia, and in all likelihood I'll spend the rest of my life in the South. I have never been able to stomach this Lost Cause nonsense. (TWL couldn't figure out why I went postal at the suggestion of Americans leaving the country after a Republican President was elected on largely regional voting lines; this is why.) To quote a bumper sticker I have, "you lost, get over it." Let's stop confusing regional pride with Confederate nostalgia. The Civil War was a horrible period, but not because of Yankee aggression; it was horrible because it married our national shame, slavery, with treason, and caused 600,000 deaths. That is the heritage of the Confederacy: death, slavery, and treason. You're welcome to it.

And I don't want to know what the Ks stand for.

Maybe I missed it somewhere along the way, but can someone please tell me when America became a religion? I can't help but think back to that ST:Classic with the war between the Comms and the Yangs.

"Freedom? That is a worship word! You will not speak it!"

Periodically, when the Pldge of Allegiance comes up in the news because of some kid refusing to say it or whatever, i am reminded of this "Life in Hell" strip: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eericnp/images/life_in_hell.jpg

This strip ran two weeks after Frank Zappa's death)

>> But, ummm... didn't Kirk himself say the
>> Pledge, in that episode about The Holy
>> Aypledjalee?


"The Omega Glory" by Gene Roddenberry. It was one of the candidate scripts for the second pilot of the series, along with "Mudd's Women" by Stephen Kandel, and of course, "Where No Man Has Gone Before" by Samuel A. Peeples.

> Nat, Nat, Nat... Kirk was reciting the
> Preamble to the Constitution....
>
> Your fanboy license is hereby suspended.


Yes, Kirk recited the Preamble to the Constitution, but what gave him the clue as to what the "E Pleb Neesta" was was when the Yangs recited the Pledge of Allegiance to a United States flag, speaking it in Latin.


(Quasi-quoting from failing memory here:)


"Important words, proud words, written tall so as to emphasize their special importance, WE THE PEOPLE...of the United States...."


As silly as it sounds (and this episode is not in my own personal "canon" of the series as I find it impossible to suspend disbelief while watching it), nonetheless my throat always catches and my pulse quickens when William Shatner reads the Preamble.

And the story of what has happened to this boy for his pledge hurts my heart.

> "Freedom? That is a worship word! You will
> not speak it!"


Because Cloud William thought Kirk was one of the double-speaking Comm, who undoubtedly routinely misused the language to convey propaganda rather than truth as the Communists of the '60s did, and the power structure in Washington does today.

It wasn't that Kirk was speaking the "worship word" per se which upset Cloud William, but the general misuse of the worship words.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Federation of Planets, and to the galaxy for which it stands, one universe, under everybody, with liberty and justice for all species."

I can almost see The Simpsons getting an episode out of that...

I am so anti-social. I can remember in the nice school that served Mc donalds for lunch the first Religious school my parents could afford the "bad-boy " thing to do was make up words to the pledge of allegiance. Nothing "unpatriotic" just enough to break up the monotony.
School sucks as you can tell by my spelling and grammer I wasnt in long enough. =0

Heh. When I had to do that %^$^ing Pledge, I CONSTANTLY found ways to twist it around, including quoting a Calvin and Hobbes strip. It got to the point where they realized I was NEVER going to do it right and made me stand in the hallway until AFTER it was finished.

"I pledge allegiance, to the Janitor, and his mighty mop of clenliness. And to the toilets, that he must scrub, one cleanser, under his cart, with plungers, and scrubbers, for all."

This country truly does disgust me any more.
Give me a break. Open your eyes, women getting shot in the head in soccer fields under the Taliban and other atrocities happening around the world and some teacher getting carried away makes you disgusted. You my friend are the Anti-X-Ray, differnt sides of the same coin.

Craig J. Ries: This country truly does disgust me any more.

X-Ray: Right on! Because one person somewhere did something stupid, AMERICA SUCKS! Way to be!
Luigi Novi: I agree. Characterizing the country by one isolated incident, and judging the 296,000,000 people in this country using an example of one a silly bit of reasoning, Craig.

Does no one accept the possibility Craig's comment was a summation of his feelings after reading numerous incidents which stretch the limits of credulity -- most of them manufactured in the USA? PAD's website lists example after example of such items. Perhaps this incident was one of many (the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back") prompting Craig to submit his comment.

I'm a raging conservative, but this teacher needs to be fired, or at least serious repremanded. How bloody assinine (sp?).

Chip

I'm not sure who's a bigger idiot here, the teacher or the student who thinks Trek is real.

Okay, it's the teacher. I've noticed an interesting political trend: The more the government moves to trample on the ideals of liberty that this country was founded upon, the more social pressure is put on citizens to make outward displays of patriotism.

And I'm still waiting for that apology, Mr. Santorum.

I used to omit "Under God," and change the word "with" to the word "seeking," as in

"seeking liberty and justice for all."

The theory being that America is far from having liberty and justice for all, but that it remains the ideal we strive for.

Once got in trouble for it. Refused to change. Was sent to the principal's office. He knew me well -- I was sent there often. On this occasion, however, he listened to my reasoning, told me I was entitled to say it the way I wanted, and sent me back to the classroom, with a note to the teacher that I was not to be hassled on this issue.

While I agree the teacher went overboard...

...the cynicism, infantile rebellion, and arrogance demonstrated by us all (I cut up on the Pledge, too) are just some of the many ridiculous things our country protects and WHY my country gets my pledge of allegiance.

And all I can say for those who think an 8 year old is incapable of understanding the Pledge of Allegiance are two words: Public School.

My kids, 7, 8, and 10, know and understand the Pledge, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance. Home School rocks!

> ...the cynicism, infantile rebellion, and
> arrogance demonstrated by us all (I cut up
> on the Pledge, too)....
>
> And all I can say for those who think an 8
> year old is incapable of understanding the
> Pledge of Allegiance are two words: Public
> School.


Read the original story. This young man was not cutting up on the pledge, and it is clear that he did understand it, which is why he changed it for himself, to reflect the ideals which he truly believes.

I notice three things in the story. First, and most frightening to me, is a school that doesn't know how to handle one of their students expressing some individuality and forming their own beliefs. "No, you can't be unique! We weren't trained for that!" Makes me think even more about home schooling Brian all the time. Second, in "upholding" the "sanctity" of these symbols, the officials (the school, Congress, et al) show just how far from reality they are. "Let's go halfway around the planet, bomb the crap out of people and then build them schools! Maybe nobody's going to notice that schools HERE are falling apart and woefully behind the times!" And third, most Americans speak of equality and liberty, but if they were made to recite the pledge according to their actions it would be "With Liberty and Justice Just For Everyone That Thinks Like ME!"

And people wonder why the Greys haven't done that landing on the White House lawn thing....

What you have to realize is that teachers today look for any signs of individuality in children and stamp them out as quickly as possible. If your children show signs that they are capable of forming opinions contrary to that of the teacher or that you're child shows signs that he or she is smarter than your teacher, you will soon receive a recommendation to put your kid on ritalin.

Apparently, having an El. Ed. degree qualifies a person to diagnose ADHD.

>>Wouldn't it be ironic if, twenty five or thirty years from now this kid became an astronaut or scientist that would make a world changing discovery that would change our current view of traveling in space?

Hmmm....I'm not sure it would ironic, at least not under a pre-Alanis definition. It would, however, be AWESOME

*The Captain of POW!*
(who knows he shouldn't come off like a Literature Professor when his War of the Worlds post reads like it got C- in fourth grade composition)

I like the UFP version better. ;>

Luigi Novi: I agree. Characterizing the country by one isolated incident, and judging the 296,000,000 people in this country using an example of one a silly bit of reasoning, Craig.

For one, X-Ray said one person, not one incident.

There's obviously more than one person because more than 200 of those jackasses in the House that voted for this.

And, this isn't one isolated incident: in Eagle County, Colorado, a city councilman (iirc) was recalled in an election because he refused to say the Pledge.

This "silly bit of reasoning" is happening every day. PAD has posted more than a few of these disgusting incidents, yet they keep happening.

So, until this country wakes the f*ck up, then, yes, it will continue to disgust me.

"What you have to realize is that teachers today look for any signs of individuality in children and stamp them out as quickly as possible. If your children show signs that they are capable of forming opinions contrary to that of the teacher or that you're child shows signs that he or she is smarter than your teacher, you will soon receive a recommendation to put your kid on ritalin."

Harry Chapin did a FANTASTIC song along those lines--based, I understand, on an actual incident with this son--in which a little boy starts off kindergarten and he's coloring roses with a dozen different colors. And the teacher intones:

"Flowers are red, young man, and green leaves are green,
And there's no need to see flowers any other way than the way they always have been seen...

But the little boy said

There are so many colors in the rainbow
So many colors in the morning sun
So many colors in a flower
And I see every one."

And basically the teacher winds up stomping the creativity out of him. The punchline is that he winds up moving to another school, gets a teacher who tries to encourage him to use his imagination, and it's too late: It's been stomped out of him as he quietly colors the roses red and green and that's it.

PAD

Give me a break. Open your eyes, women getting shot in the head in soccer fields under the Taliban and other atrocities happening around the world and some teacher getting carried away makes you disgusted.

Yeah, not to mention the homeless, jobless, and the millions without health care in this country.

But, one principal has a 2x4 shoved up her ass to get upset over the Pledge, the House votes to make flag burning illegal, and *I* have no damn reason to be disgusted?

Maybe it's time YOU wake the hell up and take a look around for once and realize there's more important things that bitching and moaning over a pledge or a flag.

And people wonder why the Greys haven't done that landing on the White House lawn thing....

When someone asks me if I believe/think that there's life in outer space, I usually reply 'I hope so. I'd hate to think that the universe stopped trying to create intelligent life after only one attempt'. This opinion is proven every time someone doesn't get what I say.

---------------

As to the creativity stomping, am I the only one who think real life is resembling The Simpsons more & more all the time?

I said: "but I don't see any real reason for them to encourage being a class clown."

Wildcat replied: "I have to give kudos to Birdie for standing up for her son's sincerity, and jeers to the teacher, principal, and the other parent who *ratted him out* for taking a crap on another kid's deeply held beliefs.

If you think about it that way, this is almost a freedom of religion issue..."

In that case, shouldn't the ACLU be here to tell him that he only has the right to say such things if he does so quietly and doesn't let anyone else hear him? (Not even other students who believe the same way, because by getting together with like-minded students, you're effectively making the others feel left out.)

Seriously, though, I don't much care for the idea of the Pledge of Allegience. As others have pointed out, the kids don't really understand what they're saying, and besides, it smacks of indoctrination. BUT, letting all the students stand up and say what they truly believe is a recipe for at least a few minutes of chaos, and probably a lot worse than that, given kids' tendency to actively TRY to hurt each others feelings.

David Van Domelen wrote: I usually just omitted "under God" when required to stand for the Pledge in Catholic school.

I always used to say under dog and only got caught once... when somebody thought I was referring to a Jay Ward cartoon.

We should take up collection and buy this kid a full-fledged official Starfleet uniform to wear to class.
Undoubtedly, his teacher would scold him for wearing such an outfit, particularly in light of his earlier “offense." At this point the kid should pauser, press his communicator badge, and in deadpan fashion say:
“Beam me up Scottie, there’s no intelligent life here.”

What do you say PAD?

*The Captain of POW!*
(the communicator badge will of course make an authentic Trek beep)

Klingons. No bloody sense of humor.

I was brought to mind of the Calvin and Hobbes strip as well: "I pledge allegiance to Queen Frag and her mighty state of hysteria."

As for the Pledge itself, it was always my experience in the schools I went to always had the option to stand quietly during the Pledge if for whatever reason (be it religious, philosophical, being an exchange student, etc.) they did not want to say it. As for the rest of us, we'd say it in our usual sleepy monotone droning.

At the risk of being the unpopular one here, the teacher was within her rights to discipline the child, although I think suspension might be a little severe and perhaps a stern talking-to, or at the very most an office referral might have been more in keeping with the transgression.

Still, given that public schools are governmentally-funded, you have as much of a right to "ad lib" the Pledge of Allegiance as you do to walk into a church and shouting "JESUS SUCKS!" over and over again during prayer or replacing the lyrics of the hymn you're singing with those of your favorite Marilyn Manson ditty or some vintage Metallica. You also have the right to reap the repurcussions of those actions.

I also think that the mother was well within her rights to laugh, because, heck, it *was* effin' funny. :)

It reminds me of one of my best friends in middle school who was the most Trek-obsessed guy I know. I mean to the point of acting like he was Captain of the Enterprise and designating his friends as particular crew members. I was the designated Riker, and after I had lent him my copy of the Next Gen novel "A Rock and a Hard Place", he took perverse glee in referring to me as "Thunderball" at random and embarrassingly frequent intervals.

Gee, thanks, PAD. Thank you *ever* so much. :p

David Klaus,

I wasn't commenting about the kid, I was commenting on US, the people on this thread.

Just cuz I was interested....
Here's the whole thing:

Flowers are Red
by Harry Chapin

The little boy went first day of school
He got some crayons and started to draw
He put colors all over the paper
For colors was what he saw
And the teacher said.. What you doin' young man
I'm paintin' flowers he said
She said... It's not the time for art young man
And anyway flowers are green and red
There's a time for everything young man
And a way it should be done
You've got to show concern for everyone else
For you're not the only one

And she said...
Flowers are red young man
Green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than they way they always have been seen

But the little boy said...
There are so many colors in the rainbow
So many colors in the morning sun
So many colors in the flower and I see every one

Well the teacher said.. You're sassy
There's ways that things should be
And you'll paint flowers the way they are
So repeat after me.....

And she said...
Flowers are red young man
Green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than they way they always have been seen

But the little boy said...
There are so many colors in the rainbow
So many colors in the morning sun
So many colors in the flower and I see every one

The teacher put him in a corner
She said.. It's for your own good..
And you won't come out 'til you get it right
And are responding like you should
Well finally he got lonely
Frightened thoughts filled his head
And he went up to the teacher
And this is what he said.. and he said

Flowers are red, green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen

Time went by like it always does
And they moved to another town
And the little boy went to another school
And this is what he found
The teacher there was smilin'
She said...Painting should be fun
And there are so many colors in a flower
So let's use every one

But that little boy painted flowers
In neat rows of green and red
And when the teacher asked him why
This is what he said.. and he said

Flowers are red, green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen.

