One Man and A Symbol of Freedom

By Kat on April 17, 2008 | | Comments (48)

[Kat]

I can hardly write this post. I am equally angry, sad, proud, and filled with something I can't describe because it is all of these things and more.

I just watched a video over at Gateway Pundit. It seems the University of Maine put up, or should I say "down", an "art" display by laying down United States Flags all through the hall way for people to walk on.

One man, a veteran, came and tried to pick up the flags. They called the police and told him that he could not. It was property, just a piece of cloth, they said. He told them that he had fought for that flag. He stood in front of one of the flag with a sign: Disgraceful.

[continued in flash traffic with link to news article on the same explaining the display]

I felt just a moment of real sadness as I watched this man. Yet, at the same time, as I watched the video, I noticed something important in the background. Almost every student who walked down the hall weaved a path around the flags. Even one student on crutches worked hard to avoid it, even though there was a crowd now in the hallways.

I felt something else: Pride.

Yeah, I'm one of those people that think that it is protected free speech to be able to desecrate the flag, up to and including burning it. While, bizarrely to some, I know, I also detest it and would stand up and protest back. Still, somehow, watching that vet stand there and knowing he felt powerless to stop it, having fought, bled and watched men die for that flag, I get pretty angry, too. But, that's the point isn't it?

I got a link to the news story at the Morning Sentinel. Crane is a student at UMF and did the project as part of an art assignment on social commentary. She said that it went against her beliefs to do it, but that's why she had to. She then video taped students' response. She noted what I did on the video: that most students walked around the flags. But, she says, she was unprepared for the visceral response she got from some students and the head of the local American Legion, Charles Bennet, who not only tried to remove the flags, but passed out literature about proper flag etiquette.

As a member of the American Legion, I understand that the defense of our nation and the advancement of patriotism does not stop when these men retire. These were some of the responses:


Senior Ashlea Andrews, 21, rehabilitation major from Boothbay Harbor, told Crane she was not respecting the flag.

"This hurts veterans and the people who have served to give us our freedoms," she said. "I am all for freedom of speech, but this is the common area in the student center. This is a public place. It doesn't belong here."

Randall responded that there were as many people on campus who believed the project was a demonstration of freedom of speech as those "who believe in censorship."

Sorry, professor Randall, keep teaching art and stop trying to be a social studies teacher because you definitely do not know what "censorship" is. Frankly, I found this a lot among professors and alleged educated people. It is not "censorship" for citizens to state their beliefs and others to object to them. It becomes "censorship" when laws are put in place and enforced by the power of the state that prevents people from stating their views. Otherwise, it all falls under "free speech".

That is what is wrong in our universities today. There is no real understanding of rights or what is right. But, some students got it even if their professors don't:


Student Craig Durant, 22, of Milo, said he came over to show his support for the project. "I absolutely support her. This is art. But I also support (Bennett) volunteering his opinion. I love the fact he is standing up for what he believes."

Iraq war veteran Travis Hill, 28, of Salem Township, called the display "infuriating" and "insulting" and told Crane to take it down.

"She made her point. Why keep going?" he said.

Crane constructed the flags with a 5-foot-wide, winding path between them large enough to accommodate a wheelchair and avoid congestion, she said. She said she put a lot of thought into the project to see if people respected the flag.

"With all the unrest everywhere, I wanted to do something that would force people to think about how they feel about the flag. It was supposed be about respect versus disrespect," she said.

Well, I think she got an "A" on this project. Watch the video.

My end comment: Yes, she had the right to do it. In all actuality, I understand what she wanted to prove. No, I don't like it. I wonder if there was any other way to have achieved the same response without using something so trite and overdone. Yes, I'm proud of that vet, the many students who stood up to it and those who had enough sense of respect to go around it.

It gives me, well, the audacity to hope.

Speaking of audacity, Obama finally decided to wear a flag pin on his lapel. Now that's audacity.

Share This Article:

Categories:

48 Comments

By Fred on April 17, 2008 3:11 AM
Pathological narcissism is the defining disease of our age.
 
By homebru on April 17, 2008 6:28 AM
Apparently "Conduct Liable to Cause a Breach of the Peace" is not unlawful in Maine.
 
By AW1 Tim on April 17, 2008 6:33 AM
Kat, This is where I respectfully disagree with you. I live in Maine,. Had I known about this (it still is NOT in the major papers here) I would have gone there and done whatever I could to destroy that project. Better to go to jail having stopped such a disgrace than to let it stabd. NOT acting to stop such revolting displays only encourages firther such actions. It is NOT a 1st ammendment issue. I see no difference in actions that desecrate a flag to provole a response than those od someone who yells FIRE in a crowded theatre. No defference at all. It is our flag. It should NOT be worn as clothing, as a bed spead, as a bandana, etc. Id this vulgar display is considered art, then someone tearing it up and burning the remains ought to be listed as "performance art". I have already made a formal complaint to the University today, and will be also asking that those responsible for this piece of trash display be charged under Maine's broad "Hate Crime" law. The only time I will agree to seeing an American flag burned by a protester, is if he is wrapped up in it first.
 
