Political & Elections

longprime · Guru

RE: Bill requiring students to say the pledge- because apparently that's a priority

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Choosing not to mention God in a more personal youtube message, while thanking God in the official Thanksgiving proclamation is not something geared towards slamming poor, less educated white people.

Interesting, isn't it, how failure to mention God in an address is somehow construed to be a slam against "working class white people," as if God himself belongs to them, and only them. Is that like when Eric Holder was accused of being racist because he said Americans were cowards when it came to openly discussing issues of race?---because apparently, "Americans" only means white people...

hope · Guru

It used to be an expectation that when quoting We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. presidents would actually quote it. Nowadays, it depends on the whim of O and his speechwriters whether they feel on that particular day that our rights are granted by a Creator, or by the State. Ho hum.

It used to be an expectation that when giving a Thanksgiving message to the American people, presidents would reference God at least once, since that is what the first thanksgiving, or first thanksgivings, no matter how fuzzy many other facts, were all about. Now, depending on the whim of O, it's about thanking each other for being a "community." Ho hum.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

My point is that this is not the first time that Obama has left out references to a creator or to God

Why is this a problem- are US presidents required to mention God in every speech?

hope · Guru

I'm not going to quibble about the "tons" of articles about it and the coverage on Fox. Apparently you read conservative media and watch Fox news more than I do. However, I just googled it again, and this is the first thing that comes up--ABC news on last Friday reporting three critics: a Las Vegas Review blogger, Todd Starnes on Fox News Radio and a popular website of the London Daily Mail. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-omits-god-thanksgiving-address-riles-critics/story?id=15028644#.TtUKBlYRDMo The rest of the "tons of articles" other than third-tier bloggers no one ever heard of (the equivalent of someone like me blogging about this, lol), were liberal sites screaming that "conservatives" were "upset" about it.

My point is that this is not the first time that Obama has left out references to a creator or to God. Sometimes he references them and sometimes he doesn't. He is obviously smart enough to know exactly what he is doing. He is trying to get the secular vote since he has given up on "poor less educated white people"--the people he distains anyway--because they refuse to vote for "what's good for them."

This was a man who promised to be a uniter and he has done nothing since he took office but further divide both by class and race. I wish he could stop with the PA bs on all fronts, stop playing politics, and pull himself together and lead the country.

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 29th of November 2011 09:02:09 AM

Cartera · Guru

There are tons of articles on it and Fox News spent time on many programs discussing it.

Choosing not to mention God in a more personal youtube message, while thanking God in the official Thanksgiving proclamation is not something geared towards slamming poor, less educated white people. If so, he likely would have left God out of his 2009/2010 addresses too.

hope · Guru

You know what? Over the weekend I googled this issue many times (because *I* obviously was ticked off about it) and there were very few articles/blogs that even mentioned it. Actually, the lib press (HuffPo, etc.) took the few bloggers/writers who took issue with it and ran with "Conservatives Upset At...blah blah blah"). I don't watch Fox anymore, but I doubt anyone other than O'Reilly or Hannity were "upset" by it there.

The people making a mountain out of a molehill were the lib press making a huge deal about how supposedly scandalized "conservatives" were about the speech.

Conservative = religious in their eyes. Funny how that works.

Never pass up a chance to ridicule the stupidity of those God-fearing, gun-toting, antipathy-toward-the-other folks.

What irks me is how O can't pass up any PA chance to mock them and rile them up. His problems with them are of his own making, but apparently he needn't care:

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/?gwh=C33873B98E573D29B9880394BE62D505

-- Edited by hope on Monday 28th of November 2011 09:29:59 PM

Cartera · Guru

The Thanksgiving day address story being puffed up by Fox is the stupidest mountain out of a mole hill yet. Just when I think they can't hit a more absurd low, they manage to do it.

hope · Guru

Yep I truly dislike the man.

Not a fan of passive-aggressives.

