Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: Citizenship Archives

May 27, 2008

Turning Our Backs on the Gold Star Families [David M]

Most of America just doesn’t get it.

In point of fact, only a select few know what it’s really about.

To most of America, Memorial Day is the beginning of summer, the start of vacations and days at the pool, of sales and parties and friends all together to kick off the biggest party of the year…summer. A time when backyard parties occur for no reason other than everyone was available, the beer is cold and the sun still shines on warm summer evenings, but to some families Memorial Day still holds true to its original intent, a day set aside to honor their loved ones - who fell in combat.

Have we ever considered what a slap in the face it is on Memorial Day to the families of those whom gave the ultimate sacrifice? To see consumerism run amuck, sales and discounts and an extra 10% to active duty military when their loved one couldn’t take advantage of any discount even if they wanted to - because their loved one is dead. Yes dead, I said it, the word that scares so many people.

Dead.

“We regret to inform you that…”

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

your son, or daughter, or husband or wife

“was killed…”

Have you heard those words spoke to you by the Casualty Assistance Officer when you answered your door and knew right away what the news would be? Have you America? Some of you have, in fact many of you have, as of May 22, 2008 - 4059 families have heard those words spoken to them since 2003 and yet most of America has no idea how we dishonor those who should be honored above all others. Memorial Day is not a day that should be devoted to sales and parties, eating BBQ and drinking beer. It is the one day we set aside to honor and remember the fallen. One day. Can’t we stop moving for one day and think what it is we are doing to the memory of our heroes?

Think about that for a minute corporate America and juxtapose that concept with your discounts and sales. There is no sale, no discount, and no honor you could bestow upon the families of the fallen that will in anyway make up for the price they have already paid. Can’t you take one day off to remember what it is they have paid for this country? Can’t you take one day out of the many to honor the fallen and their families instead of stabbing them in the gut by reminding them that the discount doesn’t apply to them because their service member is dead?

And what of the rest of America, why don’t we all get it? Are we so afraid of death that we try to make up for it by honoring the living?

While attending church on Sunday, I was struck by how out of place I felt. Not because I’m a heathen standing upon holy ground, but because on Memorial Day the pastor full of good intentions did exactly what so many in America do on Memorial Day, he recognized the living. When it came time to address Memorial Day he asked all active and former Military to stand, once we were all standing he asked that the congregation thank us for our service to our country, and while the applause subsided I thought, there are 4059 service members who should be the center of attention right now. We, the living have our day in November, Memorial Day is their day. Why is it so hard for America to speak of the dead and honor their service?

It is after all called Memorial Day for a reason.

They are dead, and we must honor them, not because they are dead, but because they lived, and served and protected all that we have. We must not let them be forgotten and we must not let them be replaced by a discount at the register.

David M

Cross posted at The Thunder Run

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Sorry - I simply disagree. I have fired and been fired upon in the defense of our nation. I have taken life and managed to return home unscathed. The fact that I bring my family and friends together to celebrate the memory of those who went before me, and prepare the meal on a grill that was discounted 10%, doesn't make me any less respectful or mindful of the day. The day is for the living to remember the dead - and my dad is among those listed in John's week-end blog. Were he still here, he would have enjoyed the barbecue and stopped for a solemn moment as we raised a toast to those already at the table in Fiddler's Green. No disrespect - just honoring the dead by enjoying the life they've given us. ML

by Mike L on May 27, 2008 2:32 PM

I think you have some good and bad points in here.

It does seem many Americans don't consider the day from a remembrance perspective and it does seem most are confused about the living and the dead distinction between the two days. Certainly the idea of 10% is a bit silly if the families can't use it.

Over here our days are about the living and the dead as one. I guess we don't see dying as a means to more or less honour so we respect and remember them all.

However, I think people should be free to deal with it as they see fit. Commericalism is part of what was defended as are BBQs, parties and beer. Even the right to not remember as counter-logical as it sounds. Respecting the dead by celebrating the life they helped make possible is not such a bad thing in my view.

You show your frustration but where are your suggestions? Like how corporate America could respect the day more and how you can show to your fellow citizens the meaning of this day and why it matters?

by Argent on May 27, 2008 7:36 PM

Memorial Day is a day of remembrance. There's nothing wrong with taking the family out and enjoying the sunshine, the company of friends, and some really good steak and beer. Some of us do this, remembering buddies who would have been there, if they had not been so derned dedicated to their comrades, to the mission, to the Nation...