By fdcol63 on April 17, 2008 7:00 AM
Obama: "I was against the flag pin before I was for it." Translation: "I was making a sophisticated and nuanced statement about how trite and obsolete I thought that whole 'patriotism' thing was, until my pollsters showed me that it was sapping my support among all you "bitter", gun-toting, church-going, ignorant rednecks still stuck here in small town America."
 
By Carrie on April 17, 2008 7:05 AM
What in the hell is wrong with people????
 
By Rita on April 17, 2008 7:19 AM
The problem is that people in this country no longer know the meaning of "sacrifice, honor, and duty". It comes as no suprise that some people in this country have forgotten the past.
 
By fdcol63 on April 17, 2008 7:42 AM
" ... She said that it went against her beliefs to do it, but that's why she had to. ..." Why? This is the problem today. People feel that they have to shock or offend others - "get in your face" - to exercise their "rights", lest those rights somehow get lost or taken away. True freedom is recognizing that you may the "right" to do this, but you also have the "right" - and the responsibility - not to.
 
By fdcol63 on April 17, 2008 7:45 AM
may have
 
By BillT on April 17, 2008 7:50 AM
"...it went against her beliefs to do it, but that's why she had to. ..." Ask her if it's also against her beliefs to step into an open cesspool...
 
By Boquisucio on April 17, 2008 8:03 AM
Shameful - just shameful.
 
By Boquiusucio on April 17, 2008 8:18 AM
Questions to everyone who may know better than this uneducated little 'Rican: a)Isn't the above a flagrant violation to Title 4 Chapter 1 Section 8 of the US Code? b) And if so, are there any legal proscriptions penalizing such acts? It seems to me that one could walk-up to the nearest Federal Court, and obtain an injunction against such "autistic" display.
 
By Fishmugger on April 17, 2008 8:59 AM
Kat As I am mostly technically illiterate, I don't know how to send you this; but there is a video of one of the "Greatest Moments in Baseball". It is about the incident where Rick Monday, (Chicago) stops some fans from burning the flag at Dodger Stadium. The tape will fill your heart. The fans give him a standing O and them start singing God Bless America...in California. If you can read my e-mail address and send me a note, I will send it to you. Everyone should have this video. Oh yeah...it happened in 1976.
 
By Argent on April 17, 2008 9:02 AM
Is it better perhaps to see this ugly idea open rather than clouded up inside but still very real? It's certainly fair play to attack this crap in any way legally permissible and she and her university have all but begged for that. Maybe the real problem is the disrespect that was already there.
 
By Mike Lehnherr on April 17, 2008 9:03 AM
I would have gone to jail. In their "fighting words" ruling in the '50's, the Supreme Court said that we are free to say anything, but some things carry consequences - you can expect to go to jail for yelling fire in a theater or get your a$$ kicked for rude comments about someone's mother, sister, wife, daughter. They went on to say that some symbols and the assault thereon qualify as fighting words. I sure as hell would have taken my chances with a jury. Just sayin'. ML
 
By Maggie on April 17, 2008 9:59 AM
Fishmugger -
Here
you go baby! I remember this being on the news and my Dad making us watch it and yelling "Yeah!!"
 
By kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 10:02 AM
Yes, Boq, there is a legal code, but it is without penalties. In fact, more like a suggestion than a law because most police will not enforce it, particularly as there are state laws and precedents on the book that often protect that.
 
By Fishmugger on April 17, 2008 10:09 AM
Thank you Maggie, That's the one. I sent it to John...people can deal with him if they want it.
 
By kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 10:16 AM
Well, AW1, I can only say that I took the meaning of the first amendment directly from the people who wrote it, using their precedent as an example of what I expected they did or would do to express their anger or displeasure with the government. That did include burning flags and effigies of Britain and King George. If you read my link on why I believe it is free speech you will see more historical references to the idea. however, if you read "why I detest it" and how I "would stand up and protest back", I think you get the idea how I feel about it. In fact, I feel so strongly about our flag not being just a piece of cloth, but imbued with our ideas, our honor and our national identity, that, if our nation and our flag was ever usurped by another country or some despotic internal tyranny, I would burn that flag to ashes.
 
By David M on April 17, 2008 10:28 AM
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/17/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
 
