- Remember when “making a federal case” out of something meant it was a super-serious matter? Well, not so much now. (H/T G)
- Did development of modern human beings require diminished testosterone?
- Did it also require … but wait, let a neuroscientist tell you her brilliant ideas. The TED talk. The transcript. (Good one, LA!)
- Funny. Don’t recall Jesus ever saying that you’d be able to recognize his disciples by their
worksmulti-million dollar residences. - Eleven things humans do that dogs hate. (But wait just a minute. My pups love to get hugs from the right person.)
- I was going to save this until next Independence Day after Chris dropped the link into comments last week. But naw. It’s good any time: “Why I don’t pledge allegience (or why I won’t swear fealty to a sovereign lord).”
Will aim for having part II of “Poverty vs Poverty” later today. Not sure when.
Meantime, don’t forget to keep a roof over my head!
I seriously doubt the testosterone study (if anything, it might be the other way around), but neither cause-and-effect relationship would explain the population explosion that’s taken place over the same number of years since humans have become “civilized”.
The article on cooking is more interesting, and I can see some “sense” to its conclusion (at least it’s one more step in our “progress”), though I tend to place more emphasis on speech than on cooking in our advancement toward the complexity of _homo sapiens_’s brains. Speech came before cooking; we were already advanced toward becoming human before we started cooking.
Besides, we didn’t _need_ cooking to increase our brain’s complexity. It is NEED that propels evolution, most specifically the need to survive. We coud have survived without learning to cook. We may not have arrived where we are today, or as fast, but I don’t believe humans would have been eliminated before they began.
Oh my God……of all the oddball crap I have ever read that article about the Pledge of Alliegence take the cake!!! Look, I have put over 16 years in the military. Don’t get me wrong…I love our country…its politicians and the direction we’re going in is something else. The pledge is about our country not its politice. And yes, if you don’t love this country…..just get the damm hell out!!!!
Re the dog article…..I have an older golden retriever talk about a gentle nature!!! We have what could be called a partnership. Now, I know a lot of people would not want our life style, but, it works for us. He is a “house dog” sure, he loves the outside but seems to like the inside more. Or at least he likes to spend his time with me, Not sure which… He can sit anywhere he wants in the house…lie on the bed..do whatever. He has never had an accident in the house unless he was sick. He never has destroyed anything either. Maybe because I’m retired and always with him except for short periods. At any rate, he is one of those that loves being petted, scratched on his rear end, etc. Is he trained to walk on a leash? Not really…you will be pulled all over the place. Do I care? Nope….our lifestyle doesn’t require him to be that type of dog. All I am saying is, he sort of sets the parameters as to how I treat him. It works for us.
I have to disagree with Curt’s first paragraph. Forget the “under God” part of the Pledge; that’s inconsequential, and I’ve omitted those words since high school. But I’ve never been comfortable pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth. As to “the republic for which it stands” part*, I would find that much more acceptable if our politicians weren’t so busily engaged in changing this country from a republic (and I’m not sure it really meets that definition any more) into an oligarchy. Furthermore, “allegiance” isn’t a one-way street: my loyalty is reciprocal, and in large measure I don’t feel that the national government** is honoring its part of the bargain with its wholesale trashing of the Constitution. You can say what you like, but the Pledge is a pledge of support for the government, not merely “the country”. Frankly, our national government is no longer worthy of support by any reasoning individual.
I’m a veteran, too. I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and I still take that seriously. Unfortunately, most of our national politicians (in both parties) don’t. If the Pledge isn’t merely meaningless verbiage, and its recitation nothing more than thoughtless habit, then it’s dangerous verbiage. Either way, I cannot go along with it.
* The two phrases are joined by the conjunction “and”, so in the Pledge one is clearly pledging allegiance to both the flag and to the republic, independently. I won’t pledge my allegiance to a mere symbol.
** And lest anyone think otherwise, we have a “national”, not a “federal”, government in all but name. The federalist governmental structure upon which the nation was founded has long been completely obliterated.
Federal case? How about “felony release of balloons?”
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-02-22/news/fl-helium-balloon-environmental-crime-20130222_1_helium-balloon-fhp-trooper-wood-storks
It is NEED that propels evolution, most specifically the need to survive.
I think you have to have both. The need for a more efficient brain pushes the evolution, but if you don’t have the energy to run the brain it becomes a liability.
I tend to place more emphasis on speech than on cooking in our advancement toward the complexity of homo sapiens’ brains.