We live in a capitalist society: Make money any way you can... All I want to see is a token gesture by retailers: If they're going to cash in on the day, at least acknowledge the reason that the prices have been cut.

"Good morning, K-Mart Shoppers. Would you like to enjoy no payments and no interest on your purchases for one year? Apply now for our K-Mart Consumer credit card - See any associate for details. The time is twelve o'clock: Please join us for a minute of silence on this Memorial Day to remember all those who have fallen in defense of this great Nation."

A simple thought, easily executed, but so powerful ...

by Sgt. B. on May 28, 2008 9:05 AM

Excellent suggestions all, I shall take them under consideration.

As for sugesstions for corporate America, how about first aknowledging what the day is for, instead of just looking at it as another opportunity to perform a cashectomy on the public.

Want to do something in line with the day? How about approaching some Gold Star organizations and offer them a trip for the families, or forgive their monthly payment that month, etc. It won't do a thing to bring back their loved one but you'll start to include them in your business practice and at the same time you'll be aknowledging their sacrifice.

But I stand by my statement...its not our day...its theirs.

by David M on May 28, 2008 3:14 PM

I do like your suggestion about doing something for Gold Star families...

by John of Argghhh! on May 28, 2008 4:55 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Denizens on May 27, 2008 | TrackBack (0)

April 28, 2008

Jeremiah Wright

Much of his radical theology disgusts me, and I have a very strong intellectual disagreement with it. However, growing up a pastor's kid in a religion well-represented among both white and black communities (and more integrated than most), I understand a bit about where he's coming from--politics tends to be more overtly a part of black churches and theology than white, and there is more confidence in calling a spade a spade in the black religious tradition (church being a refuge from white control and interference going back to even the slavery days). But Jeremiah Wright is far beyond the tradition of black churches railing against injustice and pulling together to address or mitigate that injustice as much as possible.

While listening to the extended excerpts Hugh Hewitt played last week, I sat with my mouth hanging open. Literally. I had tried so hard to "understand," to consider that maybe Wright tended to get carried away to hyperbole with his emotionalism, that perhaps he spoke more metaphorically as is often the case in black churches. But there it was, staring me in the face.

I had two reactions after I was done: 1) I now "get" the Obamas. Michelle's speeches, her tone, her body language... the awkwardness of having said she'd never been proud of her country until her husband ran for president... I had never been able to form a coherent vision of her. Listening to Wright's sermons was like a final piece of the puzzle that made the picture pull into focus. And even moreso, I understood the cult of personality that Barak cultivated in his campaign. Whether she and Barak Obama believed as Wright does when they joined the church, twenty years of hearing things like I did as I listened cannot help but shape a person's intellect and attitude. 2) I need a shower; I felt like I'd had the worst kind of sludge poured over me for the last hour.

Mere transcripts do not do justice to the mood of Wright's diatribes against this country and people who don't look like him or believe like him. I was stunned and appalled. So much rage, so much carefully-considered and clearly-laid-out venom for the country he once served as a Marine and which has enabled him to retire in wealth to a gated community. Those short excerpts we heard were not moments of overwhelming emotion or ill-considered metaphors/similes/parallels. They were snippets in carefully-constructed and consciously-delivered sermons of rage, hatred, uber-left-wing politics, and a desire for the destruction of this country and anybody who didn't agree with him.

In response, I at first felt anger. But that quickly gave way to pity, and finally a sense of filthiness for continuing to listen... much as one feels if looking too closely at the car wreck as one drives by. It is appalling, and even moreso when you subsequently listen to the mild-mannered and "oh-so-reasonable" man Bill Moyers interviewed last week. I was forcibly reminded of the wolf in sheep's clothing, but I don't think I've ever seen the two sides so starkly drawn as they are in Reverend Wright.

Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker comes close to summing up my opinion on this, though perhaps with a bit more resentment/offense than I had (I mostly feel pity for someone so obviously consumed with rage and the more destructive emotions of this life):

I had a busy weekend, and missed it when Hugh Hewitt posted extensive transcripts of the sermons of Jeremiah Wright on Friday evening. The transcripts are devastating to Wright. He is a despicable human being, and the fact that has been ordained, apparently, is a disgrace. Wright has been claiming that he was quoted out of context, and Barack Obama has suggested that Americans would view Wright differently if they heard his whole sermons instead of a few sound bites. In fact, the context makes it worse, and the whole sermons are outrageous. It turns out that "God damn America" understates the baroque hatefulness of Wright's theology.