By Chuck on April 17, 2008 11:58 AM
First, I'd have beat the shit out of the "artist." Consequences be damned, for me as a student. (Worst case scenario, a few weeks in anger management counseling.) I'd have beat the artist not to oppress their free speech, but as she stated, she was forced to display a project she didn't want to do. In effect, I'd be DEFENDING her free speech, because my actions, resulting in the artists injuries, would be directly related to her professor's forcing her to speak/act in a manner which was meant to incite emotional response. Then, I'd set fire to the professor's car. While the fire department was extinguishing that fire, I'd set fire to her house. When they left to put out that blaze, I'd set fire to the professor. Why is it that "controversial" has to mean anti-American? How about a display of all the good things our servicemen are doing overseas, coupled with the positive impact our current foreign policy is having on our allies, (like the decrease in global terrorist activity) and then a nice presentation on how glueball worstening is a load of tripe, and can be proven to be so. Tell me THAT wouldn't incite riots--amongst the faculty, especially in the Poli/Sci department. Maybe if we taught our students that to truly make an impact in our world,you can't do it with words (citing the UN's long track record of good intentions coupled with catastrophic failures); you can't do it with pictures (Burning monks, assassinating VC, burning children) didn't end the war, just popular support for the troops; and you can't change the world with demonstrations or riots (otherwise the march on Washington would have ended the civil rights movement, the DNC riots would've ended the Vietnam war, the Watts Riots would've ended racial tension... ad nauseam. Tell the kids, if you want to really make a positive change in the world, pick up a rifle and grab a helmet. Those guys over there are the only ones who are truly making this world more stable, more free, and securing liberty. --Chuck
 
By ry on April 17, 2008 12:32 PM
Oh, this is where things are going to turn ugly. (Not in the face, not in the face. Not in the nads, not in the nads). "Why?" Because, if you listen to art professors, art is supposed to be subversive. Good art(in the modern sense) is supposed to challenge you in some way, philosophically. That's why. Even though it was against her first blush beliefs she had to do it make art. That's why. Um, Boq, so much of that gets tossed on 1st Amendment grounds, really. Unfortunately. Rick Monday, Captain America, going into a slide. Yup. Know that one too. "Worst case scenario, a few weeks in anger management counseling.)" ACtually, no. Best case scenario is anger management. Worst case scenario is expulsion and jail time. I've seen kids tossed for walking into the wrong room while drunk, and doing time for attempted rape for doing so, at three different universities, so it isn't like they're going to go easier on someone who actually hit somebody, particularly if it isn't a two sided brawl but instead a one sided ass kicking. You're absolutely dreaming if you think you'll only get anger management. Especially since there's pre-meditation involved(you'd be looking for the girl to whap her around). You guys are soooo taking 'fighting words' doctrine and warping it out of shape. Grow up a little bit. Suck it up, and quit being babies about. YOu aren't going to stop this shit by being schoolyard bullies and forcibly shutting people up. That's absolutely and intrinsically counter to the very freedom you fight/fought for. Nod, chock her up as a fucking idiot, and move on. Go do something constructive---like a renegade parade of flags around the quad, free speech at its best, 'yo(geurilla theatre, protected speech, and if the U comes after you there's a ton of people willing to fight for you.). Pick a policy fight with the art department as to why they won't show art of another stripe, something constructive rather than "Hulk hate, Hulk smash." You Service people are so much smarter and more moral than this level response, why give the jerkoffs ammunition to prove their arguments that you're reactionary knuckle draggers? You're smarter and better than this. Stand up and express your beliefs, don't beat the shit out of people who disagree with you(or have we decided to be exactly like the SF assholes now? Jacobins willing to use terror to cement what we believe as righteous as the norm?) Grow up a little. The legal and moral reasons she should be able to say that are the very ones that compelled many of you to don The Colors. You wouldn't want to be hypocrites now, would you? Grow up. I live in a college town. I see this shit every day. Idiots are idiots and don't waste your time and anger on them. THere's better outlets(like making sure they don't get their way in terms of policy) than 'kicking their asses to teach them a lesson'---which won't work because that'll just cement you as a 'fascist' in their minds, land you in jail, and galvanize them as a group to do even more heinous 'Art'(real win there, huh). Get a grip. Remember what It's all about, and smile at the stupid bastards. That's all they're worth.
 
By Casey Tompkins on April 17, 2008 12:37 PM
For homebru, AW1 Tim, and company: One of the things PJ O'Rourke did while doing research for Parliament of Whores was catch some of the Supreme Court discussion with respect to the flag-burning case. The concept of "fighting words" was in fact raised, then dismissed. Like it or not, whether someone's walking on it, burning it, or using it as toilet paper, it's Constitutionally-protected speech. It's the law of the land. Period. Did anyone actually read the Morning Sentinel article Kat linked? Ms. Crane is a conservative whose father is a long-term serviceman. She didn't like the idea of people walking on the flag any more than you do. And, no, fdcol63 (with all respect sir) she didn't feel that she "had" to shock people. She wanted to see how they would react. Actually doing real-life research instead of just assuming. But still, Chuck feels the need to 'beat the shit out of the "artist,"' then set fire to the professor's car, house, then her. ...And this is different from Muslims rioting, burning things down (ahem), and killing people over the Mohammad cartoons in which way? I'll bet that every single person above condemned those whackjob ragheads for going librarian-poo over some silly little cartoons. Then the above crowd reacts nearly exactly the same way over a silly little piece of cloth. The flags in question, BTW, were constructed out of vinyl, and not actual flags. Bottom line: everyone has hot buttons. And, yes, I do respect the flag. I'm just trying to underline the difference between the barbarian and the Citizen. The barbarian reacts to someone pushing one of their hot buttons immediately, viscerally, and without thinking; usually in a severely violent manner. The Citizen, on the other hand, reacts after considering what might be the appropriate response. I cite Charles Bennett -American Legion commander for Franklin County- in evidence. I also cite the maintenance workers who put small cardboard signs with the word "disgrace" on either end of the display in evidence. I also cite the vast majority of students who refused to walk on the flags. They didn't assault anyone, tear up the display or set fire to anything. They disagreed, quite forcefully in some cases. That is how Citizens react to ill speech; good speech.
 
By kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 1:05 PM
While I agree with Ry and Casey on this matter (combat bad speech with more good speech), I also understand the other reactions. I know, I felt angry watching a lone veteran stand in front of the flags to be joined by a few students. Again, I felt some pride in the fact that the other students walked around them. Yet, I understand, when we see these things, in general, they are meant to provoke, to antagonize and to show a disdain towards things that others hold important and close to the heart. At some point, the question remains, even if the supreme court dismissed "fighting words", what will provoke the idea, once again, of national ideas and honor to be paramount? When is it no longer "speech" but an act of war, either in the cultural sense or literally? I think the subject is more visceral and antagonizing for those who feel they have invested much more in our nation that concepts of ideas or words. I think when you have bled for something, lost something, lost people for those ideas, the subject is no longer academic, but real.
 
By kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 1:08 PM
To quote Johnny Cash: When you're putting down my country, son, you're walking on the fighting side of me.
 
By Ymarsakar on April 17, 2008 1:51 PM
Narcissists and malignant narcissists have the right, protected by law if you physically assault them, to verbally abuse people. That doesn't mean they stop being narcissists when they exercise their "rights" of freedom of speech. The difference between a good person and a psychopath or narcissist, is that good people treat everyone as a human being with free will. Narcissists treat people as objects. Obviously it is "censorsip" if an object comes up and argues with you, since you, being an individual, have the right of free speech and an object doesn't.
 
By fdcol63 on April 17, 2008 1:53 PM
Casey, I think all of us who garnered your wrath, and that of Ry, would all agree that the artist - whatever her motivation or intent - has the right to express herself as she wishes. However, just as those who desecrate the flag have the right to express their opinions, so do we. And I believe that most of us have done so here in a fairly calm, reserved, mature, and tolerant manner. Why is this a hot button for us? It may sound quaint and trite, but speaking for myself, it's because I know that better men than myself have died to protect a flag which symbolizes both the freedoms that we Americans enjoy AND our country and culture itself. A few examples:
ADAMS, JOHN G. B. Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, Company I, 19th Massachusetts Infantry. Place and date: At Fredericksburg, Va., 13 December 1862. Entered service at: ------. Birth: Groveland, Mass. Date of issue: 16 December 1896. Citation: Seized the 2 colors from the hands of a corporal and a lieutenant as they fell mortally wounded, and with a color in each hand advanced across the field to a point where the regiment was reformed on those colors.
ALLEN, ABNER P. Rank and organization: Corporal, Company K, 39th Illinois Infantry. Place and date: At Petersburg, Va., 2 April 1865. Entered service at: Bloomington, Ill. Birth: Woodford County, Ill. Date of issue: 12 May 1865. Citation: Gallantry as color bearer in the assault on Fort Gregg.
ALLEN, NATHANIEL M. Rank and organization: Corporal, Company B, 1st Massachusetts Infantry. Place and date: At Gettysburg, Pa., 2 July 1863. Entered service at: Boston, Mass. Birth: Boston, Mass. Date of issue: 29 March 1899. Citation: When his regiment was falling back, this soldier, bearing the national color, returned in the face of the enemy's fire, pulled the regimental flag from under the body of its bearer, who had fallen, saved the flag from capture, and brought both colors off the field.
APPLE, ANDREW O. Rank and organization: Corporal, Company I, 12th West Virginia Infantry. Place and date: At Petersburg, Va., 2 April 1865. Entered service at: ------. Birth: Northampton, Pa. Date of issue: 12 May 1865. Citation: Conspicuous gallantry as color bearer in the assault on Fort Gregg.
BARKER, NATHANIEL C. Rank and organization: Sergeant, Company E, 11th New Hampshire Infantry. Place and date: At Spotsylvania, Va., 12 May 1864. Entered service at: Manchester, N.H. Born: 28 September 1836, Piermont, N.H. Date of issue: 23 September 1897. Citation: Six color bearers of the regiment having been killed, he voluntarily took both flags of the regiment and carried them through the remainder of the battle.
BROWN, CHARLES Rank and organization: Corporal, U.S. Marine Corps. Born: New York, N.Y. Enlisted at: Hongkong, China. G.O. No.: 169, 8 February 1872. Citation: On board the U.S.S. Colorado in action against a Korean fort on 11 June 1871. Assisted in capturing the Korean standard in the center of the citadel of the fort.
 
By Boquisucio on April 17, 2008 1:58 PM
Well K-Mo, doing a brief research on Maine's State Codes, I found the following: Title 1, Chapter 9, Subchapter 2, Subsections 253, and 254. It seems that The State of Maine classifies such desecation as an Class E Crime, punishable by law. Anyone up in main up for a lawsuit injunction?
 
By kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 2:00 PM
I would add to the list, William Careny, Sgt, 54th Massachusetts who won the Medal of Honor for courageously picking up the colors, pushing forward to the ramparts at Battery Wagner, sustaining three wounds, before successfully retreating with the flag back to his line after more than half of the 54th fell along with their commander Col. Shaw. I believe that was 1864
 
By MajMike on April 17, 2008 3:05 PM
gee, if only someone had been in near proximity that could have expressed strong feelings in a safe and controlled manner... {cough} http://www2.umaine.edu/ArmyROTC/Contact_Us.htm
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 17, 2008 3:34 PM
My! I go take a Korean businessman out for a tour of some local manufactories and you guys get all in a kerfuffle! Ah, Chuck. I would both *want* to be your commander and *dread* being your commander... good thing I'm safe from that assignment! Sign me up with Casey, though I'm not all down with Ry's "Grow up y'all"... Speaking of that... I have The Rulez. I have them for a reason. Among other things, so that I *don't* get emails like this one:
Geez John - what happened to your language filter? Surprising outburst of toilet-talk from some who know better on your blog. You know me - I'm really not offended; in fact, I would tell RY that since he reverted to nasties his argument is probably more emotional than founded in logic. And BTW I understand the fighting words defense. It can't be "I'm going to fly out there and get some," it's got to be an emotional response to perceived injustice at the time of the offense. I didn't post this mainly because I didn't want to take it any further than my comments to you.
But I did. Clearly, this is an emotional topic that has generated some heat. But I've got my Rulez people, and some of you trampled over them with the same reckless abandon some pencil-necked circle-A tattooed nasty-jeaned black-duster wearer would gleefully tromp over a... flag. The PG-17c was a wreck when I got back. BCR is a predatory business operator - you have *no* idea what she charges to repair the thing. Some of you need to clean it up. I don't care how fired up you get. Keep it civil. That's not asking too much. Just that you be polite. Besides, being savaged politely is far more devastating that slipping into potty mouth.
 
By kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 4:04 PM
I would note that the police officers (campus security?) were not going to arrest the young lady or anyone standing on the flags. Why? Because no one wants to challenge the law through actual arrest or court. I think the question, at the time, became the safety of people over the class E crime.
 
By Boquisucio on April 17, 2008 4:28 PM
Does that mean that I can go down to Independence Hall and spot weld a pair of wiggly antenas on to The Liberty Bell? I feel myself a wee-bit artsy today. Besides it nutin' but a big 'ol hunk of cracked bronze if you ask me. Wiggly Antenae might just do the trick on my personal right of artistic expresion. But seriously, can't some one in Maine walk-up to the local district attourney, and report a that a crime has been commited, and to petition pro-se for the D.A. to enforce the law? If the D.A. refuses to enforce the laws on the book, anyone can ask as a citizen of Maine, for judicial review on the matter, and petition for enforcement of such law. Torches and Pitch-forks would be the next step to follow if no redress is given.
 
By MajMike on April 17, 2008 4:52 PM
i'm with Boq on this one.
 
By Justthisguy on April 17, 2008 6:12 PM
There's been an awful lot, lately, of people pushing other people's "maximum angry" buttons and calling it art. It's just being rude, if you ask me. That said, I agree with Kat, it's protected speech. Now, I would ask anyone who started to tread upon the flag why he was doing so, and if he were a U.S. citizen. If he were a fellow citizen and just being a jerk, I would tell him what I thought about him, quite rudely. If he were a U.S. citizen citing an art reason, I'd just shake my head and move on. If he were not a U.S. citizen, I think I'd be within my rights to just go for him, with all weapons natural and artificial. Act of War, and all. P.s. Oh, and I'm a bit autistic. I've been known to bite, in a fight.
 
By Justthisguy on April 17, 2008 6:31 PM
P.p.s. In another room here, I have one of those glass-fronted isosceles-triangular cases with the National Ensign which lay on my Dad's coffin at his funeral. I will not be responsible for my actions toward anyone trying to do something like that to this particular flag.
 
By Deadcenter on April 17, 2008 6:36 PM
Why is it that things like this are considered "art" or “freedom of speech” if you are pulling the beard of certain “approved” target groups like Christians, white people, men, the military etc., regardless of the motivation, but it becomes "hate speech" or “provocative” behavior when one of said groups does the same thing to one of the "protected groups"?? The hypocrisy is LOUD.
 
By R Jewell on April 17, 2008 9:36 PM
This video has been flying around all day and has drawn out the best and worst of both sides, as we've seen here. Go back and look at it one more time.......this time focus not on the American Legion District Officer attempting to stop the display. Focus rather, on the young man in the ball cap who walks up, shakes his hand and joins him with his arms folded. The young man looks to possibly be Reserve/NG/ROTC/Iraq vet? Watch what he does....the young man's first action is to slip his watch off, signaling he's ready to "rock and roll"....then takes his place, quietly. Take a few minutes and focus on this kid.......now that's a Hooaahhh moment....that's the real story of this video.....
 