Not at all.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Much adieu about nothing! Nowhere in our Constitution do I read a requirement that US Presidents must reference God or put on a show of religion in order to appease those who would rather stick a fork in their eye then be appeased in the first place. That would be folks like you, hope, in case you're wondering. yawn

Warning: Apoplexy has been know to trigger heart attacks.

hope · Guru

The clip is amazing--link here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/25/obama-god-thanksgiving-speech_n_1113295.html. This can't be labeled as an inadvertent slip. This is purposeful. He thanks our servicemembers, our community, our own character traits, etc. etc. -- everything BUT God. Actually, his reshaping of our true heritage into one of his own making is kind of creepy if you ask me.

Also, why is it always presumed that "conservatives" are the only people "upset?" There are no Democrats who believe in a higher power and/or our real history?

-- Edited by hope on Friday 25th of November 2011 09:25:37 PM

hope · Guru

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

hope · Guru

Obama's speechwriters have "inadventently" been leaving out God references and "Creator" references for a long time now. More proof that Obama is as phony as a three dollar bill; the man has the frightening ability to look into the camera and with a straight face declare that "Jesus Christ is my savior."

Don't care what he believes, but the American people have the right to be treated with enough respect to actually be told honestly what that might be.

And he and his lovely wife continue to get away with this c***.

-- Edited by hope on Friday 25th of November 2011 08:24:17 PM

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Speaking of religion and politics...
http://www.aol.com/2011/11/25/obama-thanksgiving-speech-god_n_1113106.html?1322241721&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%7C115617

longprime · Guru

I pledge, under the flag of the USA, to do serious damage to the Bird of Thanksgiving. evileye

And then my pocketbook, tomorrow. evileye

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

You're right.

And I forgot that religion and politics were so intertwined that not proclaiming a part of the pledge that I don't believe in religiously is making a "political statement". Oy

longprime · Guru

I'd guess that this is Bill is a Republican initiative. ? Am I wrong? evileye

catahoula · Guru

Yep, one won, the other lost, but which one more successfully tried to substitute a belief in government for a belief in God?

I suppose you might substitute "judeo-christian ethic" for God but I can't see for what eventual purpose.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

I'd say that we didn't so much defeat the communists, as that they collapsed beneath the weight of their own horribly deformed system of government, and that the inclusion of God in our own Pledge of Allegiance played not even a minor role in that collapse.

But you were being tongue-in-cheek, weren't you soccerguy? wink

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Tuesday 22nd of November 2011 09:10:16 PM

soccerguy315 · Guru

individual autonomy, equality, and liberty are not tied to religion.

"under God" was added to the pledge to help us defeat the Communists. To be fair, I guess it worked, eh?

winchester · Guru

I hate politics in the classroom
I stopped saying the "under God" part a while ago.

If you hate politics in the classroom then why do you make a political statement in the classroom?

And yes, not saying “under God” is a political statement. You can’t hide behind the argument that it’s a private thing, and nobody’s business but your own whether or not you believe in God. Whether or not you believe in God is immaterial. We’re all a part of the culture, and our actions and beliefs - even things as seemingly small and simple as saying the words “under God,” or putting our hands over our hearts, or removing our hats and looking in the direction of the flag when the National Anthem is performed - affect the actions and beliefs of those around us.

Look, Romani, you’re a good kid who is obviously intelligent, thoughtful, introspective, and has her head screwed on straight. But the idea that politics don’t belong in the classroom, or the failure to recognize that refusing to say “under God” is in itself politics, is an example of the kind of thinking I talked about in my long post below; it misses the forest for the trees.

I agree with your thought that “teachers who put their politics/biases in front of facts have no place in the classroom.” But that’s just the most obvious manifestation of politics in the classroom. A slightly less obvious manifestation is another point I agree with you on; “I don’t like mandating that we have to teach about certain groups of people in history.”

But there’s so much more to “politics in the classroom” than just those things. Politics is manifested in myriad ways that are much more subtle, and arguably much more profoundly influential on everyone, than just those things because they are “hidden.”