Still unexplained is what Wright's political screeds have to do with Christianity. I don't know anyone who would sit still for a minister who persistently abused the pulpit to preach hate instead of the Gospel. As a Christian, I am outraged that "Reverend" Wright has hijacked my faith to preach hate and to sow falsehood. How Barack Obama could have participated in this charade for twenty years, and then held himself out as someone fit to lead this nation, is inexplicable.

Let the charges of racism begin...

[Note: if you are unfamiliar with the original definition of baroque (the one NOT referring to classical music), look it up. Hinderocker obviously chose his words very carefully here.]

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I have no problem with the good Reverend! I watched some parts on TV, yesterday and today and some snippets on YouTube. I think he's hilarious! Plus it's interesting to see him on Bill Moyers as opposed to the NAACP sermon (come on, it was a sermon!). The Press Club appearance was good theater.

But then again I am completely self-centered and focus only on how this benefits my Bad Boyfriend.

by Maggie on April 28, 2008 10:38 AM

Maggie,

*snort*

by FbL on April 28, 2008 11:52 AM

I never thought I'd be thankful for Billary. If she folded after the initial Barrack tidal wave, we wouldn't have had the pleasure of all the little missteps and gaffs produced by all those Dems, not least of which is Barack himself. Maggie's heart throb actually has a legitimate chance. He may not fit all my ideas for a President but he beats the hell out of the competition.

This is sure getting old though. Can't we just vote now and get it over with? Then Fox News can go back to covering Peterson or Aruba or other some such or whether Victoria Secret is changing their product line. For that I'll tune in.

by Fishmugger on April 28, 2008 12:37 PM

This is really getting wild. The implications are not good. As pointed out somewhere (I can't remember where I read it), the ridiculous things Wright said about racial "differences" in his speech to the NAACP this weekend will be used by other racists... and they won't always be black, but they'll have cover to air their anti-black racism using Wright's own words. Ugly, ugly.

by FbL on April 28, 2008 1:01 PM

To true Fbl.

All those antics professed by so many unfortunates over the years are now given legitamacy by Rev Wrights ill informing speach. I felt good that my country matured enough to actually have an African-American candidate for the highest office. Unfortunately he's a liberal jerk. If Steele of Maryland had the nomination on the Reps side, I would deffinately vote for him.

by Fishmugger on April 28, 2008 2:00 PM

Wright is only unique due to his being the pastor of a front running Presidential candidate. He is not alone, he is just recognised. I know many Christian preacher's say things which the congregation resonates with and yet are utterly vile.

While this is probably doing damage to Obama it's likely to be empowering Wright granting him contacts, recognition and exposure which may mean Wright will outlive his church member in political influence.

by Argent on April 29, 2008 7:43 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by FbL on Apr 28, 2008

April 19, 2008

From my "Kos can kiss my sweet a$$" files

True story.

-Attila sends.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Dusty on Apr 19, 2008

April 17, 2008

One Man and A Symbol of Freedom

[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]

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

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.

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Pathological narcissism is the defining disease of our age.

by Fred on April 17, 2008 3:11 AM

Apparently "Conduct Liable to Cause a Breach of the Peace" is not unlawful in Maine.

by homebru on April 17, 2008 6:28 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 AW1 Tim on April 17, 2008 6:33 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 fdcol63 on April 17, 2008 7:00 AM

What in the hell is wrong with people????

by Carrie on April 17, 2008 7:05 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 Rita on April 17, 2008 7:19 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 7:42 AM

may have

by fdcol63 on April 17, 2008 7:45 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 BillT on April 17, 2008 7:50 AM

Shameful - just shameful.

by Boquisucio on April 17, 2008 8:03 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 Boquiusucio on April 17, 2008 8:18 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 Fishmugger on April 17, 2008 8:59 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 Argent on April 17, 2008 9:02 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 Mike Lehnherr on April 17, 2008 9:03 AM

Fishmugger -

Here

you go baby! I remember this being on the news and my Dad making us watch it and yelling "Yeah!!"

by Maggie on April 17, 2008 9:59 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 kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 10:02 AM

Thank you Maggie,

That's the one.