Ms Herculano-Houzel is focused on her field, so she’ll look for effects in that field. She focuses on the increased digestibility of cooked food, which is valid. I would also note that cooking was the first form of food preservation. Having a steady diet where the body gets adequate nourishment every day would seem more important than what you can process during the seasons of plenty.
Had that been my father or me in the wheelchair* we would probably have run over the teacher’s foot as we turned to remind her that the U.S. of A. was birthed in the light of burning flags. Whenever it becomes necessary we can burn some more.
* We were lucky. He took a bayonet in the shoulder, I escaped unscathed.
I can’t remember the last time I recited the pledge. Probably, back in the late 70’s or early 80’s, when I went to a union meeting, and they opened with it. If freedom means anything, then it certainly means the freedom to refrain what has become an act of Pavlov’s patriotism. Not to say that many of those who do join in such recitations, as well as the liturgy of the Star Spangled Banner, aren’t genuine in their feelings, but I’m sure that many of them don’t share my definition of Liberty. So, what are they pledging to, or revering, standing there with a hand over their heart? What is this country now? Land of entitlements? Why would I pledge allegiance to that? And how few people who reflexively rise and take part in these displays truly understand what it is they’re doing and saying?
Yes, the irony is deep and wide here.
And Curt — get the hell out? Really? For excercising my freedom of speech and conscience? Isn’t this supposed to be the place where I can do that without fear of reprisal?
And no, I have no confusion in re. the difference between politicians, government, and the concept of a nation. But what has the U.S.A. become, as a nation? Well, that’s difficult to define, because the answer will be quite different from person to person, but as it stand now, this one isn’t one I’d take up arms for.
I’m wondering if maybe Curt missed the point about the socialist origins of the Pledge the author mentions in the article. Maybe the Pledge isn’t really “about our country” as Carl insists, but more about blind devotion to the State. But then again, his rant probably proves the effectiveness of government indoctrination. Which is a terrible (and frightening) shame.
Hello, Alice — and welcome. I was wondering the same thing. I wonder often whether many who think the pledge is the height of Americanism would reconsider if they knew its origins and purpose.
But there that info was, right in your article. And … nope. Socialist state-worship is apparently patriotic once it becomes habit.
Great article, though! Thanks for writing it (you are that Alice, aren’t you?) and for stopping by.
Yes, Claire. I am that Alice. Thanks for sharing my link.
I was looking around for some information on the pledge and found this bit:
————–
The Ford Hall Forum continues to reflect its founder’s broad social interests. Ford felt comfortable with the topic of socialism and was much interested in the Social Gospel, which to his friend, Francis Bellamy, implied Christian Socialism. Ford’s position was that businessmen should be interested in the welfare of workingmen. He feared unrest among the working classes and saw the possibility of an industrial warfare justified by the legitimate grievances of labor. In willing his money to the Forum, he said that he hoped to stimulate the interest of businessmen who belonged to the Baptist Social Union “in the welfare of those who are dependent upon the returns from their daily toil for their livelihood.” He added that the Social Union and the nation should foster closer personal relations between Christian businessman and the workingman because of the latter’s “religious indifference, his feverish unrest and his belief that business men and capital are his enemies. This attitude of mind forebodes serious perils, and Christianity is the only influence that can change or modify them.”
————–
– http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pdgech2.htm
This is somewhat an answer to the charge that the pledge was a tool of socialists. It looks a lot more innocent here.
There is a lesson here, I think. These campaigns (another one was the Temperance Movement) had very innocent, even admirable beginnings. But over time, as they built in influence and became institutionalized, and particularly when government got into the picture and added the element of coercion, they evolved into something else that I suspect would have horrified the original proponents.
I have recited the pledge as a child many times, but I wouldn’t do it now, nor would I fly the American flag. As I am a veteran I also took the oath to defend the Constitution, but I don’t consider myself bound by an oath made in ignorance. Anyway servicemen are made for the extension and maintenance of Empire, not for protecting Americans (I’m talking about the reality, as opposed to what the propaganda says). It’s been that way for a very long time. I also consider the notion of a Republic to be fraudulent, and “democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner”.
I can see why veterans would have a hard time accepting that what sacrifices they made, were made for an evil cause, not a good one. But I personally prefer to understand reality, and to act in that understanding.
“It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it.”
— Patrick Henry
On that TED talk, it is curious she left out the mention of meat-eating, since it allows much greater intake of energy than eating plant food. Cooking is probably important, but what was being cooked was meat. I think the need for a big brain was the adoption of predation by an animal not normally equipped for it (and that led to creation of hunting tactics tools and communication, etc.). It’s all tied up together, seems to me.