"Still, given that public schools are governmentally-funded, you have as much of a right to "ad lib" the Pledge of Allegiance as you do to walk into a church and shouting "JESUS SUCKS!" over and over again during prayer or replacing the lyrics of the hymn you're singing with those of your favorite Marilyn Manson ditty or some vintage Metallica. You also have the right to reap the repurcussions of those actions."

Sorry, what? You are under no obligation whatsoever to recite the pledge of allegiance. My boys have asked me about it, and I've told them they can do whatever the hell they want, say it or not, and I'll back them up 100%. Local schools are funded by taxpayer dollars, not by some magic fderal ATM. The child has EVERY right as a to treat the POA as what it is: a lameass attempt to indoctrinate our children into unthinking America worship. It's bullshit, and I won't stand for it.

You want them to truly love this country? Have them recite the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. My boys know more about our Founding Fathers than any of the other children in their classes. Believe me, they have a VERY deep love of country, and it isn't coming from the fucking Pledge of Allegiance.

By the way, I'm not so fond of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Some people actually do things on their lunch breaks. I read blogs.

Does no one accept the possibility Craig's comment was a summation of his feelings after reading numerous incidents which stretch the limits of credulity -- most of them manufactured in the USA? PAD's website lists example after example of such items. Perhaps this incident was one of many (the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back") prompting Craig to submit his comment.

I'd say there are two reasons why nobody was imputing that to Mr Ries.
1) It isn't what he said. He did say something along those lines subsequently, but not in the post in question.
2) This isn't even a straw. It's not a mote to trouble the mind's eye, it's not a grain of sand. It's one teacher overreacting to a class clown. That's it.

Mr Ries did finally write, Yeah, not to mention the homeless, jobless, and the millions without health care in this country.

Which have exactly what to do with this kid and this teacher? If your comment about this country disgusting you is a non sequitur, then just say so. My Civil War rant above was almost one. It's okay.

Maybe it's time YOU wake the hell up and take a look around for once and realize there's more important things that bitching and moaning over a pledge or a flag.

Yeah, that was kind of my reaction to your post. I think the proposed flag amendment is kind of retarded-- I think P J O'Rourke was the one who compared a flag-burning amendment to killing a fly with an MX Missile-- and I oppose that as a stupid and unnecessary intrusion into free speech, but this school discipline case is utterly unimportant.

1) It isn't what he said. He did say something along those lines subsequently, but not in the post in question.

Oh, it's what I said in the first place, but apparently my comments were beyond some here.

Yeah, that was kind of my reaction to your post.

Well, I hope that makes you feel special.

The point remains: if a teacher finds the patriotic duty of an 8 year old to be the most important thing on her agenda, then this country has some serious farking issues.

Things like this, flag burning and the pledge, are so far out there, that they're not in left field, they're beyond the wall, into the parking lot, and have just been run over by the team bus.

Craig: Can I drive the bus?

Do all us liberals have to sit at the back of the bus?

As noted at http://www.ericweisstein.com/fun/startrek/TheOmegaGlory.html

"Kirk recognizes the invocation as a distorted form of the Pledge of Allegiance, and surprises the Yangs by completing it unassisted."

Another reason for disgust:

The Pentagon is building a database of information on 16 year olds to college students for military recruitment.

Info will include name, DOB, SS, email addresses (yes, nothing is sacred), even ethnicity (but, no, they're not targetting anybody) and who knows what the hell else.

Of course, the No Child Really Matters... err, No Child Left Behind law already requires schools to pass that info to recruiters, but nobody had put it into a database before.

But now? Well, we might as well start leaving kids behind if the military is only wanting to recruit them to send them off on some ridiculous war.

Of course, the really funny thing is that, in reality, there are black roses, white roses, yellow roses, etc.

"Do all us liberals have to sit at the back of the bus?"

I'd wager if the far right could have it's way we liberals wouldn't be allowed on the bus.

Brian Geers wrote: "I was brought to mind of the Calvin and Hobbes strip as well: 'I pledge allegiance to Queen Frag and her mighty state of hysteria.'"

I miss Bill Watterson.

"Still, given that public schools are governmentally-funded, you have as much of a right to 'ad lib' the Pledge of Allegiance as you do to walk into a church and shouting 'JESUS SUCKS!' over and over again during prayer..."

That analogy is only good if you're regularly tithing to the church, isn't it? "Government funded" is a bit misleading, since the government is funded (in part) by me (and you, and Peter, and...)

On a different note, Isn't Matt Feazell one of the best illustrators ever?? I'd like to see him on Batman.

"I'd wager if the far right could have it's way we liberals wouldn't be allowed on the bus."

AT the VERY least, we'd be barred from the right side of the bus.

"Sorry, what? You are under no obligation whatsoever to recite the pledge of allegiance. My boys have asked me about it, and I've told them they can do whatever the hell they want, say it or not, and I'll back them up 100%. Local schools are funded by taxpayer dollars, not by some magic fderal ATM. The child has EVERY right as a to treat the POA as what it is: a lameass attempt to indoctrinate our children into unthinking America worship. It's bullshit, and I won't stand for it."

Hiya, Knuck. Can I call you Knuck? Let me clear a few things up lest you suffer from the misconception that I'm a rah-rah, Dubyah-Is-Gud, Let's-Nuke-Iraq-And-Have-Done-With-It sort who thinks that that whole "Anti-Flag Burning Amendment" is actually a good idea:

I wasn't saying that they were obligated to say the pledge, and I'm sorry that you thought I implied such. In fact, I'd made the example earlier in my little diatribe that I'd encountered in my own K-12 experience several students with valid reason not to recite the pledge. Choosing not to say the pledge -is- perfectly acceptable if it doesn't gel with your personal, patriotic, or religious beliefs, I agree. Choosing to say something else entirely during that time is opening up a whole different can of worms. It's rude and disrespectful (although the Trekker and the subversive in me both agree that this particular circumstance is highly amusing), and rather than risk losing control of her classroom, the teacher opted to discipline the child.

I do think that the actual punishment was rather extreme and that the teacher has a wee bit too much blind, rabid patriotism going on.

(And as a side note, as far as the government is concerned, taxpayers ARE viewed as a magical federal ATM. At the end of the day, it's the government, not the taxpayer, that decides how schools are run. As a taxpayer, I sure as shootin' didn't want the ham-handed, half-***ed legislation that is "No Child Left Behind", but I can't opt not to pay taxes because of that)

Might I suggest reading James Clavell's excellent short story A Children's Story?

That being offered, I think what the kid did was cool - and if it isn't true, it should be.

"I sure as shootin' didn't want the ham-handed, half-***ed legislation that is "No Child Left Behind", but I can't opt not to pay taxes because of that)"

Weeeeeellllll.... you COULD, you'd just get penalties and late fees out the ying-yang and eventually end up in jail.

"Weeeeeellllll.... you COULD, you'd just get penalties and late fees out the ying-yang and eventually end up in jail."

...which again brings me back to the whole action/consequence thing that I was on about in my first reply. I love symmetry. Don't you? :)

OK Genious Greer,

What are fair "Consequences" of free speech?

What right does anyone have to punish another just because they don't agree with their words?

I certainly hope you aren't one of those morons who say :"Iffin' you have the right to burn the flag/not say thepledge, then I have the right to kick your un-american ass!" retards are you?

If this was a first offense, it was too harsh a punishment. If it's repeated... well, a teacher does have a right to keep order in her classroom.

RedNeck dictionary
RETARD - verb. To stop working. Usage: "My grampaw retard at age 65."

Seriously, tho. Can we find a different word to use other than "retard"??

Brian: 'Knuck', 'Knucks' or even 'Ass-Face' is fine. And I won't disagree with you about it being disrespectful. However, from the way the story was related, that isn't what set off the teacher and principal. It was that it was 'unpatriotic'. Schools should not be where patriotism is enforced. That's really my gripe. And yes, it makes me cranky (of course, part of what really pisses me off is that I can't make cymbal noises during the National Anthem at hockey games any longer without drawing nasty looks).

"And as a side note, as far as the government is concerned, taxpayers ARE viewed as a magical federal ATM. At the end of the day, it's the government, not the taxpayer, that decides how schools are run. As a taxpayer, I sure as shootin' didn't want the ham-handed, half-***ed legislation that is "No Child Left Behind", but I can't opt not to pay taxes because of that."

Ahh, the magic of representative democracy.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Federation of Planets, and to the galaxy for which it stands, one universe, under everybody, with liberty and justice for all species.

What a great pledge! Kudos to the kid.

Rich

The kid should have said it with Shatner's famous dramatic pauses.

"I . . . pledge allegiance . . . to the flag . . . "

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Federation of Planets, and to the galaxy for which it stands, one universe, under everybody, with liberty and justice for all species.

This story was kinda cool, but my first thought was "how many times does he get his ass kicked for being such a geek/nerd/whatever?"

BB: Funny, that was my first thought as well.

"...With logic and Pon Farrs for all..." :D

I stopped saying that fascist pledge when I was around that kid's age. Eventually, I stopped standing up for it.

I'm suprised people are saying that it's just one incident and that it doesn't really matter. This kind of bullshit is happening all the time, and, yes, it's sickening.

My favorite analogy for this sort of behavior comes from Douglas Adams, who wrote about man's ancestors trying to invent the wheel, but they were having trouble with it because they couldn't figure out what color it should be.

People like that teacher are just coloring wheels.

OK Genious Greer,

What are fair "Consequences" of free speech?

What right does anyone have to punish another just because they don't agree with their words?

I certainly hope you aren't one of those morons who say :"Iffin' you have the right to burn the flag/not say thepledge, then I have the right to kick your un-american ass!" retards are you?

Actually, using his point about actions and consequences, wouldn't the people who beat up the flag-burner have to face the consequences of their own actions, which they took in reaction to the original action of the acting flag-burner, who was acting out in reaction to the action or action of another active party?

Sorry, it's a boring afternoon at work...

Yeah, and if you'll all imagine that the rest of what I quoted from Bladestar's post is also italicized, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Knuckles:

How about Knuckster, Knuckinator, or Knyuck-Nyuk-Nyuk? :)

I have to agree with you about the teacher's attitude. It's a public school teacher's place to teach (and discipline as necessary), but not to enforce doctrine or shove personal beliefs down her students' throats.

I also agree that it's patently unfair that you can't simulate instrumental accompanyment at the hockey game of your choice, but at this point, I think that's more the fault of the narrow-mindedness of the NHL and the NHLPA than it is of your fellow spectators (I needs me my Flyers fix!). :P

Bladestar:

I kind of wish people wouldn't lock onto one sentence of my posts, twist the context, and make it look like I'm evil incarnate. Therefore, before I dodge the next barrage of slings and arrows, I have to ask this: Where do -you- draw the line of demarcation of where "Free Speech" begins and ends? Could a student call walk up to this teacher, call her a fat, narrowminded, Bush-boffing, right-wing douchebag in front of her entire class without fear of reprisal?

Here's the Reader's Digest Version of my opinions on the issues at hand here for people who can't stand the big, meandering paragraphs of meaningless drivel that I tend to write:

Do I feel that the consequences our young Trekkie friend endured were extremely harsh? Heck yes!

Do I feel that people have a right to NOT say the Pledge of Allegiance? Darn straight I do!

Did I think that the "revisionist" version of the pledge was funny? You'd better believe it!

I'm sorry. I try to be as even-handed in my arguments as possible. I don't think there's a black or a white to this and neither student or teacher is 100% blame-free. I just want to go back to laughing at the funny part and save the political subtext for people who actually like that sort of thing.

Can we do that? Please?

Personally, I'm on the same page as Steve here. The world would be a bit of a better place if there was a little more "logic and Pon Farrs for all." :)

Reading all these posts, I have decided that America is just too horrible to bear.

The oppression and poverty of the world's freeest, richest nation are just too much to bear.

I refuse to say any fascist pledge to "the world's last, best hope."

Long live anywhere but America!

Down with America -- the worst nation on earth (except for all the others)!

I stop reading a post as soon as someone refers to the country as "fascist." I think it's a subclause in Godwin's Law.

Oh man, now this is a funny story.

And to think I got such crap for refusing to recite it when I was in high school.

I shared this story with my mom at the dinner table, and she burst out laughing.

Wow, some of you US people do take this pledge seriously, don't you!

Us brits, we just got a bunch of weirdos for royals and a load of weirdos in power.

Suddently the Trek ideals seem a lot more attractive :D

Mr Ries: Oh, it's what I said in the first place, but apparently my comments were beyond some here.

Yes, they were, because as we all know mind-reading is only possible with people who are in physical contact, preferably between fingertips and the parts of the face where the neural pathways are closest to the surface. You said nothing of the sort; you made some crack about omitting "under God," and then said this country disgusts you "any more" [sic]. You said nothing about this being a symptom of a larger problem, and the implication is so faint as to be invisible.

And I disagree with the substantive point, whenever you made it.

Well, I hope that makes you feel special.

Yes, they give me my own short bus and everything.

The point remains: if a teacher finds the patriotic duty of an 8 year old to be the most important thing on her agenda, then this country has some serious farking issues.

And in a similar vein, Mr Fuller wrote: I'm suprised people are saying that it's just one incident and that it doesn't really matter. This kind of bullshit is happening all the time, and, yes, it's sickening.

No, it isn't sickening. The child abuse case I have on the calendar for next week, in which the mother can't even be bothered to bring her child in for trial preparation, is sickening. The Abu Ghraib mess is sickening, and the Guantanamo Bay allegations, if true, are sickening. The murder of Kitty Genovese was sickening, and the non-response of the onlookers was more sickening. That people find time to be outraged by this picayune nonsense, when there are real outrages in the world, is sickening.