I sent it to John...people can deal with him if they want it.

by Fishmugger on April 17, 2008 10:09 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 kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 10:16 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 David M on April 17, 2008 10:28 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 Chuck on April 17, 2008 11:58 AM

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 ry on April 17, 2008 12:32 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 Casey Tompkins on April 17, 2008 12:37 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 1:05 PM

To quote Johnny Cash:

When you're putting down my country, son, you're walking on the fighting side of me.

by kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 1:08 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 Ymarsakar on April 17, 2008 1:51 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 fdcol63 on April 17, 2008 1:53 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 Boquisucio on April 17, 2008 1:58 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 kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 2:00 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 MajMike on April 17, 2008 3:05 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 John of Argghhh! on April 17, 2008 3:34 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 kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 4:04 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 Boquisucio on April 17, 2008 4:28 PM

i'm with Boq on this one.

by MajMike on April 17, 2008 4:52 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 6:12 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 Justthisguy on April 17, 2008 6:31 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 Deadcenter on April 17, 2008 6:36 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 R Jewell on April 17, 2008 9:36 PM

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 12:24 AM

Whoops. Almost forgot. With respect to Justthisguy's comments about his daddy's flag: I got yer back, bro...

by Casey Tompkins on April 18, 2008 12:29 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 fdcol63 on April 18, 2008 8:52 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 Mike Lehnherr on April 18, 2008 9:24 AM

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 ry on April 18, 2008 12:43 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 John of Argghhh! on April 18, 2008 12:58 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 ry on April 18, 2008 3:42 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 Casey Tompkins on April 18, 2008 11:35 PM

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 Boquisucio on April 19, 2008 7:45 AM

... so: if you want a symbolic gesture, don't BURN the flag, WASH it!
- Norman Thomas -

by O Bloody Hell on April 20, 2008 10:54 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.

>:-/

by O Bloody Hell on April 20, 2008 11:16 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Kat on Apr 17, 2008

April 15, 2008

My kind of immigrants.

Legal, with a stake in the system, and demonstrated commitment.

Servicemembers from throughout Iraq met at the Al Faw Palace at Camp Victory April 12 in which 259 troops became U.S citizens during the largest overseas U.S. naturalization ceremony in history. Photo by Staff Sgt. Jeremy D. Crisp

Servicemembers from throughout Iraq met at the Al Faw Palace at Camp Victory April 12 in which 259 troops became U.S citizens during the largest overseas U.S. naturalization ceremony in history. Photo by Staff Sgt. Jeremy D. Crisp

No, I'm not for making this avenue to citizenship a requirement. I'm just saying these guys and gals are my kind of immigrants. All legal immigrants welcome - but some I can clearly relate to more quickly than others! And if you are of a leftward persuasion, I wouldn't assume that you are looking at a room full of Republicans in there, either.

But you are looking at a roomful of people who have directly done more, and risked more, for their new country in a year or so than many, if not most, native-borns will do in a lifetime. There are many ways to serve... and these people, out of the service, will serve in their communities, pay taxes, vote, and have the same general human concerns as the native-born. But they won't take it all for granted, as many native-borns do.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

No, I'm not for making this avenue to citizenship a requirement. I'm just saying these guys and gals are my kind of immigrants.

Seconded. When I started thinking seriously about immigration issues a couple of years ago, it didn't take long at all to decide that service in the Armed Forces should be a very quick route indeed to citizenship. Provisional citizenship on enlistment, permanent after graduating basic training, and extendable to immediate family at the end of the first enlistment period.

by wolfwalker on April 15, 2008 7:51 AM

I lift my beer in toast to them, beside the Golden Door!

Welcome.

by MajMike on April 15, 2008 7:54 AM

My dad wasn't known for his 'kumbaya' personality, he reminded me of the comedian who said he wasn't prejudiced, he hated everybody. Dad wasn't that bad but you get the idea. One thing dad drilled into us kids was that someone who was willing to go through the hoops to get here and become a citizen was to be respected. To do so by serving in the military is especially worthy of note.

My mother was always more tolerant of others, except for the Japanese. I always figured it was her reaction to Pearl Harbor, even all those years later.

by NevadaDailySteve on April 15, 2008 7:59 AM

Indeed .... Welcome, fellow citizens!