Politics and culture and morality are all just different expressions of the exact same thing: our perception of who we are and who we want to be individually, as a culture, and as a nation. And we use our classrooms (and our entertainment, and our news media, and our lives in the home, and our clubs, teams, organizations, social activities, etc.) to convey that message to our kids.

Reread the Mike Romano story in my long post earlier in this thread. Taken all together, the education system, entertainment industry, news media, and all the rest, including whether or not we say “under God” when reciting the pledge, combine to create “the environment and the culture” and the “norms and expectations” of our communities.

Our cultural environment “acts on us by reinforcing (or deterring) our habits,” which “are, in essence, behavioral autopilot.” Mike Romano kicked his drug habit after he returned from Viet Nam largely because of the change in his environment. In Viet Nam drugs were just a part of the environment; part of the culture; part of the behavioral autopilot of that place. But in "The Milwaukee Theme Park" they were not. In fact, the behavioral autopilot of "The Milwaukee Theme Park" was a powerful force AGAINST drug use. “Behavior is contagious, sometimes in surprising ways.”

Politics is the means through which we shape the cultural environment. And one of the most important and effective ways we do that is through the way we run the school system.

The fact that we even have state run schools is a political/cultural/moral statement that is as loud and clear as any that has ever been made. The subjects we choose to teach in those schools is politics. The textbooks we select is politics. The novels we choose for our kids to read and analyze in English is politics. The choices we make about what we teach them in history and social studies, and even “health” is all politics.

The education system in the country is one long indoctrination of our children into the culture, into the morals, into the environment, into the behavioral autopilot, of America.

So, to say that teachers should not put their biases in front of facts, or that we should not mandate teaching about certain groups, is fine as far as it goes, but in a much more profound way it completely misses the much larger picture. Please don’t take this pejoratively because it’s not meant that way, but the notion that politics is not part of, or can be kept out of, the classroom is quaint. It is naïve and short sighted. It is an example of the kind of thinking I described in the other post; the thinking which sees only the trees and it is blind to the forest.

And keep in mind that it is during the teens and early twenties that the human brain goes through its second largest growth spurt (after the first nine months in the womb.) It is during that time that the development of one’s ability to consider and account for the long term consequences of one’s actions (finally) takes place. It is during those years in which the transition is made from child to adult, in terms of the way we think.

So, I would ask you this, if you have kids one day, what environment would you want them to get their behavioral autopilot from? What values do you want the school system to imbue in your children?

The answer to that question goes way, way beyond the simple surface issue of whether or not teachers bring their own biases into the classroom, or even laws which force them to teach about LGBT.

The answer to that question goes beyond the surface political issues, like how much of our tax money goes to Welfare, and the surface benefits in terms of dollars or services that welfare recipients receive in return for those tax dollars.

The answer to that question goes beyond “fact checking” the statements our politicians make, or cleverly “catching” them making statements that apparently contradict things they’ve said earlier, and then gleefully pointing the finger at them and saying “Aha! You’re a hypocrite!” as if you’ve discovered something meaningful.

All of those things are the trees, but the answer to the question is about the forest. The answer to the question goes beyond what is seen, and is much more firmly based in what is not seen. It is about the environment. It’s about what we want our individual and collective behavioral autopilot to be. What actions, what behaviors, what words, what beliefs, will create the environment we want?

The words “under God” in the pledge have practically nothing to do with whether or not you, as an individual, happen to believe in God (you’re just one tree), and everything in the world to do with the kind of environment, the kind of behavioral autopilot, you want to create for yourself and for your children (the forest.)

If not for Judeo Christian religions there would be no concepts of individual autonomy, or equality, or liberty. And without those concepts, there would be no Declaration of Independence, no Revolution, no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, no America.

The words “under God” are not some sort of Orwellian oppression by “the man” to force people to think in lockstep. They are not an endorsement of religion, or a violation of the concept of the separation of church and state. The notion that those words are those things comes only from looking at, and thinking about, the trees, and it misses the larger benefits of the forest of our national values and beliefs.