This is one child clowning around in an amusing fashion, and one teacher overreacting. If he'd launched into a discussion of warp engines during a science class, the behavior would have been precisely the same, but nobody would have cared. But because an eight year old kid, who almost certainly has no political objectives of his own, happened to choose a political hot-button in which to show off, you're sickened by school discipline. This is as asinine as the humorless principal's behavior.

Man. EGREGIOUS overreaction by the principal and teacher. Nice - and idealistic, too - pledge by the boy. I like your pledge, too, Aaron Thall :).
(And Steve Chung's Star Trek pledge, like the original, also has something to shoot for ;).)

PAD and BBayliss - Chapin's song is an interesting, well-written piece of art ... and pretty freaking depressing.

Knuckles - funny post - "By the way, I'm not so fond of the Pledge of Allegience." - HA! And I wholly agree with the sentiments you expressed in the post, too.

/// What you have to realize is that teachers today look for any signs of individuality in children and stamp them out as quickly as possible. ///

This is nothing new, I'm in my late 30's and I can remember Teachers doing this when I was in school, not every teacher in every school mind you but enough that I have bad memories of the ones who did. History is filled with incredibly creative people who did horribly in school because of teachers and school officials who did not have a clue how to foster thier creativity and instead tried to stomp it out.

David Bjorlin:

I googled the website because I was looking for pictures of people doing the pledge of allegiance the old fashion way. I completely ignored the dribble.

I should have used a better site, like wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

Also, kk49 is the account name I was given in college, because my initials are kek.

"PAD has posted more than a few of these disgusting incidents, yet they keep happening."
-----

SHOCKING!

Even though Peter David HIMSELF posts about these things... they STILL keep happening!

This is an outrage!

America must conform to this site, and whatever it says!

At all times!

This is an order!

X-ray,

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the idea that yeah, you should be forced to prove that everything involved with porn is legal. I mean, child abuse is the most disgusting thing in the world. However, the burden of proof should be placed on those who take the pictures. Still, I can imagine how horrible it would be if *Gasp* Borders was forced to keep those records. It's called E-mail folks, just e-mail the dang records. Now, about your last post here. No the world is not required to conform to Mr. David's standards. That comment was about how more of these incidents always happens no matter how much outrage is expressed. And America is still the greatest, freest country in the world. We just want it to stay that way.

oops.. ment to post that in the "More new censorship" one. sorry.

That is freaking hliarious. If I was that school I would be embarassed

1First, let me just say that I'm glad one of us Trekies finally had the idea to write a pledge to the Federation. A child shall led us and its true. Second, I would rather pledge myself to an ideal that I beileve in and not some piece of cloth made by sweat shop labors in Taiwan. For almost forty years fictional characters like Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Archer, and Janeway have shown us that humans can be better than we think we can be. Pledging allegence to something George Bush has soild is not taking us in the right dirction. Last, Peter since Shore Leave is coming up, I say you should lead us in the Pledge to the Federation and that we should all rededicate our lives to making America and Earth has a whole the future birthplace of the real United Federation of Planets.

(Places hands on both hearts)

I pledge allegiance to the Timelords of Gallifrey, and to the Tardis for which it serves, one Terry Nation, under nine Doctors, and jelly babies for all.

That people find time to be outraged by this picayune nonsense, when there are real outrages in the world, is sickening.

Yet, here you are, bitching and whining about my posts.

You apparently still miss the point of my comments, because what I quoted from you IS my point.

But incidents such as this one, with the kid and the pledge, illustrate what is wrong with our society. It may be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but the fact that it happens at all should still piss people off.

It shouldn't take a 9/11 to get people to act to straighten things out. But, apparently, it does.

Instead of worrying about the education in this country that appears to be worsening, the principal spends her time going all patriotic on the mother.

That kid deserves a better school, but people like that principal aren't going to give it to him.

That Chapin song has a strong message, but I think it's silly to try and apply it here. This student wasn't being creative or expressing himself or whatever -- he was clowning around. If the teacher had asked him what 4 + 5 was and he'd replied "20XX," the situation would really be no different, but who here would be reacting with such outrage?

Reciting the Pledge is a rule. You break the rules, you get punished. That's how kids are taught everywhere in the world. The teacher probably overdid it a bit, but demonizing her for having the gall to do her job is ridiculous. This is not in the remotest sense a case of "desecrating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

- Z

Zeke, why is it "a rule" that our children be forced to recite a loyalty pledge, by rote, at the beginning of each school day? Are we so terrified that our children might grow up as terrorists that we must enforce their loyalty before they can critically analyze the concept? Loyalty to a symbol, yet, not the country itself?

Personally, I think the boy was mocking a ridiculous concept - something with which I agree wholeheartedly. The principal's reaction (he didn't say, "The boy is being disruptive"; he said it was unpatriotic) underlines the point brilliantly.

"(Places hands on both hearts)

I pledge allegiance to the Timelords of Gallifrey, and to the Tardis for which it serves, one Terry Nation, under nine Doctors, and jelly babies for all."

I love yah, Steve. That's perfect.

I wrote That people find time to be outraged by this picayune nonsense, when there are real outrages in the world, is sickening.

Mr Ries responded, Yet, here you are, bitching and whining about my posts.

Yes, but I freely admit that I'm anal.

You apparently still miss the point of my comments, because what I quoted from you IS my point.

If you're trying to make the point that it's disturbing when either political party becomes caught up in minutia to the detriment of more important issues, I'll agree with you. If that's what you meant to say to begin with, great, but what you actually said was much less insightful.

But incidents such as this one, with the kid and the pledge, illustrate what is wrong with our society. It may be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but the fact that it happens at all should still piss people off.

Inconsequential in the grand scheme of things? Hell, it's inconsequential in that third grader's academic year. It's stupid, it's petty, and it's emblematic of what disgusts you about this country. I find it difficult to believe that any intelligent person could find that to be in any way representative of the problems our nation faces. (Unless, again, you're taking the principal's overreaction to a triviality to be symptomatic of a national tendency to be distracted by minutia.) Explain it to me. I'm not being sarcastic; I honestly don't understand the reasoning, and I'd like to.

It shouldn't take a 9/11 to get people to act to straighten things out. But, apparently, it does.

Actually, I don't think even 9/11 has gotten people to straighten much out. The country came together for what, two months?

Instead of worrying about the education in this country that appears to be worsening, the principal spends her time going all patriotic on the mother.

That kid deserves a better school, but people like that principal aren't going to give it to him.

Actually, if people like her can restore discipline in the school system, that's going to do a lot more for her students and her community than you can imagine. If she can pull that off, I won't care that she's a humorless martinet. Indeed, those characteristics might help. And before you say that's a secondary consideration, I challenge you to go down to your local juvenile courtroom and watch for a session or two. And then go into misdemeanor criminal court and watch what happens when they grow up. Teaching our kids self-discipline and self-control is as important as teaching them to read.

As a parent and a very proud father, let me say that it is MY responsibility to teach MY kids self-discipline and self-control, not the public school system. No one elses. The teachers job is difficult enough.

Jerry,

Thanks from the bottom of the Doctor's two hearts.

(Space Corp Directive 001001001)

I pledge allegiance to the Jupiter Mining Corporation, and to the Red Dwarf for which she rides, one station under Holly, with smoked kippers and Cinzano Biancos for all.

("Good morning... Good morning...")

I pledge allegiance to the Village, and to Number Two in whatever he/she plans, one Number, under Rover, with no liberty and no justice for Number Six.

If I were to re-write the pledge...

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United Stated of America, and to the ideals for which it stands, one nation of the people, by the people, and for the people, with liberty and justice for all.

-Rex Hondo-

Poor kid.

He ignored the Prime Directive and got caught in the Neutral Zone between the teacher and the principal.

I hope he got his shields up and got out of there at Warp Factor Nine. :D

I love Classic Trek, but ooohhh, the price of Season One on DVD. Oy.

Brian Geers wrote:

"Personally, I'm on the same page as Steve here. The world would be a bit of a better place if there was a little more "logic and Pon Farrs for all." :)"

Not to mention those funky Vulcan weapons and gear which puts Fear Factor to shame.

Live Long Improper. :D

Brian Geers wrote:

"Personally, I'm on the same page as Steve here. The world would be a bit of a better place if there was a little more "logic and Pon Farrs for all." :)"

Not to mention those funky Vulcan weapons and gear which would put Fear Factor to shame.

Live Long Improper. :D

// That Chapin song has a strong message, but I think it's silly to try and apply it here. This student wasn't being creative or expressing himself or whatever -- he was clowning around. //

"Clowning around" is very often being creative. What do you think Comedians, comedy writers, Improv performers, comedic actors, ect do for a living? They clown around.

// If the teacher had asked him what 4 + 5 was and he'd replied "20XX," the situation would really be no different, but who here would be reacting with such outrage? //

I doubt a kid would have gotten suspended for that. It's not the reaction that people are responding to, it's the overreation.

// Reciting the Pledge is a rule. //

Not according to various legal decisions over the years. It is against the law to make a kid recite the pledge. I know schools don't mention this to kids or thier parents but its true, they can't force you to say the pledge.

// You break the rules, you get punished. That's how kids are taught everywhere in the world. //

See Above.

// The teacher probably overdid it a bit, //

Yes she did.

// but demonizing her for having the gall to do her job is ridiculous. //

But she wasn't doing her job, she was overreacting, which when dealing with children often does more harm then good.

// This is not in the remotest sense a case of "desecrating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights." //

I'm willing to bet the ACLU could argue differently.

Craig said: "It shouldn't take a 9/11 to get people to act to straighten things out. But, apparently, it does."

Unfortuneately the dirtbag-in-chief and his neo-cons have only made the country WORSE since 9/11. America is turning in the religion-based governments it preaches against (at least when it's not a christain-based religion).

Just for those not paying attention, PAD didn't post this little news bit, Glenn did.

As always, there must be more to this story. Does it sound silly and outrageous? Sure. Could there be justification for the suspension? Of course.

I think it's the teacher's statement to the parent that makes it more outrageous than justified..."'Mrs. Jaworski. This isn't humorous. The Pledge is an extremely important and patriotic moment each morning in the classroom. I am ashamed of your son's behavior, and I hope you are, too.'"

Fine, be ashamed, feel bad, get angry...but that's no cause for a suspension, because it's based on the idea that it's *wrong* to abuse the pledge in that way. Like some are trying to get us to believe that it's *wrong* to burn the US flag, or speak out in opposition to our government. It's taking the idea of "you're either with us, or against us" way too far, and shows just how unrealistic that viewpoint is.

On the other hand discipline in school is a very key concept to maintain. Could it be that this kid is a smart-ass joker that's often interrupting class at inappropriate times? And if that's the case, and this is just one more instance where he sees an opportunity to disrupt classroomm discipline, that I've got no problem with the suspension.

In any case, that teacher also needs a good lesson from the administration in how not to impose discipline based on a patriotic basis. In my school system, we stopped saying the pledge by the time we got to middle school. I didn't miss it. I didn't feel any less like an American. Of course, up until that point, I didn't really understand what it was I was saying...and just when I got to the age that it might have started to sink in, the practice was stopped.

Maybe, instead of trying to brainwash our kids into being patriotic, we should wait until they're old enough to understand the meaning of the words, why they're important, and give them the choice of whether they want to speak them or not.

It's not the reaction that people are responding to, it's the overreation.

"For every action, there is a ridiculous and overzealous reaction"? :)

Robbnn wrote:

> I wasn't commenting about the kid, I was
> commenting on US, the people on this
> thread.

Thank you for clarifying, as that wasn't clear (at least it wasn't to me) from your original post.

Personally, I think this is an admirable young man, and I'm glad his mother undertook an active defense of him.

>> Do all us liberals have to sit at the back of
>> the bus?"

> I'd wager if the far right could have it's way
> we liberals wouldn't be allowed on the bus.

Haven't you read anything by Ann Coulter? She doesn't wants "liberals" even on the bus, but rather run over by it.

It continues to amaze and disgust me that someone who wishes to murder or have executed by the state those who have political difference with her is considered a legitimate commentator on current events. In a sane, reasonable society, she would be considered beyond the pale, and shunned by polite society or hospitalized as mentally ill, not given employment in mass media.

>> Do all us liberals have to sit at the back of
>> the bus?"

> I'd wager if the far right could have it's way
> we liberals wouldn't be allowed on the bus.

Haven't you read anything by Ann Coulter? She doesn't wants "liberals" even on the bus, but rather run over by it.

It continues to amaze and disgust me that someone who wishes to murder or have executed by the state those who have political difference with her is considered a legitimate commentator on current events. In a sane, reasonable society, she would be considered beyond the pale, and shunned by polite society or hospitalized as mentally ill, not given employment in mass media.

> If this was a first offense, it was too harsh a
> punishment. If it's repeated...well, a teacher
> does have a right to keep order in her
> classroom.

There have been no indications in any accounts of the incident that there was any disorder at any time. The young man in question was reciting along with his classmates as a group, and merely said his version to himself during the group recitation.

Is it OK to burn a UFP flag?

Not only is there no indication that the child was disrupting class, the teacher didn't even notice or react. It was the parent of a classmate (presumably a child talking about "what happened at school today"). It is unclear in the original posts whether the parent complained to the teacher or directly to the pricipal.

So if the child wasn't disrupting class, this is all about the words he spoke. But from this the child has learned a valuable lesson - Creativity isn't wrong, but sometimes adults are.

Jester

;-)

David Bjorlin wrote:

> No, it isn't sickening. The child abuse case I
> have on the calendar for next week, in which
> the mother can't even be bothered to bring
> her child in for trial preparation, is sickening.
> The Abu Ghraib mess is sickening, and the
> Guantanamo Bay allegations, if true, are
> sickening. The murder of Kitty Genovese
> was sickening, and the non-response of the
> onlookers was more sickening. That people
> find time to be outraged by this picayune
> nonsense, when there are real outrages in
> the world, is sickening.

I would posit that this was a matter of (admittedly comparatively minor) abuse of a child by a school official. While there was no physical abuse, I am certainly of the opinion that there was psychological abuse here. I would have acted in the defense of one of my sons in much the same way as this boy's mother did.

> This is one child clowning around in an
> amusing fashion, and one teacher
> overreacting.