No, military service should not be a prerequisite for American citizenship. However, to expand on an idea suggested by Heinlein, I think people should EARN the franchise - the ability to vote - by volunteering and serving in some kind of post-secondary education public service role.

This could include military service, the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps, candy-striping at a hospital or nursing home, mentoring in the Big Brother/Big Sister program, building homes for Habitat for Humanity, assisting at Goodwill or the Red Cross, coaching for a city youth league, trash pickup or highway maintenance, or anything else that is in the public interest.

This period would expose people to others of different cultures, allow them to gain a better understanding of the "real" world, and allow them to better appreciate the value of their vote later in life.

I think we'd have more responsible, informed, educated, experienced, and concerned voters this way.

by fdcol63 on April 15, 2008 8:10 AM

One of those taking the oath was an Iraqi born Marine, who became an American citizen back on his native soil.
Damn cool.
Welcome to US Citizenship, Lance Corporal Evan Eskharia!!

by AFSister on April 15, 2008 10:15 AM

I am proud to be a fellow citizen with these great Americans!
THEY are truly people "doing the jobs some Americans won't do."

by John S. on April 15, 2008 10:18 AM

John and to the commenters on this thread, WELL DONE!

To Our Nation's Newest Citizens, Welcome. You are showing "A" path to American Citizenship, but not the only one.

I tend to agree with the comment by "fdcol63". I agree, "There is a need to EARN THE FRANCHISE". From this point forward, THESE ARE MY IDEAS, DON'T BLAME "fdcol63". Point #1. I am not just talking of those who want American citizen ship. I am also talking to those of us who already have our Citizenship in this Great Nation. If we all give a little, in the myriads of needs of this Nation. This can be in the formal arena or professional such as our outstanding "First Responders" or any of a whole list of groups. Does this rule out volunteer options? "Absolutely Not!" would be my answer. There is a place for everyone and everyone has their place, find it and get to work.

Just as an example, take this place, "The Castle" and all of the old fools who comment (ME). This is a way to serve.

by Grumpy on April 15, 2008 2:16 PM

Outstanding! A fine group of citizens through and through. May they soon accomplish their mission and arrive safely upon their new home soil.

And I second the sentiment, AFSister.
OooRAH, LCpl Eskharia!

by DL Sly on April 15, 2008 9:03 PM

As a naturalized citizen, I commend the plan allowing for immigrants who serve in the Armed Forces to be fast tracked for US citizenship. I further applaud the Army for arranging ceremonies wherever the soldiers happen to be. I only wish they were so enlightened in my day.
While in flight school at Hunter Army Airfield in 1969, INS sent me a letter to report to Atlanta for swearing in. I applied to my CO for leave to attend. I needed a witness and asked that one of the guys accompany me, one that I knew from home. CO informed me I could go but my witness could not miss training for the day and refused him leave. As a result I was unable to attend. I was PO'd and never tried again until my daughter was born in 1982.

by V29 on April 16, 2008 9:57 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 15, 2008

March 31, 2008

Patti and the Angels Receive More Kudos

Patti Bader, leader, motivator and facilitator of literally hundreds of thousands of "troop support" volunteers has again received national attention. Her husband writes:

For founding Soldiers Angels and other exemplary work that she does to make the world a better place, Patti has just been notified that she is the recipient of the VFW 2008 James E. Van Zandt Citizenship Award.

From the VFW web site: James E. "Jimmy" Van Zandt was Commander-in-Chief of the VFW three times, and a veteran of three wars (World War I, World War II, and the Korean War). He served as an enlisted man in World War I and retired as an admiral following the Korean War. Descended from a pioneer family in Blair County, Pennsylvania, Jimmy worked his way from newsboy to United States Congressman. Recipients of the award named in Van Zandt's honor exemplify his dedication to public service, citizenship, and other admirable qualities.

Press release here.

[Denizens know, but newer visitors may not: besides sending hundred of thousands of care packages, ministering to the wounded, comforting families of the fallen, sewing blankets for hospitalized veterans, and caring for those on the front lines and their families on the homefront in myriad other ways, Soldiers' Angels is the organization that facilitates a program especially near and dear to the hearts of Castle Denizens--Project Valour-IT.]