The words “under God” in the pledge are an acknowledgement of where we come from as a nation, and as a culture. By refusing to say them, whether you believe it or not, you are thinking only of yourself (one tree), and you are ignoring the larger culture (the forest) and your part in it. You are rejecting a significant portion of your own heritage – the very portion which affords you the freedom to choose not to say the words - and you are thus diluting and weakening the environment from which your own (potential) children will learn from and live within.

The words "under God" are "a part of history and any reputable teacher will incorporate [them] naturally as they have contributed to history"

-- Edited by winchester on Tuesday 22nd of November 2011 09:26:21 AM

CelticClan07 · Senior Member

Yes Romani, my point as well. These 'laws' do indeed bring politics into the classroom and for anyone to deny it, is being dishonest. The teachers don't have enough time to get through the Civil War and yet their feet will be held to the fire if they don't cover Harvey Milk. Something is just not kosher with that thinking.

This is a GOOD place to loosen your filter a bit, better than blurting it out loud in a crowd!

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Razor, I agree with you whole-heartedly on that.

Razorsharp · Guru

I just wish more people would actually follow the expectations of the pledge. It is good to teach students that the interest of our nation are more important than any individual's interest. Unfortunately, too many people are all about their individual interests regardless of what is best for the nation.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

@soccer- that literally made me lol. Good one.

@CC- Honestly, I'm not sure I support those laws either. Then again, I've never much enjoyed what's taught in history/social studies even though I'm a humanities and social science major. The majority of crap that we're taught in social science classes in K-12 is bull anyway, why add even more lies to the equation? LGBT issues were already incorporated into my social studies classes in high school (in a fairly conservative area). As one of my high school teachers put it, it's a part of history and any reputable teacher will incorporate LBGT people naturally as they have contributed to history- not simply because they are LGBT. I don't like mandating that we have to teach about certain groups of people in history (whether they be LGBT, minorities, etc) because it makes me furious that we have to have laws like that in the first place. I hate politics in the classroom (which goes back to my original topic) and teachers who put their politics/biases in front of facts have no place in the classroom (that goes for both sides of the political spectrum). Irritation with these types of people is part of the reason I decided against being a teacher, despite loving my job in a classroom for two years.

With that, I think I'm going to be done with this topic. I was irritated when I posted this and should have implemented my shut up filter that I often lack.

CelticClan07 · Senior Member

@soccerguy- LOL!!! Yes, Santa is the toy man!!

Romani- what you think/feel about the Pledge being made law, is how so many in CA feel about the gay contributions in social studies being shoved into the schools. There doesn't need to be a law for that either.

Thanks so much for your service BD! I know it wasn't easy, and we do appreciate your sacrifices for 7 years. Sincerely, a former Navy wife and current Navy mom

busdriver11 · Guru

"under Santa is better...

Santa brings lots of toys."

Ha! Not at our age.

I used to just skip the words "under God" when I said the pledge of allegiance. Not because it bothered me, it just felt like I was lying. Though I didn't mind saying the pledge. It is far more meaningful to me now, after serving seven years in the military.

soccerguy315 · Guru

under Santa is better...

Santa brings lots of toys.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Ok....?

hope · Guru

That's groovy, roman. You stopped saying the "under God" part a while ago and it feels like saying "under Santa" to you.

Stop the presses. We are shocked, shocked.

;)

-- Edited by hope on Friday 11th of November 2011 10:21:02 PM

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I stopped saying the "under God" part a while ago. It just feels weird when you don't believe in God. It's the same as saying "under Santa" to me. We said the pledge today at a Veteran's Day thing that I helped run today- it was heart warming to see all the veterans there standing to say the pledge, when many of them could barely stand.

soccerguy315 · Guru

hope wrote:
Interesting, soccerguy. Did they haul you to the principal's office for sitting down? Suspend you? Persecute you? What?
Or did they do nothing, and let you "express yourself?"
I always thought "under God" was added to differentiate us from communists, not to smoke them out.