There is no indication that clowning, however one defines it, was involved. This young man was making a personal statement of heartfelt belief, or so it seems to me.

> If he'd launched into a discussion of warp
> engines during a science class, the
> behavior would have been precisely the
> same, but nobody would have cared.


As one who has participated in such discussions, I can say it would depend on the context. If the class is discussing possible or fictional extrapolations of advanced physics as a thought exercise, then, yes, talking about "warp drive", etc., would be okay, but not in a basic physics class where one is trying to learn what works and what doesn't in the real world. Context is relevant.

> But because an eight year old kid, who
> almost certainly has no political objectives of
> his own, happened to choose a political
> hot-button in which to show off, you're
> sickened by school discipline. This is as
> asinine as the humorless principal's
> behavior.

But he did have political objectives of his own, and all reports indicate that he was not showing off. As reported, this appears to me to be a fairly clear-cut case of political repression on the part of a humorless, narrow-minded, abusive school bureaucrat with the aid of an equally reactionary parent assisting in the class.

The difference between this incident and the more horrible physically violent examples you cite is one of degree, not of kind. In a third-world dictatorship, the same incident would have been punished violently, for the same reasons as this young man was punished.

Rex Hondo wrote:

> I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the
> United Stated of America, and to the ideals
> for which it stands, one nation of the people,
> by the people, and for the people, with liberty
> and justice for all.

Works for me. Nice rewrite.

"Rex Hondo wrote:

> I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the
> United Stated of America, and to the ideals
> for which it stands, one nation of the people,
> by the people, and for the people, with liberty
> and justice for all.

Works for me. Nice rewrite."

Agreed, to bad those in powers can't say it with a striaght face or an ounce of honesty or integrity.

Actually the thing that astonished me most about the story was that the pupils in that class (school?) are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance EVERY day. Seems a bit much. I sometimes wonder if the recurring heated controversies involving the Pledge as well as the treatment of the US national flag seem almost like symptoms of some kind of insecurity about US national identity. Also, especially since the addition of "under God", it does smack a bit of turning loyalty to the nation into some kind of religious activity (either turning the US into a deity or into a divine enterprise, "God's Own Country"). Charles M. Schulz may have gently poked fun at this in a "Peanuts" strip where Linus (IIRC) recites the Pledge, sits down, then stands up again to add: "Amen." And it seems to occupy a position on the course of events that was or is occupied by communal prayer in nations with established religions or in denominational schools.

Describing it as "fascist" is going overboard, still, is there anything comparable in other nations that aren't ruled by totalitarian regimes?

(Btw, any chance of the proposed amendment being broadened to include state flags to prevent protesters from burning the flags of the 50 states to circumvent it?)

Not that I want to sound negative. I have very fond memories of the year I spent in the US as a child, attending pre-school and starting first grade at Frances E. Willard School, Pasadena. (As far as my own memory and that of my parents can tell, the six-year-olds in my class were not yet required to recite the Pledge in 1964, although I did learn to sing "America the Beautiful" (with gusto!) and to stand at attention with my hand on my heart when the flag was raised.)

"seem almost like symptoms of some kind of insecurity about US national identity."

Give that man a prize. You know you're in trouble when your leaders start to take more action to protect the symbols of a nation (flag, the pledge) than they do to protect the people of the nation (reducing health care programs, education funding, and bankruptcy protections, providing our soldiers at war with the best available protective gear, etc.)

Still waiting for a non-blogging news source to pick this story up, and provide some details confirming its veracity...

I think it's the teacher's statement to the parent that makes it more outrageous than justified..."'Mrs. Jaworski. This isn't humorous. The Pledge is an extremely important and patriotic moment each morning in the classroom. I am ashamed of your son's behavior, and I hope you are, too.'"

Do we know this is what the teacher actually said? For that matter, do we have any news stories on this, or is the only account the repeated linking to the mother's blog, who, understandably is biased toward her own son.

"Is it OK to burn a UFP flag?"

Yes, but only if you use a phaser. :)

Howard, does it matter if this actually occured or not? Even if it's totally fabricated, my opinion that such a response in that situation would be just as valid. I'm not calling the teacher a bunch of names based on hearsay...just stating an opinion based on the discussion.

"("Good morning... Good morning...")

I pledge allegiance to the Village, and to Number Two in whatever he/she plans, one Number, under Rover, with no liberty and no justice for Number Six."

I am NOT a number! I AM A FREE MAN!!!

I love that show.
Actually, speaking of stupid rules, at my high school, we were required to have ID cards, which we had to carry on a lanyard around our neck. Not to have this was a crime punishable by a weeks suspension. Nice way of preparing the children for society. This way, you have a whole generation used to carrying their "Papers" like some kind of bad war movie. It was really sickening.

"Actually, speaking of stupid rules, at my high school, we were required to have ID cards, which we had to carry on a lanyard around our neck. Not to have this was a crime punishable by a weeks suspension. Nice way of preparing the children for society. This way, you have a whole generation used to carrying their "Papers" like some kind of bad war movie. It was really sickening."

I work for a Federal agency. Take out the week's suspension, and you have my building. And a lot of other buildings. Face it, we don't live in a society where you know everyone, and it's realy easy, absent some form of easliy recognizable device, to tell who belongs where. Any place where security is an issue uses this these days...airports, Federal buildings. I think having schools require them is a good idea. It won't stop another Columbine, since that was committed by students, but it might stop another Olkahoma City bombing (granted, I know those guys just drove the van up to the building, but you can't even do that these days without some form of ID).

Requiring ID badges is SOP in state government and is becoming more and more prevalent in the private sector, too.

Unfortunately, concerns about security are forcing schools and employers to take such measures. That being said, I think a week's suspension is overboard, but then schools abandoned all reason when it comes to what punishments are appropriate when they started adopting "zero tolerance" (ie, zero common sense) policies.

Posted by Michael Brunner at June 23, 2005 10:53 AM

When someone asks me if I believe/think that there's life in outer space, I usually reply 'I hope so. I'd hate to think that the universe stopped trying to create intelligent life after only one attempt'. This opinion is proven every time someone doesn't get what I say.

My ex-wife used to do a zine for the APA SFPA entitled "Hydrogen and Stupidity" -- after the two most common things in the Universe.

In direct response to your post, remember the words of The Man In The Refrigerator -- "Pray there's inteligence somewhere out in space -- 'Cos there's bugger-all down here on the Earth..."

Having followed the posted links back to the original blog post, i am a bit more cynical about whether this really happened -- particularly because the author has expanded the post to offer CafePress t-shirts and mugs imprinted with "her son's" cute pledge for sale...

1
Personally, I've never understood the pledge of allegience. From what I understand, this is a few sentences you have to say at the beginning of every day in public school... for what reason? Is it legally binding?

I find the US's fixation on the symbols more than the principles quite odd. Your national anthem is about your flag rather than your nation itself, you plaster your flag over everything, you have kids say the words before some even know what they mean... I just don't get it. We have no analogue to the pledge of allegience, Our national anthem is about our nation, and the only time I worry about my flag is when I pin a small version to my collar when I'm out of the country, just to let people know I'm not from around.

Your national anthem is about your flag rather than your nation itself

Our national anthem, the Star-Spangled Banner, was written during the War of 1812 (US vs Britain). It was written by Francis Scott Key while he was detained aboard a British ship during the attack on Baltimore.

After much bombing over night, the flag was still seen waving in the morning

So, the anthem is a theme of endurance against attackers, etc etc.

As a song, I find it to be quite powerful and appropriate for our nation. I don't think it's meant to make the flag out to an end-all symbol of this country though.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 24, 2005 02:14 PM
I don't think it's meant to make the flag out to an end-all symbol of this country though.

No, that seems to be Congress's job.

If you want to go by simple wording, Britain's national anthem is about protecting the life of whatever inbred moron currently reigns over them, while France's is about slaughtering their enemies, which is kind of ironic.

Craig, perhaps you want to forward your summation of the events surrounding the creation of our national anthem on to congress? Seems there are some members there that have forgotten that the anthem has a point to it, rather than just a glorification of a symbol.

Now, if early reports from the senate are accurate, and there are at least a few republicans that detest the idea of passing an amendment allowing flag burning, at least we have some hope that this idiocy doesn't get passed.

Craig, perhaps you want to forward your summation of the events surrounding the creation of our national anthem on to congress?

I'd love to, but we poor Independents don't have much sway these days. Not that we ever did. :)

"I work for a Federal agency. Take out the week's suspension, and you have my building. And a lot of other buildings."

Your point is well taken. In places where secure information is processed, or where there might be a terrorist threat, or where you might just need to identify yourself in a hurry (say in a hospital, to get quick access to patient records.) My point was is that requiring students to wear picture ID's for no real reason was a little disturbing. I remember a few years ago when they had the little micro-chips that went under your skin, my worry wasn't that the government would require all citizens to have these under their skin, but that private companies would require them. My problem wasn't with the idea per say, but more with the idea that people were getting comfortable with it. I felt it created an air of "Implied Suspicion." One of the reasons the school board passed them was so teachers could instantly identify trouble-makers, and I felt that the implication was that we were all a bunch of hooligans who could riot at any moment. Again, in some places they make sense. that place is not in a school.

I had to say the pledge and sing a song everymorning in elementary. Patriotic songs mon-thurs and the school song on friday. Even in kindergarden I knew what allegience meant. I just didn't care all that much at the time.

Knuckles said:
As a parent and a very proud father, let me say that it is MY responsibility to teach MY kids self-discipline and self-control, not the public school system. No one elses. The teachers job is difficult enough.

Very true. The sad fact is that too many parents don't do that. It falls on the teachers to try to train a child in proper social conduct.

There was a bit of discussion earlier about how teachers stamp out all individuality and creativity and how once a child starts to show too much of either they diagnose ADHD. Well, as the middle child, only girl, and younger sister to a severely ADHD brother, I say THANK GOD FOR RITALIN!!! Mom went through MANY baby sitters when we were growing up. They never had a problem with my younger brother or myself, but having a 1-year old walk in the front door, climb to the top of the rock-fronted chimney (every day, many times a day), and start speaking in complete, clear sentences tended to wear them out. This was him at one, imagine him at 10, in a classroom full of kids, with one poor teacher. Thankfully, we have a great mom who taught us well. When he broke things he would always apologize.

And now, after this rant, an amusing though sad story. Mom teaches "gifted ed" in grades 1-5. Teachers can refer students for testing if they think they should be in the gifted class. Every year she will get many referels of students who "don't seem very engaged in their work", "He is always distracted and finishes his work quickly. I think he might need more." Yes, dicipline at home. First, who isn't easily distracted in elementary, and second, if the work isn't right, it's not done.

One last thing, then I'll shutup. Everyone, and I mean Everyone, should watch the Nanny 911 or Supernannies tv show. You'll notice that the only thing wrong with the family is the parents. Say no once, and stick to it. If you say no for five minutes and then give in to your whining child, what does your child learn? To whine for five minutes and he'll get his way, every time.

"And we will force you to be patriotic even if we have to beat you with this here "Freedom Stick"!"

Does that mean it was originally French?

Ray: Does no one accept the possibility Craig's comment was a summation of his feelings after reading numerous incidents which stretch the limits of credulity -- most of them manufactured in the USA? PAD's website lists example after example of such items. Perhaps this incident was one of many (the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back") prompting Craig to submit his comment.
Luigi Novi: No, I do not accept that. Even if it was a characterization based on “numerous” examples instead of one, so what? My reaction is the same. Are those incidents the sole criteria by which one judges the entire country? Craig points out the 200 people in the House who made an unwise vote. So what? What about those who didn’t? What about people like us who are offended by those situations, and speak out against them, and even work to resolve them? Aren’t those “America” too? Isn’t Peter’s site part of the “country”? Again, why characterize the country only by the bad?

Again, why characterize the country only by the bad?

Because, these days, the bad tends to outweigh the good.

How so? In what way? It seems to me that bad simply gets more press precisely because it's bad. The good isn't news.

The good isn't news.

And what good has Congress done lately?

They pass a bill making bankrupcty more difficult, and reject every amendment to the bill that would help those who actually need it the most (elderly, military personnel).

They pass a bill in the House to outlaw flag burning, which just goes to show that they put too much stock in a symbol, rather than doing more to make sure our soldiers aren't dying on a daily basis.

Somebody makes a comment about torture at Gitmo? Well, they need to be thrown out of office. So does any Republican willing to compromise with Democrats.

In the meantime, we won't import drugs from Canada, because, heaven forbid, the prices get lowered for everybody and the drug companies lose some profits.

We have no fucking clue as to what's going on with the quagmire known as Iraq. College tuition? More and more outrageous and nothing being done.

This country is taking steps backward every day.

Because the November elections, the increasing popularity of moves towards censorship and stronger governmental restriction of freedoms, of dissent, of questioning, seem to indicate that the majority of the country WANTS things which Craig (among other of us) see as bad. The jury is still out, of course, on whether the current state of government is a passing phase, a hiccup before retuning to a more opened and balanced status, or, as many of us were left feeling after the election, indicative of the future course of this country. For me, post-election was the first time that I considered, even half-seriously, that this country may someday not be MY country anymore. I've gotten (cautiously) more optimistic since then, but I don't necessarily think Craig - and I did understand exactly what he meant by his original post, as I first read it - has.

Oops. While I was answering Luigi for him, Craig posted a - much more detailed - reply for himself. Oh well :)

I've read some of the posts regarding wearing ID tags for government work. I work at a government file storage site & we had to wear these for a few weeks until we got fed up with them. Around the same time they decided to run bomb drills. So we have to congregate in the middle of the warehouse we're working in (there are around seven on site) so a head count can be taken to make sure everyones ok. We then get told we can't wait outside as the bomb could be placed at the doorway & if we go outside this could set the bomb off (keep in mind this is all still a practice) at this point someone says "What if you're working outside the warehouse & the bomb alarm goes off?" the reply was "Well you have to come back inside." So lots of confused looks & then the next question "How does the bomb know if you're entering or leaving?" We never did get a answer to this.

"[Congresses] pass[es] a bill making bankrupcty more difficult."