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I think she's done GREAT work. I do, however, believe she could make better use of the money by not mailing out all the crap thaht she does. Of late, I've just taken the free stamp and thrown the other stuff away. As a rule, I don't give money to charities thaht ask for it. I pretty much know who I want to support and why. I'll continue to support VALOUR-IT, because I see the immediate result AND trust the blog sponsors who're pushing it. Truly, my best wishes to Patti - but I'm tired of the mail. Just sayin'. ML

by MikeL on March 31, 2008 11:20 AM

I hear you, Mike--I'm not crazy about it, either. It apparently brings in a lot of money, though. If you want to support one of the great things Soldiers' Angels is doing, my suggestion is that you choose a project that you can donate to directly, and do it through either a Paypal button specifically for the project (on the project/team page on the their website), or with a check (and a note saying it goes to a particular project) to one of the addresses on their donation page.

That way your money will go only to what you want it to.

by FbL on March 31, 2008 11:57 AM

Mike is a pretty constant PV-IT giver, Fuzzy.

by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 12:00 PM

I'd like to point out what Fuzzy was trying to say but didn't explicitly - if you give money to Project Valour-IT for example, or any other specific project, that money goes to the project and not into the funds that SA uses for overhead, mailings, etc.

You give to PV-IT, it gets spent on PV-IT.

by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 12:13 PM

100% SPOT ON, MIKE.
V-IT is as far as I will go with SA anymore. It's unique, and it works, but I'm sick and tired of being hounded for money that I just don't have. It makes me more likely to *NOT* donate. And I'm sick and tired of hearing about how Patti's the most wonderful mother in the world for starting SA- she's not. I know plenty of other mothers (and fathers) who are just as deserving of that title who will never receive even a fraction of the attention she gets.

My .02.
Let the Sis-Bashing begin.

by AFSister on March 31, 2008 12:29 PM

Sorry about that Mike (and John). I thought I had a sentence at the end of that comment that thank him for continuing to support Valour-IT.

AFSis, I remember our conversation on the subject, and I hope you remember my reaction. :) Regarding "wonderful mother, I agree that there are many unsung parental heroes out there (I'd put my own mother near the top of the list, and there are many I know who would join her there). I was contacted by someone outside Soldiers' Angels regarding the "America's Favorite Mom" contest, and was asked to go behind her back to ask her son to nominate her (which I successfully did) with the idea that it would boost the visibility of Soldiers' Angels. As far as I understand things, that's exactly what SA hopes to do with Patti's participation.

by FbL on March 31, 2008 12:50 PM

Fuzzy... that's EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about. I've received countless requests to "go vote for Patti! The most wonderful mother in the world!!" And I've done so exactly ZERO times.
If you read the stories of the other mothers, you'll see that they were nominated for far less glamorous reasons than the national accolades Patti has received.

This whole "promote Patti to promote SA" is getting REALLY out of hand. The soldiers aren't the ones getting the attention; she is. And isn't the whole idea behind SA is to focus on the SOLDIERS???

(and yes, I do remember our conversation)

by AFSister on March 31, 2008 1:17 PM

I won't speak to the appropriateness of the current overall level of promotion of Patti, but since I did encourage this latest escapade, I feel the need to speak in my defense. Here's why I thought the attention was a good thing for the troops (and you know, I'm ALL about supporting our servicemembers in word and deed): attention to Patti means attention to SA, which means attention to the reasons for SA's existence--the troops and their families--and an opportunity to encourage people to join/donate/create, resulting in greater capacity to meet the needs of troops and their families.

Maybe I'm being too idealistic, but that's my take on things.

by FbL on March 31, 2008 4:14 PM

This is not an attack on you, nor is it an attack on Patti.
I just want the focus to get back to the soldiers and away from the self-promotion.

by AFSister on March 31, 2008 9:53 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Denizens on Mar 31, 2008

February 22, 2008

I got an "A"

Which beats Lex's "B+"

I was unaware of the impact of bond-buying, and disagreed on national defense.

58 of 60, 96.6%. Of course, if I were to use the "feel good" grading system to enhance my self-esteem, I'd make that a 97%, especially since the number actually comes out to 0.96666666666666666666666666666667

Your turn - unless you've already done it at Lex's, in which case you can share your score from that comment stream. Besides, you don't want to embarrass yourself by getting a less-than-perfect score the second time around, eh?

Take the Civics Quiz here. I admit, it's a good thing I'd been brushing up on political philosophy because I'm reading Jonah's Book - Liberal Fascism - which, not surprisingly, is *much better* than Cliff suggested the last time he came to fling poo.