By Casey Tompkins on April 18, 2008 12:24 AM
fdcol63, if you think you have incurred my wrath, then I apologize now. What I hoped to have communicated in my first post is the need to avoid or resist immediate or unthinking reactions to provocation. Beating up some nitwit "artist" (although in this case I must reiterate that the lady was a conservative patriot) does not redound well on the American belief in dissent. In fact the very corrosive basis of this display underlines the very bedrock of our political system; that no matter how personally offensive we find our opponents (barring outright criminality) they have the right to espouse their point of view. It's easy to accept "dissent" when it's Yankees vs. Reds, Pats vs. Titans, Chevy vs. Ford, or Windows vs. Mac. Ok, maybe not the last one. :) But that's just the point. It's easy to accept dissent when it's not too dissenting... In other words, y'all can disagree, as long as y'all don't disagree too much. I appreciate the depth of emotion for those who have spilled blood for this country, or have seen their brethren die. Hell, my father was a grunt in Europe during WW2. I'm here exactly because he was one of the guys who was lucky enough to make it back. I only specified you in particular because of your earlier post to the effect that
People feel that they have to shock or offend others - "get in your face" - to exercise their "rights."
Do you really believe, now, that Ms. Crane felt any "need" to shock or offend? Or was she trying to honestly determine how people felt about the flag? If so, wouldn't you say her experiment was successful? Nearly everyone I saw in the linked video -including a young woman on crutches- made a particular effort to avoid walking on the flags. Hell, I'd call that a postive sign. I would have to dispute your claim that "most of us have done so here in a fairly calm, reserved, mature, and tolerant manner" when you consider the following: -Mike Lehnherr's comment that "I would have gone go jail," implying that he would have done something illegal. -Chuck's "beat the shit out of the artist" comment, followed by his intention to burn the professor's car, set fire to house, then set fire to the professor. Ok. I'll give you, in the very narrow, technical sense, the statement that "most of us have done so here in a fairly calm, reserved, mature, and tolerant manner." At least, compared to those who would commit arson, assault, and possibly attempted murder. When you fold in the arguments along the lines of "Pathological narcissism is the defining disease of our age," it gets a bit murkier. In fact, it reminds me of how the Soviet Union defined dissent as a mental illness. And, no, I don' think you are the moral equivalent of the commissars; I'm just pointing out the commonality of human frailty. It's easy to demonize those you really, really don't agree with... In the general sense, Kat has done a great job of summarizing how I feel. I suppose the difference is that I feel the impulse to defend the minority against the majority. Isn't that the whole point behind the entire Bill of Rights? To highlight the simple fact that respectable citizens may occasionally feel the impulse to demonize or oppress their opponents, just because they disagree? Do you think the reactions shown here are in any way substantially different from those who (say) honestly believe that "carry[ing] and bear[ing] arms" is an obsolete "right?" Don't you see, that's the ultimate meaning of the Bill of Rights? The very freedom of that tiny, despised minority to speak their mind? Or does your memory go back far enough to remember when Christians where that tiny, despised minority? Or democrats? Or republicans? Or those who believed that sometimes "in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another?" Here's another radical idea: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Back in the day, that was against all common sense. No Republic could exist that large. No democracy ever survived the war against capital. Yet here we are today, and all that was once Radical is now Common Sense. And I still maintain -against all current "Common Sense"- that these people have the innate human right to express their dissent, no matter how offensive you find it, for such offense is the very basis of the tyranny of democracy.
 
By Casey Tompkins on April 18, 2008 12:29 AM
Whoops. Almost forgot. With respect to Justthisguy's comments about his daddy's flag: I got yer back, bro...
 
By fdcol63 on April 18, 2008 8:52 AM
Casey, Thanks for your thoughts ... I agree with most of them. And there's no need to apologize, because I probably chose the wrong word - "wrath" - when I probably should have said "ire" or something more neutral. I understand the artist's political perspective and her true intent in this case, which is perhaps opposite of what other artists on the other side of the political spectrum may sometimes intend. As far as the "in your face" aspect of these other artists but not specifically her, I guess we'll just continue to disagree. LOL I'll just make this one further comment, though, which I alluded to in a previous post: We all agree that the flag is an important symbol of this great country. For some, it primarily represents the civil liberties we enjoy, like freedom of speech and thought and religion, and the other rights guaranteed in the Constitution. For those individuals, desecrating and burning that symbol is merely another way to "express" or "enjoy" those freedoms. Thus by denying them the right to express themselves in this way, we are, ironically, infringing on those important civil liberties that the flag represents, and which makes this country special and unique. However, for those of us on the other side of this debate, the flag represents not only those critical civil liberties, it also represents the country itself: our culture, our homeland, our values, our children and families, our pride and self-esteem ... ourselves. For us, the desecration of the flag is not just some abstract expression of civil liberties. When we see someone desecrate, burn, or trample the symbol that represents us - our families, our children, our homeland, our values - we believe that the true intent of the desecrater is to express his or her disdain for us as a country and as a people, and that the desecration itself is symbolic of their true desire or intent to desecrate, burn, or trample us in reality.
 