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 9th of November 2011 09:09:31 PM

I do remember my Spanish class teacher told me to stand up. I said "no"... I did get a C+ in that class, but I think it was fairly awarded for my lack of Spanish skills, lol.

She stopped trying to get me to stand after a couple of days.

There is no reason for "under god" to be in the pledge. I wish it was gone. Or replace it with something like "united as one"

hope · Guru

Very interesting, winchester.

Sort of explains the reason I found myself turning to conservatism after having been a liberal for thirty years. I began to feel that enough of what had rationally been deemed "oppressive" had been erradicated. Essentially progressives had reached goals which were laudable, and were now in the business of destruction for its own sake. The job of preserving any shred of respect for institutions which once took it for granted is left to conservatives. Progressives have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams--we now live in a culture in which it is almost impossible to raise innocent children, and a country on a downhill slide.

winchester · Guru

OK, this is long, and I apologize for that, but I think the depth and richness of the story excerpted below is a big help in illustrating why The Pledge of Allegiance is so important to so many people, and less so to others.

This post starts out with a couple obvious statements, but stick with it beyond that and I think (hope) it will put things into a perspective which will make it easier to understand why saying the pledge is important to so many people.

Liberals and conservatives have entirely different world views. They have different sensibilities about what is right and wrong. There’s a new book coming out at the end of February, called “The Righteous Mind,” which explains, from an evolutionary perspective, the foundations upon which the two sensibilities are built, how liberals and conservatives apply the foundations differently, and how those differences are manifested in our political beliefs. But the short version of the story is that the liberal sensibility is focused mostly on foundations relating to the individual, and it is aimed at making sure every individual is cared for, protected from harm, and treated “fairly.” Conservative sensibility is focused on the individual too, but it also employs additional foundations that are focused on the community as a whole.

Metaphorically speaking, if humans are like bees in a hive, then liberalism is focused almost entirely on the bees, and conservatism focuses on the bees AND the hive, because a healthy hive is a prerequisite for healthy bees.

So from the conservative perspective, the contributions to, participation in, and sacrifices on behalf of, the community on the part of the individuals are all part of creating the healthiest possible environment for everyone. This is why the ideas loyalty to the community and respect for authority, are more a part of the conservative world view than they are of the liberal view.

A consequence of these two views it that liberalism tends to interpret things literally, and conservatism tends to interpret things conceptually, in sort of a dichotomous "trees and forest" way of seeing things.

Not everyone is even aware of the foundations, never mind how they affect our perception of, and reaction to, the world around us. But the effect of the foundations is the instant, visceral, gut feel we all have to like or dislike something, to be attracted to it or to want to avoid it, including, and especially, in politics.

An understanding of the foundations and how we all use them to construct our own world views offers tremendous insight into practically every issue we see in politics today, including the different views about things like The Pledge of Allegiance, supporting the troops, flag burning, and many others.

The best illustration I’ve come across to date of the conservative conceptual world view is the description of “The Milwaukee Theme Park” and the “behavioral auto pilot” in the book “Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard”, by Chip Heath and Dan heath. I’ve copied it below. In this story the “Rider” is the conscious, reasoning, part of our brain. The Rider thinks it is in charge, but in truth, ninety percent or more of what we think and say and do is motivated by “gut feel” part. Anyway, that’s beside the point of this post.

If you get the concepts of The Milwaukee Theme Park and behavioral auto pilot, I think you’ll have a better grasp of why The Pledge of Allegiance, and possibly many other things, are so important to so many people.

“1.

Mike Romano was born in 1950 and raised in Milwaukee, the youngest of four brothers. His dad was a handyman who fixed plumbing and heating fixtures. His mom had a commercial art degree; she stayed at home to raise the boys, taking jobs from time to time to pay the bills.

Romano had a temper. In high school, when he was 18, he got into a fight and threw a guy through a window. Afraid of what would happen in court, he enlisted in the army. He figured he was going to be drafted anyway. The court let him go.