Your position is that bankruptcy should be painless, easy and simple for everyone? Figures. It frees one person of debt while saddling others with that same debt. The liberal way of life!

"They pass a bill in the House to outlaw flag burning, which just goes to show that they put too much stock in a symbol, rather than doing more to make sure our soldiers aren't dying on a daily basis."

Absolutely! They obviously WANT the soldiers to die. It will increase support for the war! Errr... won't it?

"Somebody makes a comment about torture at Gitmo? Well, they need to be thrown out of office. So does any Republican willing to compromise with Democrats."

I agree! There should be no compromise with treason.

"In the meantime, we won't import drugs from Canada, because, heaven forbid, the prices get lowered for everybody and the drug companies lose some profits."

We? How many drugs are YOU importing, hmmm?

"We have no fucking clue as to what's going on with the quagmire known as Iraq."

Substitute "I" for "we" and you are so right! It's YOU who have no clue.

"This country is taking steps backward every day."

Or, to put it another way, "This country is disagreeing with me more every day. The horror ... the horror ..."

X-Ray: "Or, to put it another way, 'This country is disagreeing with me more every day. The horror ... the horror ...'"

Are you sure your own views are mainstream? Look at what you're doing: setting yourself up as better than everyone here, and "here" is the web page of an author you've never read.

Are you thinking this behavior is "mainstream," or even admirable?

"Are you sure your own views are mainstream?"

Yes. Bush won the election.

"Look at what you're doing: setting yourself up as better than everyone here, and 'here' is the web page of an author you've never read."

Most people here are merely parrotting liberal talking points. It's easy to feel superior to those whose political thoughts are usually second-hand, and can be reduced to one prhase. You guessed it: BUSH SUCKS!

And I have read Peter David's work. His "Young Justice," "Hulk," etc. I view him as an "OK" comic writer. Not complete crap, like most comic writers, but far from original or ground-breaking, as are Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. By and large, David does not create afresh, he merely reworks the old characters and plots of others. But so what? Who cares if I've read the works of the haughty Peter David or not? Or what I think of them? How is that relevant?

"Are you thinking this behavior is 'mainstream," or even admirable?"

What do YOU think?

Fair questions. The answers aren't relevant, as you've shown time and again. What you're looking for (and our little tryst today was just to get your attention), is to be heard. Me too.

I was on a big metal boat, and I fixed the radar in the planes. At the time, my friends and I didn't know how lousy the bad guy's missiles were. We were just worried.

"Howling Mad" was sent to us by a guy's mom. It was FUNNY. It had cool monsters in it, and hot babes, and all the stuff you like if you're a teenager worried about missiles.

You can talk about the quality of PAD's work, and so forth. But mostly you're trying to screw with someone who means nothing to you, and who actually did my friends and I a good turn, distracting us from the bad guys.

I like PAD, and as a result I don't like you. You're getting in the face of someone who meant something to us on the stupid metal boat. Politics aren't important here. Cool monsters are.

I won't post anymore; I regret doing this much. I feel like I've upset you, and it was just to get your attention. I don't really think you're building a bomb.

Yeah yeah. Typical liberal (I'm really not), classic-also-funny. Man! Those really sting!

Well, maltomeal, I had the exact opposite experience experience with Ritalin. I was put on it for a year for no other reason than I didn't "fit in" with the rest of the class. What kid in the fourth grade doesn't have problems fitting in? The drug made me a zombie and did nothing to make me less of social outcast. All I have to say is "thank God my parents took me off it."

"That people find time to be outraged by this picayune nonsense, when there are real outrages in the world, is sickening."

That people find time to be sickened by people being sickened by this picayune nonsense, is sickening. We can do this as long as you like.

Seriously, I can't be sickened by something just because there are other things in the world that are MORE sickening? That doesn't make any sense.

"Politics aren't important here. Cool monsters are."
----------

Then why are political posts made here? With HUNDREDS of responses? Sorry my friend, but it's obvious that politics ARE important here. If you've noticed, I only comment on POLITICAL posts. If there were no politics here, I would not be here either.

An ignore user feature, at this point, would be great.

Alas, this is only a blog, and not actually a message board.

I suppose I'm to the point now where I don't know why PAD continues to let the neighbor's dog shit in his yard, although it is PAD's yard after all.

"That people find time to be outraged by this picayune nonsense, when there are real outrages in the world, is sickening."

That people find time to be sickened by people being sickened by this picayune nonsense, is sickening. We can do this as long as you like.

I find it sickening that people are sickened by sickening picayune people who are sickened by picayune sickening things that sicken other people who are picayune.

Or something like that.

"I don't know why PAD continues to let the neighbor's dog shit in his yard."
-----------

It's DANGEROUS to disagree with people here.

First, I was told I was building a bomb, now I am dog shit.

Nice!

Is this the "civility" we are asked for?

Personally I don't see what the big deal is about standing up in the morning at school and saying the pledge. I remeber saying it when I was in middle school, and had absolutley had no problem saying it. Oh thats right, I keep forgetting that was back in the 80's when people actually gave a crap about there country and cry foul over every little tiny thing.

Personally I don't see what the big deal is about standing up in the morning at school and saying the pledge.

Because the pledge is not only about patrotic indoctrination, for the last several decades it has been about religious indoctrination as well, thanks to those words "under god".

You should say it because you want to, not because somebody forces you to. And at the age of 8, you're not going to understand what it means anyways.

Yes! It is a continuing outrage that we acknowledge the creator of everything that exists.

We MUST find a way to keep God away from our children!

"After much bombing over night, the flag was still seen waving in the morning

So, the anthem is a theme of endurance against attackers, etc etc."

Yeah, right...
THe fort was demolished and everybody in it was dead, but it's great becasue the fucking FLAG was still their, screw the people, eh?

THe fort was demolished and everybody in it was dead, but it's great becasue the fucking FLAG was still their, screw the people, eh?

No, the flag was still flying because the Americans holding the fort hadn't surrendered. They had successfully weathered the attack through the night.

I weep for our education system.

Quoth you-know-who:

We MUST find a way to keep God away from our children!

Who said anything about that? The United States isn't a theocracy. By implication, "under God" in context of the pledge, to some indicates a preferred religion. I mean personally, I don't mind it so much--I am Catholic and I do worship the Judeo-Christian God. Others who practice atheism or worship other gods may be offended and feel that a particular set of religious beliefs is part and parcel of being in America and that they're being pushed toward worship of gods they don't believe in. (Never mind the idea that we all potentially worship aspects of essentially the same omnipotent entity, whom we imbue with certain cultural traits.)

I don't like your implication, and once more, your closed-mindedness is showing. Are all those who don't share your belief in the Judeo-Christian God less American than you? Less of a person than you? You seem to imply they are, just like you imply those with different political beliefs are less than you.

And that, sir, along with everything else you've said here, makes you the very definition of a bigot.

"What is tolerance? -- it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly -- that is the first law of nature." --Voltaire

~G.

So you want to "tolerate" those who would remove God from the public square.

Yet you do NOT want to "tolerate" my opinion that this is wrong. You call it close-minded and bigoted!

Awfully selective "tolerance" you've got going there, Mr. Voltaire lover.

You should say it because you want to, not because somebody forces you to. And at the age of 8, you're not going to understand what it means anyways.

For once, I agree with you (on both issues). The second part is why I insist the kid was just showing off, not acting from any deeply-held belief.

I don't know why PAD continues to let the neighbor's dog shit in his yard, although it is PAD's yard after all.

Peter and I are both noted free-speech absolutists, and we both believe that more speech is the answer to driving out bad speech. (Which distinguishes us from most sites on the right side of the spectrum, which deal with the issue by not allowing comments at all-- usually because they're unwilling or unable to defend their ideas in open debate. We're a bit more supportive of our community.)

However, I do have my limits. For example, posting under numerous nicknames to try and drum up support is often enough of a reason to bounce someone, or at least highlight the fact. (Did I mention that X-Ray's done that? No? Consider this a heads-up.)

X-Ray, you don't want to concede any arguments here. You want to make this site your own private soapbox, and do it using the online equivalent of celebrity stalking. You're here to win, and winning for you means relieving yourself in the pool until there's more urine than water in it (metaphorically speaking of course). You're not debating--you're shoving your opinions down people's throats (again, metaphorically). You're the furthest thing from humble. Why do you insist on putting words into the mouths of, and belittling, those who disagree with you? You have no tolerance for those with dissenting opinions, else you'd let things go instead of childishly prattling on, taking metaphorical comments literally, etc. What makes you so angry that you have to lash out in this manner? Who taught you the best way to win a fight was to call people names and hurl insults? You're a bigot, and you thrive on people calling you out on anything, which is why I hope everyone, and I mean everyone on this board, will just stop giving you nuggets to feed on. You may be having one hell of a time here and on other boards where you indulge in the same behavior, but really, it drains the fun out of posting here for the rest of us--that includes those who may be on your end of the political spectrum, but who argue substantially more cogently and articulately.

This is my last post on the matter. Sometimes the best way of advocating free speech is just to let your loudest opponents yell themselves hoarse until they go away.

Nope, not Voltaire--that's Miller.

~G., who thinks the Hulk was right when he said, "Best way to make people of one mind is to bash their heads together.":-D

I do have a question that's actually on topic. Many here have said that the kid in question has the right to express his own beliefs about the pledge. To make that argument, it requires assuming that the kid is old enough to make a decision about the beliefs in question. So, if this kid is old enough, wouldn't his classmates be old enough to make their own decisions as well. Even granting that a significant portion of his classmates aren't mature enough, at least a couple of others are making a conscious decision to say the pledge because they believe in it. So, is it proper to disrupt their saying of the pledge by making up his own? No, the punishment he initially received wasn't appropriate, but shouldn't the other students who also made a decision be able to say the pledge in a respectful manner? I don't know what's the proper way for kids who decide they don't want to say the pledge as written to express that decision, but shouldn't the kids who decide they want to say it be able to express that decision in a respectful setting?

I know there's going to be a pile-on about peer pressure and how those who don't want to say the pledge will be picked on, etc., but I know that if the rest of the kids are expected to respect a classmate's decision not to say the pledge, then that classmate should respect those who decide to say it.

Glenn,

We know Tweedle did the fake name thing once before. How about filling us in on the names he uses other then X so that those of us who wish to skip his pointless rantings and mindless postings can do so on all his many names.

Thanks.

In response to Jason--Actually, I have no problem believing that a kid could have well formed beliefs about this issue. Most seven year olds that I know usually have a much better idea of what's going on than the majority gives them. They don't live in a vaccuum, guys. Honestly, I think if a few more leaders(right, left, up, down, whoever) thought a little more like kids sometimes the world would be a better place and we'd all have cookies.

Most seven year olds that I know usually have a much better idea of what's going on than the majority gives them.

Maybe.

But the Pledge is supposed to be something to prove you're not a Nazi, or Russian Communist, or a terrorist, etc.

Are we worried that our seven year olds are going to like Canada more than America or something?

If that's what we're afraid of, then maybe we should be spending more time actually improving America's image so that the pledge isn't necessary.

I know this is probably traitorous thinking in some quarters (such as with the Bush Administration), but there it is.

Why the "fixation" on our national symbols - it's called branding and imaging. We may think it irrelevant, but the USA rose from nothing to SuperPower in less than 200 years. Much of that was because of our democracy, but the packaging helped a lot, too.

Do some research on the Confederacy and see how they blew a small movement into a national threat simply through image/identity branding. Fascinating study.

Side note: why should we not allow Canadian drugs in? Because they steal those drug formulas from us. A drug manufacturer who submits their product to Canada must submit the formula, then they are told they can market the drug at next to nothing or they'll just rip off the formula and market themselves (yea, socialism). Our country says the developer of a product can charge what they market will bear. Flooding the US with Canadian drugs will severely cut into drug R&D that we do more than any other country. Medical progress would be sharply reduced.

Actually, I don't think the pledge is the last line of defense before all of our youth defect or anything. I guess I was just wondering about the need for both sides to respect their opposite's decision about reciting the pledge. It's evident both sides have very strong feelings and rationales about the pledge and its connotations. I'd even accept that the kid didn't intentionally mean any disrespect when he said his own version, so maybe if nothing else there should be some discussion on constructive ways for expressing both opinions?

Medical progress would be sharply reduced.

That R&D already comes at the expense of the lives of those who cannot afford the medicines to begin with.

"That R&D already comes at the expense of the lives of those who cannot afford the medicines to begin with."

I'll be the first to state that the life-saving alone should be enough to advance the field of medicine...if we had a state-run system. We don't, for better or worse. The field is a for-profit industry, and medical research takes big $ and lots of time....something people must have some payout for. And while I wish altruism was enough of an incentive, it's not. The best medical advances are had when investors recognize a a profit to be made.

If our society (and by that, I mostly mean the extremely rich in the country) would decide to fund medical research, we'd not need to rely on things like patents and market support for the extrememly expensive testing and development of new medicines.

While I'm all for cheaper medical costs, allowing Canada to see formula for drugs, which some American developer has put up the funding for, will take the support out of advancing the medical field. If I'm a potential financer, and I know that after spending $20 million to develop a new drug, only to have some Canadian lab produce it at cost the day after I release it to the Canadian market, I'm either not going to release it to Canada, or just not invest at all.

Maybe that's the solution? Stop exporting our drugs to Canada?

Gary Miller agrees that "the Hulk was right when he said, "Best way to make people of one mind is to bash their heads together."
----------

Yes! Now THAT is intelligent, civil discourse!

"Peter and I are both noted free-speech absolutists..."
----------------

Noted by WHO?

Some of my posts here have been deleted or altered.

THAT'S absolute free speech?

By the way, haven't you heard?

You're ALL supposed to be ignoring me.

Peter and I are both noted free-speech absolutists, and we both believe that more speech is the answer to driving out bad speech. (Which distinguishes us from most sites on the right side of the spectrum, which deal with the issue by not allowing comments at all.)
--------

In an attempt to disparage "right side" sites, this post links to several sites, all supposedly examples of "right-side" sites that don't allow commentary.