By Mike Lehnherr on April 18, 2008 9:24 AM
Casey - gone to jail - yes, but out on bond quickly; broke the law - probably not, and for a jury to decide. Wow!! This has been a GREAT discussion - 'cept for the "RULEZ" violations!! Cheers, ML
 
By ry on April 18, 2008 12:43 PM
Oh, please. That's nasties? Give me a break. Strongly worded, but logical. Excuse me for putting it in the vernacular. (I get pounded for taling all hoity toity, and then I get pounded for talking like I'm on the shop floor. Make up your minds, people.) 1) Illegal. 2) Against general principles of civil society to even verbally threaten much less actually perform said threats against someone over something like this, hence juvenile in nature. Knee jerk reactions and infantile. 3) Debasement of core principles. So, I stated it in salty language, and that so utterly destroys the three points I made. Yup yup. Give me a break. Jow that decision was made I don't understand. That's like saying since W can't say nuclear correctly anything he says connected to that has to be crap. Rather poor reasoning. I understand what I believe the logical tool being employed is(if one plank of the base is flawed then everything built upon that logical framework is also flawed.). But that works with bits of logic or facts, not salty language. What I think strange is: don't you people think Kat, Casey, and I feel the same things? Don't you think I want to yank the little punk who has the 'My car gets 35 miles to the gallon. Who's the patriot now?' out of his car? You don't think I wouldn't love to give my Wife's boss a piece of my mind, with all of his crap he puts her and I through over this(Eurotrash wannabe)? We're supposed to be better than that. What's supposed to be acceptable behavior is about what Unka Bill did(is she willing to walk into a cesspool too, in the name of art?). We, the conservative-ish side, of the spectrum is better than this, the military personell who read here are better than this, and yet we devolve to it? No, I hold us to a higher standard. So what if I used salty language. Following Patton's dicta: when I want them to understand I say it fast and dirty(and how did that make his arguments false I'll never understand). We're better than this. Some of the people on this thread are real life leaders(Chuck's a CPT, John's a Maj, etc, even Tim is a seniorish non-com). People who are supposed to set the example for the rest of us. I'm just a geek who tutors. I pointed out that we're failing on this with the juvenile 'you hurt my feelings so I'm going to break your face' stuff(but I did it with foul language, op, well, that's just a sheer disqualification then. Me thinks someone is operating with either a hidden agenda or a prissy set of debating rules). That is juvenile. It's my first reaction too. But sometimes the adult has to win out. Hence, grow up.(Strange coming from me, huh?). Give me a break. "Does that mean that I can go down to Independence Hall and spot weld a pair of wiggly antenas on to The Liberty Bell? I feel myself a wee-bit artsy today. Besides it nutin' but a big 'ol hunk of cracked bronze if you ask me. Wiggly Antenae might just do the trick on my personal right of artistic expresion." No, that's destruction of public property. You would be well within rights to create a paper mache Liberty Bell with wiggly antenas and plop it down right in front of Independence Hall as a form of 'performance art'. You'd be really annoying, if I was a tourist I'd give you a real angry look, but you'd still be operating within the agreed rules. If someone ripped your flag down to walk on it, yeah, their theives, forcibly enact the cease and desist. But otherwise? Not your property. Let me try another way. Bill Maher called all Catholics pedophiles and cultists. So, am I right to want to kick his butt for insulting something as dear to me as The Flag, something as important an idea as The Flag? No. He's a muttonhead who insulted me and many others to the same degree as defilement of the Flag does and all I can do is ask HBO to not let him do it again, to censure him for being such a jackalope. That's the price we all pay so that when we say something someone else doesn't like they can't give us the bums rush. That flows straight out of Locke(so if I said it vulgarly it no longer is a logical argument then? How's that work?). Core Principles, y'all. You don't get to toss them just because it's a natural treasure.
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 18, 2008 12:58 PM
Trying to get my dander up, little bro? You got pounded by me for dropping the F-bomb in my comments. You know better than that. In your anger, you dissed ME. And I'm a blogger, so we know it's all about me... The point you seem to be missing mired in the anger you wear on your sleeve at the response is: If you had avoided the salty language, THIS.EXCHANGE.WOULD.NOT.HAVE.HAPPENED. It didn't add anything to the discussion. It did cause people to focus on that... to the detriment of your points. It's *why* I instituted the Rulez. It keeps the comments focused on the subject, not the commenter. You don't have to like it, you can think it's juvenile for people to focus on the language - but all this has done is *Validate* the Rule. As an aside, Chuck's a Major now, too. And I suspect will rank me when his LTC board meets. And Mike L. is a retired officer combat veteran. You are *so* going to pay for this in labor...
 