Romano eventually ended up being assigned to the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam, an elite and well-respected unit of paratroopers. The soldiers of the 173rd had an open secret, however: rampant drug use. Others nicknamed them “jumping junkies.” Coming into the military, Romano had no real drug experience. He tried to keep his nose clean with the jumping junkies.

A few months after he arrived in Vietnam, a Claymore land mine detonated near him, and he was struck in his right hand, forearm, and foot. He was taken to a hospital in Camron Bay for recovery. That was where he first tried opium.

He quickly became hooked, like so many others around him. Even when he transferred to other hospitals, his supply wasn’t interrupted. He mostly smoked opium-laced joints, but it was also easy to find liquid opium and even opium chewing gum (not to mention other drugs, such as LSD and marijuana). His addiction continued to torment him throughout his thirteen-month tour of duty.

Romano’s fall into drug use was a typical story during the Vietnam War. The White House was so troubled by reports of drug use among soldiers that it commissioned a study to investigate the scope of the problem. The results were disturbing. Before the war, the typical soldier had only casual experience with hard drugs, and less than 1 percent had ever been addicted to narcotics. But once in Vietnam, almost half of the soldiers tried narcotics, and 20 percent became addicted. Demographics did not predict who would become drug users in Vietnam – race and class were irrelevant.

The drug use started early. Twenty percent of all users started in their first week in Vietnam, 60 percent within the first three months. Oddly, drug use did not seem to be triggered by trauma. The researchers found no statistical relationship between drug use and the difficulty of soldiers’ assignments, or the danger they faced, or the death of friends. Unlike most soldiers, Romano started using opium because he was injured. For most soldiers in Vietnam, drugs were simply a fact of life, a part of the culture.

Government officials were terrified by what would happen when thousands of drug addicts began to return to America. Military and civilian leaders worried that the country’s drug-treatment programs would be flooded, stretched far beyond capacity. They worried that the vets might not be able to hold down jobs, that they might turn to crime.

Mike Romano was one of the people the officials were worried about. When he finally boarded his flight back to the United States in 1969, headed home to Milwaukee, he smuggled back with him a stach of opium-laced joints.
Then his life began to change. A week or two after his return home, he was driving with friends in town when he saw a girl he’d known in grade school. “Stop the car!” he said. He chased her down. She was working as a countergirl at a nearby drugstore. “I thought she was very beautiful,” said Romano.

The two started dating. She caught on fairly quickly that Romano was an addict, and she put pressure on him to stop. He tried to quit a few times, but each time he started to feel sick as withdrawal pains kicked in, and then he’d begin using again. Meanwhile, he started work – construction and house painting and other temporary jobs – and he started taking art classes at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. He got a job there designing promotional posters for bands who played at the student union.

After a few quit-and-relapse cycles, he began to wean himself off opium, and within about a month he was clean. He hasn’t touched opium since. What we see in Mike Romano’s life seems like an almost impossible change story: an opium addict who recovered. Mike Romano was one of the lucky ones.

2.

Or was he? White House researchers continued to investigate the drug problem among returning soldiers, and a puzzle started to emerge. Following up with the troops who returned home, the investigators called them eight to twelve months after their return to ask about their ongoing drug use. During the war, 50 percent of soldiers had been casual users, and 20 percent had become seriously addicted, meaning that they used drugs more than once a week for an extended period of time and experienced withdrawal symptoms (chills, cramps, pain) if they tried to stop. But when investigators conducted follow-up, what they found blew their minds. Only 1 percent of the vets were still addicted to drugs. That was essentially the same rate as existed before the war. The feared, drug-fueled social catastrophe had not occurred. What had happened?

3.

People are incredibly sensitive to the environment and the culture – to the norms and expectations of the communities they are in. We all want to wear the right clothes, to say the right things, to frequent the right places. Because we instinctively try to fit in with our peer group, behavior is contagious, sometimes in surprising ways.