But let's examine some of the supposed "right side" links in the post:

(1) INSTAPUNDIT - This is NOT a "right-side" site. It's actually pretty pro-Democratic.

(2) JOHN ELLIS - This site states in all caps: "Ellisblog is no longer an 'active blog.' " Yet you want him to have commentary on an inactive blog.

(3) ANDREW SULLIVAN - This is not a "right side" site either. Do you even know what the "right side" IS?

(4) HUGH HEWITT - Site of a radio talk show host, author. This site is not about comments, it's about expressing one man's opinion.

(5) REAL CLEAR POLITICS - This is a pure news site, and like all such sites, has no commentary feature.

So, as you can see, this list of evil "right-siders" who "don't allow comment" is simply another distortion designed to make Republicans look bad.

Classic. Also Funny.

P.S. What happened to you statement that "I won't get into either political or religious discussions or debates."? That lasted all of two days!

(Answer: Apparently you can't read since I did not make the above comment)

"P.S. What happened to you statement that "I won't get into either political or religious discussions or debates."? That lasted all of two days!"

X-Ray...I'm still ignoring the content of your posts, but since it appears Glenn can't post at the moment, I'll just correct you in that it was Kathleen that said she wasn't going to become involved in political or religious debates, and so far as I can tell, she hasn't. It was Glenn that posted the links to the sites you're referring to, and that I'm not going to comment on.

I will offer a little advice, however. While PAD seems to be perfectly content to let you continue to embarass yourself here, I'd say that picking fights with his wife/family is real good way to get your ass banned, free speech or not.

Whoa. Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) a Democrat? That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Andrew Sullivan not on the right of the political spectrum? Aside from the fact that he's British, that guy is about as right-wing as you get without being Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz. Real Clear Politics IS a news aggregator, true. But it's a news aggregator with a right-wing bent. And Hugh Hewitt, well there you go. So far, Glenn's 4-4.

I think you people need to make up your minds.

Are you going to ignore me or not?

As for being banned from this site ... so what.

"Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) a Democrat? That's the funniest thing I've read all day."

Except I didn't say he WAS a Democrat! Just that the site was pro-Democratic, which it often is.

"Andrew Sullivan not on the right of the political spectrum?"

"Again, I did not deny Sullivan himself is on the right, just that his site is not a "right side" site, by which I mean it is often pro-Democratic.

"Real Clear Politics IS a news aggregator, true. But it's a news aggregator with a right-wing bent."

So what? News sites don't have comments like blogs do!

"And Hugh Hewitt, well there you go."

Meaning what, that your twisting of my words is now complete?

4) HUGH HEWITT - Site of a radio talk show host, author. This site is not about comments, it's about expressing one man's opinion.

So is this one, yet you have no problem trolling here to object to one man's opinion.

------------
"P.S. What happened to you statement that "I won't get into either political or religious discussions or debates."? That lasted all of two days!"

Now who's twisting words?

"Again, I did not deny Sullivan himself is on the right, just that his site is not a "right side" site, by which I mean it is often pro-Democratic.

I'm confused. Please explain this to me. If a blogger is right-wing, how their blog is often pro-Democratic. Are you saying Andrew Sullivan, though right-wing, often says pro-Democratic stuff? How about some specific instances.

Or are you saying that some of those who comment on his blog are Pro-Democratic? If that's the case, then I guess PADs blog is also Pro-Republican at times. But that doesn't seem to be a useful definition.

"Peter and I are both noted free-speech absolutists..." Noted by WHO?

Well, I'm looking at the ACLU Civil Liberties Award on my desk, presented to "a champion of free speech for their commitment to fighting the Communications Decency Act". And Peter's donated time, sweat, and cash to the CBLDF, just off the top of my head.

Some of my posts here have been deleted or altered.

Not by me or Peter, and I've looked. Unless you tripped some automatic spam deletion protocol, which as we've noted we've had some problems with.

Trust me, if we alter your posts, it'll be obvious.

Incidentally, if you still feel we're adbridging your comments, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from setting up a LiveJournal page or a TypePad blog and saying whatever you want, without any possibility of interference from us. Having the freedom to speak doesn't mean we have to be the ones to give you the forum.

By the way, haven't you heard? You're ALL supposed to be ignoring me.

Peter said he was ignoring you. Most other people are already ignoring you. As the webmaster, I don't have the luxury.

Maybe he means that Andrew Sullivan is actually pro-democratic values (as in pro-democracy), and that's just plain wrong. Which seems to be the case. Glenn Reynolds, on the other hand, has no interest in democracy at all.

Well, I'm looking at the ACLU Civil Liberties Award on my desk,

Aww, poor Glenn. You've just gone and proved to The Unnamed Idiot that you work for the Devil.

Yeah, Glenn. What kind of jerk supports an organization whose sole function is to defend the Bill of Rights? Freakin' commie...

Hello! It was my son who was suspended for reciting his own Star Trek pledge. He is such a kind and gentle boy, and his life right now is all about space and the future and wanting to be a scientist or space explorer someday. Thank you so kindly for linking to my blog, and I deeply appeciate all the wonderful comments and positive thoughts. My son, 8, is heartened to hear that others believe in a future where all species are equal.

“HUGH HEWITT’s site is ... one man's opinion. So is this one, yet you have no problem trolling here to object to one man's opinion.”

The difference is that Hewitt’s site is factual. This one is not.

“Are you saying Andrew Sullivan, though right-wing, often says pro-Democratic stuff? How about some specific instances.”

OK! From Andrew Sullivan’s site, Saturday, June 25, 2005: “I guess some might call me an Independent, in as much as I've backed Democrats and Republicans in the past. Backing Reagan and the two Bushes as well as Kerry and Clinton puts me somewhere in the center, I suppose.

“ ‘Some of my posts here have been deleted or altered.’ Not by me or Peter, and I've looked. Unless you tripped some automatic spam deletion protocol, which as we've noted we've had some problems with.”

Two of my posts WERE deleted, days ago, but I’ll accept what you say.

"I'm looking at the ACLU Civil Liberties Award on my desk ... And Peter's donated time, sweat, and cash to the CBLDF.”

Oh, excuse me! If a liberal organization dedicated to removing God from the public square say you’re OK, well then I guess that’s that! As for the CBLDF, good for him. (Seriously.)

It never ceases to amaze me the lack of intelligence of people for the respect of other religions outside christianity and their obvious offspring. Does that truly make me a liberal? I don't know.... I voted a mixed ballot of Republicans, Democrats & Libertarians during the last major national election. Actually, I prefer to think I voted for those who views were similar to my own, and not a threat to our Constitutional rights!

"If a liberal organization dedicated to removing God from the public square say you’re OK."

Remind me again. Who said you have the right to preach on every street-corner? Who fought in Las Vegas to allow preachers on The Strip? Oh, yeah, the ACLU. And you said that you have no problems with blatent religious references? ok, but to make it fair....we will represent every religion. So in the courthouses, and every government building we will have: a Cross, a Star of David, A statue of the Bhudda, a statue of Shiva, a Cresecent, a Pentacle, and anyother religious symbols I might have missed.

Alternatly, we could accept that, as a nation, we embrace people of every creed, and their right to practice any religion, while at the same time not accepting any National religion. How could you hope for a truely unbiased judgement as a Muslim, under a Christian nation, a Christian, under a Bhuddist nation, or any other combination? The only combination is any religion, under a nation that embraces no religion. That is the great thing abut America. You can be whatever religion you like, but you are not judged under any of them. In inflicting religion on the government, you take the first step in forcing bigotry and religious contreversy on it too. Is religion automatically biased? No, but religious people can be. Not most, but some. Like the "Christian" fundamentalists who; whenever they hear about a gay person, drive miles and picket outside their house, or the "Muslim" fundamentalists who drive planes into buildings. That is what happens when you let religion take over a country. Methinks you would not be so up in arms if the ACLU was trying to remove a Pentacle, or statue of Shiva. You can't simply say: "My religion can have it's symbols everywhere in government!!" becasue, if you want to honor one religion, you have to honor them all. I doubt you will respond to any of the issues raised in this post, or you will misquote me. This is for all the sane people out there.

"Oh, excuse me! If a liberal organization dedicated to removing God from the public square say you’re OK, well then I guess that’s that!"

Actually, that's not what the ACLU is all about, but clearly you're not interested in learning what they are about. The First Amendment wasn't written to eliminate God from the public square. The First Amendment was written to ensure the American people did not have government sanctioned enforcement of one specific religion over another. Meaning, yes, Islam should get just as much time in the public square as Christianity. I wouldn't have any problem with them installing the Ten Commandments if they included the Islamic counterpart, as well as that of Judaism (and whatever else you might consider a mainstream religion). But that doesn't happen, and that probably will never happen. Until it does, the Ten Commandments need to stay away from the public square. The argument is frequently made that "We're a Christian nation." Well, only those truly ignorant of the Continental Congress and the birth of our nation would argue that.

Further, the ACLU is dedicated to defending the Bill of Rights. If that means defending the Klan to their right to free speech, then they will do so. If that means defending the NRA, they will do so (although I daresay the NRA can afford their own lawyers). If that means defending an Athiest who is forced to pray at a public school, they will do so.

Whew. Now that I've spent so much time twisting your words, I need a beer.

Damn. You beat me to it, James. Curses.

Aww, poor Glenn. You've just gone and proved to The Unnamed Idiot that you work for the Devil.

Ah, but I got the award by suing Janet Reno to overturn a law signed by Bill Clinton. And Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas agreed with my side. So that will really confuse him.

Actually, Knuckles, as I understand it, the Book of Exodus is pretty much the same in both the Biblical Old Testament and the Torah - thus, the Ten Commandments of Christianity are also the first ten commandments of Judaism (Avram Davidson tells us that orthodox Jews acknowledge over six hundred commandments in toto). I have no idea what the Qu'ran has to say on the topic, as I haven't read it yet - there's no Islamic equivalent of the Gideon Society running around, hiding the suras in motel rooms...

Wicca and Neopaganism seem to share the Rede and the Threefold Law (respectively, "Do as you will, if it harm none," and "All that you do, for good or ill, will return to you threefold").

I don't know if Buddhism has any central tenets like that.

Jonathan (the other one):

There are at least 3 versions of the 10 Commandments: Jewish, Catholic & Protestant. They can be seen side by side here:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

Also, while Islam doesn't have the 10 Commandmants, there are equalivent passages, as seen here:

http://islam-usa.com/e70.htm

Ah, but I got the award by suing Janet Reno to overturn a law signed by Bill Clinton. And Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas agreed with my side

Details please? Just curious.

Thanks.

"Actually, that's not what the ACLU is all about, but clearly you're not interested in learning what they are about."
------------

Well, at least SOMEONE here is paying attention!

"Well, at least SOMEONE here is paying attention!"

"'Tis better to remain a fool, then to risk becoming wise. For the wise know they are fools, while the fools can bask in the wonderful delusion of being wise"

"Who's more foolish ... the fool, or the one that follows him?" --Ancient Jedi saying

"It's a foolie!" --Ancient Star Trek saying

"Who's more foolish ... the fool, or the one that follows him?" --Ancient Jedi saying"

Explains nicely why no one is following you.

Johnathan: I was assuming that there would be some sort of equivalent for almost all religions. You can't really have a successful business without a mission statement, can you?

Details please? Just curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=13938&c=252

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

I know it's off topic, but the Canadian Parliament just minutes ago passed the infamous bill C-38, that which nationalizes the legalization of Same-Sex marriage ( Eight provinces and one territory had already ratified it through the courts).

Huzzah for Canada. No really, good for them. Good to see that somebody isn't trying to write hate and intolerance into law.

-Rex Hondo-

Actually, Jeers to Canada, who has thrown over free speech and freedom of religion. With that single act they have forever separated themselves from any familial connection to the US.

Not everything is about America. Don't you think the Canadians may have wanted to do something FOR their country as opposed to AGAINST us? An how have they thrown over free speech or freedom of religion? (Which isn't in their bill of rights, it's in ours, by the way.) You don't want to marry someone of the same sex, the law is not forcing you. It also doesn't seem to say anything about taking away your right to say you don't like the new law.

Canada is following the lead of other enlightened countries that are not allowing Christianity to dictate their laws. I agree completely with Rex. It's nice to see a positve, rather than negative law for once.

It's actually written DIRECTLY into the bill that no religious institution or official will receive benefits or be penalized for refusing or not refusing to perform marriages that don't conform to their own consciences or religious beliefs, as has always been their right. I don't have a clue what you mean by free speech, unless you refer to the few instances in which people, including religious officials, have been brought in front of a human rights tribunal for speaking out against the bill. These, I admit, are a slap in the face to free speech, and I fully expect the cases to be thrown out, as most are still pending.

Oh, and freedom of religion IS in our bill of rights. Part 1 (c). Right above part 1 (d), freedom of speech.

One last thing, if we "have forever separated themselves from any familial connection to the US.", I figured it'd have been when Chretien told Bush to go to hell when it came to the Iraq War, or when Martin (after dithering over it) decided not to throw good money after Bush's bad money in regard to the non-functioning ballistic missile defense. Or when you guys violated international trade law in regards to softwood lumber imports from Canada. Or when you closed your borders to our beef, because of a single case of Mad Cow, which, by the way, has been discovered in US cattle now. Surely it's not when we passed a law that has no effect on America whatsoever. By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, Massachusettes has same-sex marriage, and California is running to catch up.

How does same sex marriage "over throw" freedom of religion and speech? Good on you, Canada. Nice to have at least one country in North America that doesn't have its head up its ass.

Huzzah for Canada. No really, good for them. Good to see that somebody isn't trying to write hate and intolerance into law.

I agree with the "good for Canada" idea. A bill democratically passed through the ordinary political process is precisely how major changes to domestic relations laws should come about. Here, of course, a minority is effectively forcing such a major change down the throats of the rest of the country without so much as a "by your leave" from a single state legislature. (Massachusetts of course enacted a gay marriage law... because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made them.) That's why I bridle at the characterization of "trying to write hate and intolerance into law." A marriage amendment is the only way to fix an essentially undemocratic fait accompli; certain activists brought this one on themselves.