By ry on April 18, 2008 3:42 PM
(grumble, grumble grumble) Fine. it wasn't like you weren't going to try to draw blood and make me cry anyway. Although I do plead that I don't deserve the 5 minute major and a game misconduct since it was a retalitory penalty. I wasn't dissing anyone really. I used an etc. I don't know who all is and is not a vet here. I know some. a goodly number are and can usually pick them out. But I wasn't dissing anyone by not including them in the list. It's a pretty long list. I screwed up with an f bomb. Sorry. I still don't see how that's so bad that it totally destroys my argument. Makes it look cheap(the real sin, we made Argghhh! look cheap) but doesn't change what it is. I stand by it. Bad idea for current or retired Service Personnel to even hint they'd go head hunting on this topic in public fora. It's a total breakdown, it's a breakdown of Core Constitutional Principles, and a PR nightmare. So I went a little 'macho' to get into people's face about it figuring the bigger dogs don't listen to C3PO. It backfired. But I was thinking and acting responsibly. THat's what chaps my hide, the insinuation that I'm unhinged because I dropped an f bomb. That isn't juvenile. that's insulting. I kept the juvenile for the 'let's beat them up or destroy their work' stuff. Because that is what bullies do, and nobody on here really is a school yard bully(so they shouldn't act like it).
 
By Casey Tompkins on April 18, 2008 11:35 PM
Ry, try looking at it this way: you violated one of the Corps (pun intended) Rules: never fight angry. In fact, I can think of at least on instance on my own blog where I called John in for rhetorical backup and he smacked me down (in a very nice way), cuz, well, I was wrong on the merits. Why I was wrong is a topic for another day, but it was another case of fighting (or posting) while angry. Fighting angry generally makes you lose. It's the cold-blooded SOB who waits for an opening, then WHAM he's gotcha. Just like ICEMAN... Heh... Oh, fdcol63; I was making an exception in Ms. Crane's case. I quite agree that there are far too many so-called "artists" who should be more properly termed "bomb-throwers." I also quite agree with your comments about the power of symbols, especially those who have bled for the cause. Many civilians have no respect for military symbols, as exemplified by the dillweed who disrespected GEN Petraeus' "chest bling" after he recently appeared before Congress. Said dillweed obviously has no concept what Petraeus went through to gain those decorations. To him they're "just ribbons." To Soldiers, they are marks of honor and achievement. In the same vein -to my understanding- the American flag serves as a deeply fundamental symbol for all Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen. It is, in a way, the root of all decorations and honors. For them, the flag is not just another decoration, but a sacrament and testimony not only to those who have shed blood for the cause, but also a sacrament and testimony to the ideals for which the blood was shed. Have I come close? :)
 
By Boquisucio on April 19, 2008 7:45 AM
No, that's destruction of public property. You would be well within rights to create a paper maché Liberty Bell with wiggly antennas…
I do disagree. The Flag, by what it represents, is public property; for it conveys the collective pride, hope, and aspirations that we as citizens have for our country. To debase it in any way shape or form, is to debase all the said emotions that we have to this land. You may privately own copies of it, but its handling of it must comport with that of a sacred object. In short, The Flag is a vessel for all the positive emotions that we hold for the land that gave us birth. Just because you privately own a copy of it, does not give you the right to carelessly mishandle the pride that we all feel for this country. Question: Is your lack of respect for our flag given by the fact that there are millions of copies of it out there? Put differently: Is the Liberty Bell inherently more valuable than The Flag just because there is only one Liberty Bell, and countless banners out there? Does it great numbers cheapen it? If so then, why do we care a pitoot, when ever one flies over a building, or drapes the coffin of a fallen warrior? Helk, by extension, we shouldn’t really place much value either on our Pledge of Allegiance or our National Anthem either, for they were written in tribute of our flag. Why can‘t anyone see that all those willing to desecrate copies of our Flag, ultimately consciously or unconsciously want to physically destroy our nation, institutions, and symbols. All who silently acquiesce, to it are blind fools for letting it happen under their eyes.
 
By O Bloody Hell on April 20, 2008 10:54 PM
. . ... so: if you want a symbolic gesture, don't BURN the flag, WASH it! - Norman Thomas - . .
 
By O Bloody Hell on April 20, 2008 11:16 PM
. > the DNC riots would've ended the Vietnam war, The DNC riots had as much to do with racial tension as with Vietnam. The DP's total ream job, and Johnson's and Humphrey's parts in it, of the duly elected black representatives at the *1964* DNC was a major cause of almost all the unrest in the late 60s. Vietnam was part of it, too, but a lot more came from a lot of very righteously POed black people who were disenfranchised by the very ones who claimed to be on their side. Frankly, the biggest crock of the 20th century has to potentially be the absurd smear job of the GOP by the DP as being "racists". Contrast: 1) The 1940 GOP Platform 2) The 1948 and that 1964 Democrat event. 3) G.B. Trudeau, et al, depicting Colin Powell as a "stepinfetchit" and an "Uncle Tom", and the depiction of Condi Rice as a "pickaninny" and a "mynah bird". Yet not a bad word was against this said by any of the Dems. ***I*** know who the f***ing racists are. And they aren't running the GOP. >:-/ .