Imagine that your job was to design an environment that would extinguish drug addiction. You could take drug-addicted U.S soldiers, drop them into this environment, and feel confident that the forces within it would act powerfully to help them beat their habits. Think of this environment as an antidrug theme park, and assume that you can spend as much as you want to construct it. What would your theme park look like?

It might look a whole lot like Romano’s neighborhood in Milwaukee.

You’d want to surround the former soldiers with people who love them and care about them – and who treat them as the drug-free persons they once were. You’d give them interesting work to do – perhaps designing posters for rock bands – so that their minds would be distracted from the joys of opium. You’d create well-publicized sanctions against drug use. You’d keep the drug economy underground, making the former soldiers sneak around to obtain and use drugs. You’d make sure their girlfriends gave them a hard time about their drug use. You’d set up social taboos so that the soldiers would feel derelict, even pathetic, if they kept using. You’d remove the contagious drug-using behavior from the environment – no more addicted soldiers around – and replace it with contagious drug-free behavior. And you would provide rich environmental cues – sights, songs, food, clothes, and homes – that remind the former soldiers of their prewar, drug-free identities.

The Milwaukee Theme Park: That’s exactly why Mike Romano became a former addict. When Romano relocated to Milwaukee, his environment changed, and the new environment changed him.

4.

As the Romano story shows, one of the subtle ways in which our environment acts on us is by reinforcing (or deterring) our habits.

When we think about habits, most of the time we’re thinking about the bad ones: biting our fingernails, procrastinating, eating sweets when we’re anxious, and so on. But of course we also have plenty of good habits: jogging, praying, brushing our teeth. Why are habits so important? They are, in essence, behavioral autopilot. They allow lots of good behaviors to happen without the Rider taking charge. Remember that the Rider’s self-control is exhaustible, so it’s a huge plus if some positive things can happen “free” on autopilot.

To change yourself or other people, you’ve got to change habits, and what we see with Romano is that his habits shifted when his environment shifted. This makes sense – our habits are essentially stitched into our environment. Research bears this out. According to one study of people making changes in their lives, 36 percent of the successful changes were associated with a move to a new location, and only 13 percent of unsuccessful changes involved a move.

hope · Guru

Interesting, soccerguy. Did they haul you to the principal's office for sitting down? Suspend you? Persecute you? What?

Or did they do nothing, and let you "express yourself?"

I always thought "under God" was added to differentiate us from communists, not to smoke them out.

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 9th of November 2011 09:09:31 PM

soccerguy315 · Guru

the pledge is ok, but it should not be mandatory. I sat down during the pledge in high school at least one year. "Under God" was added in the 50s to find the Communists. I wonder how that worked out for us?

now I am sworn to protect the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (etc etc)... go figure.

hope · Guru

As a teacher and, more relevant this subject, a sub teacher for fifteen years, I have yet to see a kid who didn't say the pledge being forced to do so. Many teachers ignore it altogether, or reveal their own attitude toward it by not making kids stand, let alone say the words out loud. If it offends your personal sensibilities, just don't say it. As if kids can't do with a little dose of healthy respect, esp. for the men and women who have fought and died for the country in which they are privileged to live.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

SLS, I salute your kid. I truly do. THAT makes me proud of my country. I've just personally never made the connection between being forced to say the pledge and being proud of my country. That's just me.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

This bill is a complete non-starter, seeing as the US Supreme Court has already ruled on several occassions that students cannot be compelled to recite the pledge, nor punished for refusing to do so (which is a good thing, seeing as some religious groups, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, consider it an act of idolatry).

As a side note, bet the sponsors of this bill would be appalled to learn that it (the pledge) was penned by a socialist... wink

I grew up reciting the pledge from early childhood, standing next to my desk in a segregated school and mouthing the words which I scarcely understood, and for a long time, never seemed to recited accurately..."one nation, under God, invisible."---LOL! (none of our teachers at the time informed us that the "liberty and justice for all" part didn't really apply to us.) Nevertheless, all the rituals of patriotism did hit their mark, and over time, engendered in me a fierce loyalty and love for my country, even when I knew it didn't return the sentiment. Thank God a lot has changed, and continues to do so.