Liam,
Oh, and freedom of religion IS in our bill of rights. Part 1 (c). Right above part 1 (d), freedom of speech.

Thank-you for the clarification. I'm afraid I'm not conversant with Canada's laws. That was no excuse for automatically assuming Robbnn was referencing the US's Bill of Rights.

David,
Why is it democratic in Canada, but "forced down our throats" here? Many of us believe that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and privileges the rest of humanity enjoys.

A marriage amendment is the only way to fix an essentially undemocratic fait accompli;

I wouldn't be surprised if, in the history of our country, more change has been brought by the minority than majority.

End of slavery? Women's right to vote? Civil rights?

Hell, if you look at lobbyist groups these days, you can see the that a minority (corporate America) has Congress and this country by the balls. And they're twisting as much as possible.

Canada passed a "hate speech" law that prevents anyone from speaking out against homosexuality. Pastors who just read the Biblical passages against homosexuality without adding anything to the text are breaking the law and subject to imprisonment. If they dare say it's a sin, they are lawbreakers.

I don't encourage anyone to rant and rave against homosexuality, but if you can't have a reasoned discussion about it without fearing the police, then your country has stepped over the line.

The incidents you stated don't sever the connection, it validates it. Disagree with us, fine, but by stepping away from the ideals of free speech and religion - in your constitution or not - then you've stepped away from the great experiment.

I mean, really, a law passed when opposing the legislation is illegal... big win there...

"Here, of course, a minority is effectively forcing such a major change down the throats of the rest of the country without so much as a "by your leave" from a single state legislature"

I think you'll find that throughout history, most of the positive changes that have occurred began with the minority, or even one person. Majority-held ideas are often lousy ones, stuck in backward thinking and an intolerant status quo.

The arguments against gays in the military are the exact same arguments that were presented against blacks in the military. The prejudice gays encounter against marriage are the same prejudices encountered by blacks who wanted to marry whites, Catholics who wanted to marry Jews, and so on.

Society isn't bettered by the backward-thinking majority. It's bettered by the forward-thinking minority against the will of the majority until the majority gets its head out of its ass and moves on to something else to bitch about.

There's always a good reason not to change something: Fear. And there's always a good reason TO change something: Lack of fear.

I'll side with the latter, thanks.

PAD

If they dare say it's a sin, they are lawbreakers.

I get the feeling you've completely misinterpreted this.

There are alot of sins.

But speaking out against them generally doesn't get you into trouble unless you're sitting there saying "we need to make gays pay for being gays"... you know, threats and that sort of thing.

The problem is, and I'm sure this is the case more so in the US than Canada, that of complete and utter intolerance toward gays and lesbians.

The incidents you stated don't sever the connection, it validates it.

Gee, and people piss on me when I say America has gone to the shitter.

Apparently it's ok as long as we're talking about another country...

Robbnn,
Is your issue with the "Hate Speech" bill? Or the Same-sex marriage bill? I can agree with a negative stance on the latter, as I'm all for free speech. But WAIT! Your objections are mostly due to the inability of religious officials to denounce homosexuality. Let's take a look at a description of the bill:

Status of bill C-250:

The bill was given royal assent by the Queen's representative in Canada on 2004-APR-29. It took immediate effect. It is now part of the legal code of Canada. Some propaganda directing hatred against persons of any sexual orientation, heterosexuals, homosexuals and/or bisexuals, is now a crime in Canada. Sexual orientation has now joined four other groups protected against hate speech on the basis of their "color, race, religion or ethnic origin." 1 However, a "not withstanding" clause allows hate speech if it is religiously motivated.

So, it looks like the bill, like the Same-Sex marriage bill, was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to protect religious instituions. Well, snap. It looks like your point fails.

Oh, and let's look at Hate crimes in General as they are regarded in Canada:

Who can be convicted under Section 319?

Section 318 deals with genocide. Section 319 deals with hate speech:

1. If it can be shown that the speech was so abusive that it was likely to incite listeners or readers into violent action against an identifiable group, and if the the speech was made in a public place, then a person could be convicted.

2. If the speech promoted hatred against an identifiable group, but was not likely to incite a listener to violence, then a person could still be convicted. However there are many safeguards that could give that person immunity. A person could not be convicted if:

The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.

If the person can establish that the statements made are true.

If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.

If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.

If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.

If the provincial Attorney General refused to give permission. The Attorney General's consent is required before charges can be laid.. 1

In this section of the Code, the term "statements" includes spoken words, written words, published text, gestures, signs and other visible representations.

The Code permits up to two years in prison for anyone convicted of a hate crime. It permits the government to confiscate any literature that was used in conjunction with the hate speech.

Therefore, when it comes to freedom of religion, I don't think there's a single argument that can be made stating that this legislation doesn't conserve it.

Liam,

If you're correct, then my point fails. Which really bites, being in public and all. I've heard of some differing accounts, but annocdotal evidence often isn't. I don't care that much about the marriage law, just that speaking against it is against the law.

Craig,

How does saying Canada can disagree with us without severing our "cousin" connection equate to pissing on Canada? I'm not terribly thrilled with Canada's socialistic leanings, and their graphic design seems to lag behind the rest of the world by about 20 years, but their landscaping is terrific (though their public restrooms are the pits) and some of the best summers I've had were on the beaches of South West Canada. I'm bugged by their government, but not by their people.

Liam, are those restatements of Canadian law, or actual text from the bills?

If it's the latter, then the US needs to send it's legislative drafters up north for some learnin'. Those are the most plain-written and easy to understand laws I've ever seen...with examples and everything.

Heck, even if it's a restatement, it's more plainly written that most American legal texts.

How does saying Canada can disagree with us without severing our "cousin" connection equate to pissing on Canada?

You're complaining about Canada's laws in a manner that makes it sound like they have brain damage.

You say that they don't know what free speech is. They seem to know a helluva lot more about it than we do.

But then, your arguments about the laws in question appear to have been flawed anyways.

Actually, they were restatements. However, the actual criminal code documents are just as clearly written and can be found here:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.py?documents/Canadian/criminal-code.319

Also, for those who want to see the actual bill C-38 (The Civil Marriage Act) in PDF, it can be found here.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-38_1.PDF

The actual text of the act, excluding the preamble and consequential amendments, is merely 4 statements:

1. This Act may be cited as the Civil Marriage Act.

2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.

I wouldn't be surprised if, in the history of our country, more change has been brought by the minority than majority.

Ah, but has it been GOOD change? I'd just note that, this being a democratic republic, no change is permanent without the consent (albeit grudging) of the majority.

End of slavery? Women's right to vote? Civil rights?

All of which were brought about by the majority through the ordinary democratic process. End of slavery? Thirteenth Amendment, proposed by Congress and passed by three-quarters of the states. Women's right to vote? Nineteenth Amendment, ratified according to the Constitution. Civil rights? Fourteenth Amendment, ratified according to the Constitution, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. All instances of the majority doing the right thing for the right reasons in the right way. If these are your examples, I'm glad to know you've come around to my line of thinking.

Karen askeed, Why is it democratic in Canada, but "forced down our throats" here? Many of us believe that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and privileges the rest of humanity enjoys.

It's democratic in Canada and undemocratic here because of the way it came about. In Canada, Parliament passed a law defining a domestic relationship. That's precisely what legislatures are supposed to do in a democracy: legislate and answer to the voting public in the next election, with the understanding that the voting public can replace legislators who overstep their bounds. Here, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, by a 4-3 vote, imposed a new definition of marriage on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. By operation of the Comity Clause of the US Constitution, I firmly believe that marriages entered into in Massachusetts are valid if gay partners relocate anywhere in the United States. (I can go on a tangent about why I think the Defense of Marriage Act is, um, "constitutionally suspect" if you like, but that's really a different discussion.) Not one single legislature has ever approved gay marriage, except Massachusetts under protest and under court order (recall that Mass. tried to duck the issue by creating civil unions, and the SJC said that was insufficient). To the contrary, many states have expressly declared that gay marriage is against public policy in their jurisdictions. How anyone can interpret an instance of four people imposing their will over the objection of every legislature to consider the issue as anything but undemocratic, I do not know.

This is a particularly bad abuse because the underlying problem was so avoidable for two reasons. First, and less importantly, is that the SJC opinion was fairly bad. I know virtually nothing about Massachusetts law, which makes me a good person to judge the opinion. An opinion should not merely give the answer to people sufficiently familiar with the law that they basically already know the answer anyway. A good court opinion is like a formal, logical proof. It states the premises-- the facts and circumstances of the particular case, and the statutes and legal doctrines in the jurisdiction-- and flows out from those premises, to explain why a certain conclusion is the most logical application of the law. Viewed purely as an exercise in legal reasoning, I thought the dissent had the better of the argument in that case. When a bad argument wins a majority in an appellate court, it begs the question: was it a four-person brain fart, or was it a result-oriented exercise in power? If the latter, it's completely illegitimate whether you're in favor of gay marriage or not.

Your own statement, "Many of us believe that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and privileges the rest of humanity enjoys" is a moral judgment, not a legal judgment. A proper legal opinion should never use the word "should" with regard to a person's rights. Determining what should or should not be is the province of the political branches. The courts should deal with what is rather than what should be. X IS the law, because Y IS what the legislature said, or what preexisting legal doctrine declared, or is the logical extension of preexisting law, and X follows logically from Y. "Should" should never enter into the opinions of the judiciary. I believe this is true whether or not I happen to agree with any given judge about what rights or laws should be. I am pro-choice; I believe that governmental intrusion into childbearing is worse than the moral issues raised by abortion, and I'm not even sure it's a close call. That said, Roe v Wade is an appallingly bad example of the abuse of judicial power, a poorly argued legal discussion, and generally an opinion to which Blackmun should have been embarrased to affix his name. I say that even though, if I were dictator and called upon to craft an abortion regulation, I'd impose a rule very much like that issued in Roe. The fact that it was a very good political settlement doesn't change the rather more important fact that it was a political settlement the Court had no business imposing on a democracy.

Which brings us to the second, more fundamental problem: why is this issue being decided by the courts at all? There is something called the "political questions doctrine," also called "non-justiciable questions." The "political question" doctrine simply states that some issues are better left to the political branches, which are directly responsible to the people through elections. It's not cases in which the courts feel they can't act, but cases in which they elect to exercise restraint. This is a good thing, because if the political branches make an error the error can be fixed by veto, or veto override, or if all else fails in the next election. If the Supreme Court does something unpopular in a constitutional decision, either you have to convince one or more justices that they were wrong (unlikely) or pass an amendment to the Constitution (less likely). For all practical purposes, Supreme Court constitutional decisions are unreviewable, and for that reason the Court prefers to tread lightly, often to the point of being chicken and ducking issues wherever they can, like with the Pledge of Allegiance case. When they can't duck the issue entirely, they can resort to a quite valid "political question" explanation for not resolving the issue themselves. Fun cases include:
Coleman v. Miller 307 US 433 (1939) (Marbury v Madison notwithstanding, whether an amendment has been ratified is a political question)
United States v. Sisson 294 F.Supp. 511 and 515 (Mass. 1968) Judgment affirmed 399 U.S. 267 (1970) (constitutionality of conscription in an undeclared war is a political question)
Crockett v. Reagan 720 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (legality of US El Salvador operations under the War Powers Act is a political question)
Goldwater v Carter 444 US 996 (1979) (legality of the War Powers Act itself is a political question. "The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse." )
See http://www.censurethefive.org/section4.html for an entire litany of cases where the Court has found things non-justiciable, listed by a bunch of leftists who clearly think that the Court should have held Bush v. Gore non-justiciable, too. I would like to note that, like the alleged right to marry members of the same sex, US v Sisson was an individual rights case, so it's not as though this is a trick limited to separation of powers or federalism issues.

Judicial lawmaking has been under constant criticism in academia from both the right and the left for years in books with happy titles like Democracy by Decree, Democracy and Distrust, and The End of Democracy. Criticism of "activist judges" is quite possibly the most highbrow position Bush has ever taken.

I think you'll find that throughout history, most of the positive changes that have occurred began with the minority, or even one person. Majority-held ideas are often lousy ones, stuck in backward thinking and an intolerant status quo.

Often, yes, but that's irrelevant. In a democracy, the structure of the law is the majority's decision to make, even if that decision is the wrong one. In any democracy worth having, individuals have rights even against the majority-- "all mankind minus one" in John Stuart Mill's phrase-- but the decision of what rights to recognize is itself a decision that society must make as a whole, not one to be imposed by not even a minority, but a select few in black robes. We do not have philosopher kings in this country, and even when the Supreme Court makes radical changes, it does so based on a power grant in the Constitution-- for example desegregating schools based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was democratically ratified. If their analysis of the law was valid-- which it clearly was in Brown v Board of Education, then the Court is acting as an agent of democracy, not as its superior. Sometimes it may be a subtle distinction, but it's a crucial one.

I actually have no strong preference whether gay marriage becomes recognized in the United States or not. I have a very strong preference on the issue of HOW that recognition comes about.

Here, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, by a 4-3 vote, imposed a new definition of marriage on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

If i'm not mistaken, the basis of the ruling is that the Mass. state Constitution says no person or group is to be discriminated against by the state. Since the no gay marriage law discriminated against a specific group, it was ruled unconstitutional.

If so, then the judges did their job, which is to uphold the state constitution. As for ordering the legislature to change the law, it seems to me they were telling the legislature to reverse an illegal law.

There are two problems with the theory that the SJC was just doing its job interpreting the state constitution. One is that they did it poorly. The test is not whether the government discriminates against its citizens; governments do that all the time. In fact they're supposed to. Gun control laws discriminate against convicts, and marriage laws discriminate against consanguinity. The legal test for whether discrimination nased on sexual orientation is legal is whether it meets "rational basis" scrutiny-- simply that a law is aimed at a legitimate governmental purpose, and is designed to help achieve that interest. The court's opinion stated that the Commonwealth's marriage laws did not meet that test. The problem is that they dismissed the Commonwealth's explanation out of hand, which is not how it's supposed to work.

The second problem is the counter-majoritarian difficulty. Loving v Virginia did not redefine marriage in a fundamental way; it obliterated a law that was frankly designed to maintain white supremacy. Striking that down was a perfectly valid application of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, the SJC quite blatantly substituted its own judgment for that of the political branches, and when the legislature proposed a solution that actually solved the problems identified by the court majority, the SJC overturned that as well. The SJC not merely overstepped its bounds, it did so in a case it should have declared non-justiciable to begin with.

In your opinion.

On a related note (not to the ORIGINAL thread, but to the new subject), Spain just legalized gay marriage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8413036/

Also worth noting in the article, Canada's gay marriage bill passed the House of Commons, but still has to make it past their Senate. It isn't a law YET...

-Rex Hondo-

David, I've not read the SJC opinion...I'll try to remember to do that over lunch today...but how would you say that action compares to striking down a law intended to maintain white supremacy? The analogy I've seen made is that the same thinking behind laws supporting racial superiority can be applied to what you could call heterosexual superiority. Although the SJC may have done a poor job of articulating this link, is this something that could be read into the basis for the decision?

"Canada's gay marriage bill passed the House of Commons, but still has to make it past their Senate. "

The Senate in Canada isn't elected, but appointed by the Prime Minister and the Governer General. It's really nothing more than a jobs program for old politicians, completely unlike the Senate in the US. The only power the senate has is to delay bills or send them back to the house of Commons, and they RARELY exercise it. Even if they did, it would constitute an impasse between Parliament and the Senate. In this case, the Prime Minister is allowed to appoint a bunch of new Senators to pass the bill. (PM Brian Mulrouney did this when the mostly Trudeau-appointed Senate rejected NAFTA).

Technically, the Governer General has to sign the bill as well.

Oh, and with the current political climate in Canada, if the Senate were to kick this bill back to parliament, they'd be signing their own death warrants, as the first bill out of the fall session of Parliament would be for Senate reform. Which I'm all for Senate reform, I just don't want to see this bill die because of it. Also, the governing Liberals control 63 of the 105 senate seats, and the NDP, Progressive Conservative and Independants control another 11. Since all of these Senators are considered allies of the Liberal government, it's really a non-issue.

How anyone can interpret an instance of four people imposing their will over the objection of every legislature to consider the issue as anything but undemocratic, I do not know.

Well, I guess this means any and every Supreme Court decision can be considered undemocratic then. Because, by your logic, 9 people (and as few as five, due to simple majority) are imposing their will upon the rest of us?

Ok, it's wacky thought time, but why not differentiate civil unions and marriages for everybody? Seriously, with separation of church and state, a civil union would be the preferred LEGAL form of a contract between two people concerning issues about their property ownership, power of attorney in case of health issues, custody of children, and other legally recognized rights and priveleges. Marriage, on the other hand, would be granted by whatever religious/spiritual/internet/las vegas authority you and your partner preferred that was willing to recognize your spiritual/loving/kinky sex-related bond. This wouldn't attack any religion's ability to marry whoever they wanted; heck, in fact it'd allow a religion to say "yeah, sorry, we don't recognize that kind of marriage" because it's not a legally binding document as such. Is there a LEGAL argument for keeping any form of religious aspect as part of existing marriage law? If something like this went into effect, am I misunderstanding how different religions would be able to act on it? As a bachelor who's never been married, I admit my interpretation of existing marriage law is limited, so if I'm just totally wrong, please be civil in your corrections, ok?

Makes sense to me, Jason.

Liam, just wondering: would Canadian law allow a group of people opposed to homosexual union to protest outside of a church? Could one fellow share his negative views of homosexuality with a homosexual and not be worried about legal repercussions?

For me, I think homosexuality is wrong so I don't engage in it. Because I think it's wrong, I couldn't vote for a gay union thing, because I also think divorce is normally wrong, so it's a catch 22 to approve of a union you would hope - for their sake - was dissolved. At the same time, if it's just a benefits package, why should it only involve sexually active people? Why can't my insurance cover everyone in my household, including the single mom and daughter we are currently boarding?

Marriage as defined by our society seems removed from what our society has evolved into. Marriage was and is to protect children from the sole breadwinner obsconding with their future. Why that should be extended to a gay couple, I'm not sure.

Ok, it's wacky thought time, but why not differentiate civil unions and marriages for everybody?

Because not all of us work on the assumption that marriage is the sole province of religion.

Could you expand on that, Craig? Forgive me, but I'm not clear on what you're going after.

Could you expand on that, Craig? Forgive me, but I'm not clear on what you're going after.

Some of the arguments for/against civil unions leave the term 'marriage' to religion on varying levels.

That, at worse, we should have 'civil unions' for gays - an "equal but not equal" option.

Or that only churches should be able to say somebody is married, everybody else gets a civil union.

Some go so far as to act as though marriage originated with the Judeo-Christian religion, when that is not the case.

Frankly, I see the term 'civil union' under the "equal but not equal" description, that the only reason people consider it is to make gays happy, but it can still be considered a second-rate marriage.

I was married in a civil ceremony - no church involved - so I don't see why the term marriage to be reserved in any, way, shape or form to any particular group, and that the term 'civil union' is unneccessary.

"Liam, just wondering: would Canadian law allow a group of people opposed to homosexual union to protest outside of a church? Could one fellow share his negative views of homosexuality with a homosexual and not be worried about legal repercussions?"

Yes, both of those things would be legal. In fact, both of them have been done, MANY times.

"Ok, it's wacky thought time, but why not differentiate civil unions and marriages for everybody? Seriously, with separation of church and state, a civil union would be the preferred LEGAL form of a contract between two people concerning issues about their property ownership, power of attorney in case of health issues, custody of children, and other legally recognized rights and priveleges."

It's not as wacky as you think: Premier (equivalent of Governer) Ralph Klein of Alberta is proposing exactly that, mostly because Alberta is the most socially conservative of the provinces and is one of the few places where gay marriage hadn't already been granted by the courts. Also, one of my best friends, who happens to be engaged to another man, floated the exact same thing over a year ago.

Ah, ok, I understand where you're coming from Craig, and I would agree that under the current system, civil unions are a cheap ploy to give homosexuals the legal rights without addressing the broader problem of the moralities being injected into the legal system. I was suggesting something different, or at least intended to, when I said Marriage, on the other hand, would be granted by whatever religious/spiritual/internet/las vegas authority you and your partner preferred that was willing to recognize your spiritual/loving/kinky sex-related bond. This wouldn't attack any religion's ability to marry whoever they wanted; heck, in fact it'd allow a religion to say "yeah, sorry, we don't recognize that kind of marriage" because it's not a legally binding document as such. While I called out the status religions would have in particular, I didn't mean to exclude the fact that there could then be any number of various authorities, religious or nonreligious, that could be used to recognize a marriage. In effect, what I was going after was that without being written down in law anymore, the idea of marriage as a relationship between people would no longer be legislated and/or somehow defined by government. I hope I clarified what I was going after.

Jason, technically, I think most jurisdictions already have legel civil unions...they call them marraige, and some of them bylaw limit them to unions between one man and one woman. Some are worded to include 2 people.

But there's a difference between a religious marraige and a civil marraige. If you go ahead with the religious marraige ceremony, you're still not legally married, in most states, until you get your civil marraige license. There are actually 2 parallel "institutions" of marraige, a religious one, and a civil one. And only the civil one carries with it the rights of inheritance, medical proxy, etc.

This is why I've said for a while now that we should do away with all civil marraiges, and just use a Civil Union License. Let marraige solely be a religious thing.

So it's kinda sorta there in some places. So what we're really talking about is defining and clarifying the separation between legal rights and recognitions and moral philosophies, then.

"Well, I guess this means any and every Supreme Court decision can be considered undemocratic then. Because, by your logic, 9 people (and as few as five, due to simple majority) are imposing their will upon the rest of us?"

Except that when the Supremes rule, it's generally on whether or not a specific law or action is permissible under the Constitution of the United States. Generally, they're not telling Congress to go and draft a new law, to fit their specifications - they're just telling Congress (or whomever) that the law as passed can't stand, and must be struck down. If the legislators want to try again at that point, it's completely up to them.

The SJC of Massachusetts was telling the state legislature exactly how to change the existing law to fit their ruling, which was stepping a tad beyond their role as the judicial branch of the state...

Incidentally, as regards the religious/civil marriage debate, it may be worth noting that until the 13th Century, the Church declined to be involved in creating marriages. Once you had a priest solemnize your marriage, by Church rules, you were stuck with it, but since marriages were performed by civil authority, if you declined religious certification, you still got the legal benefits - you just had to worry about the parish priest dropping by every now and again to remind you that you were going to Hell (not that big a deal, when by Church doctrine, it seems like just about everybody is going to Hell...). Perhaps we should return to that - civil authorities can marry whomever, and if you want the religious solemnization on top of that, you can go jump through your particular faith's hoops. That way, sects that think dark skin is the "mark of Ham" can ignore my marriage... :-)

Heh. I was looking forward to being a little wacky...

Ok, it's wacky thought time, but why not differentiate civil unions and marriages for everybody?

Because seperate but equal doesn't work. Also, under the 'marriage amendment', those civil unions woul;d be null & void.

Plus anything short of driving gays back into the closest won't satisfy the extreme right that controls the government and half the media today.

For these separate but equal arguments, I'm talking about separating the legal and moral issue, not who can get what. Everybody gets what and/or what, no restrictions. One what is a legal contract, the other what is an expression of their feelings about their relationship. Do you want the government to really have legal input into the appropriateness of your feelings towards another?

Do you want the government to really have legal input into the appropriateness of your feelings towards another?

Umm, it's the government that has to make it possible for gays to marry, so I'd say that they're getting all the input they want already.

My problem is that, as I said, some want 'marriage' to be the term for a religious ceremony, and the rest of us get to start calling it 'civil union'.

I've been married for 3.5 years whether your (generalization) religion likes it or not. I'm not going to start calling it a civil union because your (generalization) religion lays claim to the term marriage either.

I know...let's start calling all marraiges Freedom Unions....

No, we'll call them "nuclear unions" and when that name no longer tests well, we'll change it to "constitutional unions" and blame the "liberal media" for using the old term.

You mean Nucular Unions, of course....

Actually, I'm proposing that the government say "we only care about the legal status stuff. You can go talk to whoever about the relationship stuff." EVERYONE- straight, gay, black, white, vegan, catholic, mormon, dentist, zookeeper - would be legally allowed to enter a civil union. That's just the legal stuff; if you want to call it a marriage by the authority invested in you by no one but you and your partner, then knock yourself out. What do you care if others don't recognize it as such because it's not inline with what they believe or you didn't go through a certain ceremony or process? If, however, you do feel the need to have your personal relationship recognized by some other authority, like a religion, that's up to you, too.

Well, I guess this means any and every Supreme Court decision can be considered undemocratic then. Because, by your logic, 9 people (and as few as five, due to simple majority) are imposing their will upon the rest of us

No, because most of the time the courts do their job. They apply laws, resolve ambiguities in the law, and for the most part provide a bulwark between unchecked majoritarianism and the rights of minorities-- a job that inherent in their role under our democratically-established system of government. But when they step beyond their appropriate role of deciding cases into the realm of legislating morality for the rest of us-- you know, what people accuse Bush of doing-- they destroy both the principle of separation of powers and the principle of majoritarianism. When they do that, you bet it's undemocratic.

David, I've not read the SJC opinion...I'll try to remember to do that over lunch today...but how would you say that action compares to striking down a law intended to maintain white supremacy? The analogy I've seen made is that the same thinking behind laws supporting racial superiority can be applied to what you could call heterosexual superiority. Although the SJC may have done a poor job of articulating this link, is this something that could be read into the basis for the decision?

No, not really, because the SJC was internally inconsistent. Their interpretation of the marriage law was based on the intent of the drafters-- that it could not possibly be interpreted as an act to legalize marriage between two people of the same sex. Then they looked at the state constitution to see if that intention was consistent with the equal protection provision, and immediately stopped addressing intent. Personally I've never been a big fan of "intent" analysis, but I'm in the minority on that issue, and in any event, if a legal principle is valid in part 1 of your opinion, it's valid in part 2. Under a legislative intent interpretation, gay rights were as far off the radar in the constitutional convention as in the marriage statute, whereas racial equality was a core concern in all of the Reconstruction and equal rights amendments. So by the SJC's logic, racial supremacy is much easier to strike down than sexual orientation discrimination. Your point about the analogy between racial discrimination and sexual orientation is, in my opinion, one of the better arguments in favor of gay rights, but that doesn't substitute for a legislative grant of power to the court system. Elegant reasoning and moral justice are not sources of legal authority. It's also worth noting that the centrality of racial equality to the nation's various equal protection laws leads to racial discrimination being subjected to a higher level of scrutiny by the courts, what is called "strict scrutiny" as opposed to the regular "rational basis" scrutiny that is applied to sexual orientation issues under existing equal protection law. The upshot of all this is that even if the "logic" behind racial discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination look a lot alike, legally they're very different things.

Racial supremacy also runs afoul of the Federal Constitution in the Thirteenth Amendment as well as Equal Protection, because the antislavery amendment has always been interpreted to bar the "badges and incidents of slavery" as well as the thing itself; this was, in fact, crucial to the Loving v Virginia opinion which struck down miscegenation laws. Sexual orientation has no such amendment in its corner.

Given the inconsistent logic in the SJC's opinion, the (probably deliberate) shoddy application of rational basis scrutiny, and the political nature of the dispute, I remain of the opinion that Goodridge v Department of Health is insupportable, whether it's morally right or not. Ironically, I can think of a good argument for raising the level of scrutiny in sexual orientation cases that might have given them a little bit more of a principled basis for the decision, but that would have required the SJC to actually care about legal principles as much as the outcome of the case.

the way i see it, that kid is a genius. hes acting his rights of civil disobediance already?
thats awesome
i actually go to school and am an atheist, and i get ridiculed about not saying the pledge everyday,
why, last year i got a note in my desk that said "god exists cam" and i told my teacher, what happens to the girl who rites it, nothin. when i write back to her "god doesnt exist alley" I get in trouble. does that really seem that fair?