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 9th of November 2011 08:35:38 PM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 9th of November 2011 09:11:34 PM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 9th of November 2011 09:14:04 PM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

There was a long string of threads on the other board about nationalism and flag and flag waving and yada yada yada.

I don't know if I have the heart to enter into this discussion, but since you asked romani, I think what it comes down to is respect for our country and flag.

With Veteran's Day in a day or so, there are lots of kids that don't know what it's about, except it's a holiday from school! Whoo hoo! And yet, it's so much more than that.

There are loads of folks who would die for their country. Meanwhile, each generation of kids has less and less respect for these traditions. Eventually, our kids will ignore the flag salute, entirely.

When I was in high school thinking seriously about being a teacher, my idol, my mentor told me how he thinks having God in the pledge was unimportant. He started having us say the pledge everyday, but without the God part. I was ambivalent about my feelings at that time, but struck by the message he sent all the kids in that class.

After that, I really considered what the flag salute was about. It's about more than myself and my community, but all the things that tie it together. Our country was founded on religious freedom and some people think that having the God part is a violation of Separation of Church and State. My teacher sure did. Yet, so many religions have something in common, and that is a God - maybe it's called God in a different language, but it's the same with another name.

I have a kid who will be on big ass ship in a few months who will be serving his country. My country. I am proud to fly my flag and to tear up when I hear the National Anthem at a football game.

The pledge does seem kind of hokey sometimes. But if you think about what it represents and what so many people have died to protect it, then it seems allright with me.

There are priorities in your state that are huge. I bet there would be several local service groups who would be willing to underwrite the cost of paying for flags for every kids classroom. It may seem silly when kids are not getting an education and there are so many other priorities - but believe me, there will be kids that grow up to respect the flag because of this silly little gesture.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Fair enough. I think the irritation from listening to people yell at me all day about legislation is finally getting to me. It's why I'm rarely on here now lol. *sigh* I do not have the patience to ever work in politics.

catahoula · Guru

Maybe Michigan's different but my bunch always spends a good bit of time on pet rock bills. Matter of fact, our national crew does too, now that I think about it.

It seems the only ones likely to catch them any grief are the those with a whiff of a nationalistic theme, though. You'd think they'd figure it out but... they're politicians.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

No harm in doing it. Really don't care one way or the other. I'm just irritated that this is what our politicians are focusing on. I just think these things should be left to school districts and that state politicians should focus on MUCH bigger issues. If we had less problems in Michigan (ie not an unemployment rate in the double digits among other things), I'd have no issue with this.

ETA: This also requires school districts to purchase a flag for each classroom in the district. Which most classes already have, but is it really necessary to force schools to buy more things when they've already slashed educational spending?

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Wednesday 9th of November 2011 07:01:39 PM

catahoula · Guru

Maybe Michigan is also in the lowest quintiles on testing but I'm not sure that the few minutes it takes to recite the pledge is seriously going to take away from their instructional time.

Not that I've any interest in doing it myself these days, romani, but I have to ask - what's the harm here?

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/bill_requiring_students_to_rec.html

A bill calling for each Michigan public school student to start the day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance cleared a state Senate committee and is headed to a floor vote.

Ok, really? Michigan has one of the worst unemployment rates in the country, some of the worst infastructure in the country, and a failling educational system and THIS is what our state politicians are worried about?

I really don't care whether schools say the pledge or not. I think it serves no purpose since most kids don't even know what they're saying. And I've always thought it was a little creepy to say a prayer to a flag. But seriously, is there a point to this? Is this really something that needs our politicians' attention?

If kids are going to have pride in their country, it sure as heck isn't going to come from mindlessly chanting every morning.

I am irritated by this, but I actually really am asking an opinion about whether or not you parents think this is necessary. I said it until about 6th/7th grade and then we stopped and I can't really say that it's done anything for me. Maybe you parents see it differently.