Whether or not you agree with Jonah's premise (it's a polemic, sometimes I think a touch overstated, but mostly well done from my admittedly conservative view of things) it's an eminently readable book that presents many aspects of American political history covered in ways I never got from school, and my own penchant for studying military history did little to fill the gaps. It has been an illuminating read.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I got a 90% when I took it yesterday (at Lex's prompting). Got lucky on the bond question and disagree on national defense as well.

by fmr_grunt on February 22, 2008 8:58 AM

i got a 90 this morning, same on national defense and bonds.

...and i don't care if the War of 1812 was a stalemate, the mere fact that we fought them to a stalemate established US as a major world power.

by MajMike on February 22, 2008 9:45 AM

...and i don't care if the War of 1812 was a stalemate, the mere fact that we fought them to a stalemate established US as a major world power.

Hmmmm. Except that no one in Europe (then, arguably "the world" for all that ignores the rest) really thought so until after the SpanAm War when we finally had a true deep-water Navy and showed we could use it.

by John of Argghhh! on February 22, 2008 10:03 AM

Guess I'm not quite as brilliant as you folks; since I only garnered an 88.3% (but I beat Lex!) I did, however, get the Bonds and National Defense questions right.

by 74 on February 22, 2008 11:08 AM

93.33%

I confused Hume with Locke, and I can never remember if women got the vote in the early 20s or late 20s (1920; just checked Wiki).

by Casey Tompkins on February 22, 2008 12:03 PM

You answered 56 out of 60 correctly — 93.33%

What's with all the economic questions?

57) The price of movie tickets has increased. According to the law of demand, what is likely to be the result?

The answer is Princess Crabby doesn't care. The Rotation pays for movie tickets and popcorn too. by Maggie on February 22, 2008 1:25 PM

Princess Crabby's answer illustrates the problem... "It's someone else's problem, not mine!"

by John of Argghhh! on February 22, 2008 1:35 PM

That is correct, it is someone else's problem. I know you are using me as an example for others *not* to follow. However, as long as there is a Rotation, there is no need for me to come around to your way of thinking.

Feel free to use me as an illustration to educate others.....I am quite comfortable up here in Boston.

I notice you are not making a case for why there were so many economic questions in a civics quiz. Civics is the study of citizenship and government. Where does the price of theater tickets come into play?

by Maggie on February 22, 2008 2:54 PM

I got 56 out of 60 93.33%, saw it at Lex's the other day.

The reason the econ questions are important is because if we don't understand our economic system, and how laws or regulations will effect that system, we the people will support laws that will harm the economy, leading to more bad laws and so on.

Not knowing the basics of how our economy works is just as bad as not knowing the basics of how our political system works, the freedom of both can be legislated away before we know it, not because some evil genious hood winked us, but because we wanted to protect ourselves from the ups and downs of a free market and free political thought.

by Andrew on February 22, 2008 3:35 PM

What Andrew said, I no longer need to. 8^ )

And while I was using Maggie in just that fashion - the *attitude* - her answers in fact belie her true knowledge and understanding.

The point is that the kids who will make up a large chunk of the electorate is so woefully ignorant of the underpinnings of our society, they will vote for any demogogue, of any stripe, who comes along promising a chicken in every pot, and someone else will pay the bill, and not have the tools with which to analyze the dichotomy.

Until they start paying the bills for it. And that won't be until they have to start paying off their student loans with the money left over after taxes from whatever crappy job they got in a tanked economy.

by John of Argghhh! on February 22, 2008 4:25 PM

Andrew, I agree on needing to know the basics. However, I think these questions went beyond basics.

John - Since I fail so woefully in this area, does this mean you buy the drinks at the next MilBlog conference?

by Maggie on February 22, 2008 5:02 PM

Heh. Maggie, when I said, - her answers in fact belie her true knowledge and understanding. , I was referring to this: You answered 56 out of 60 correctly — 93.33% - in that, despite your assertions in text, you *do* know your stuff.

Of course I'll buy. The first round, anyway. You can not only outdrink me (as can a goodly number of people) you can drink me into poverty... and unlike the Rotation, I won't even score in recompense for standing the drinks!

Not unless SWWBO has changed her mind on certain subjects, anyway!

by John of Argghhh! on February 22, 2008 5:08 PM

56/60 to 93%

Answers to Your Missed Questions:
Question #1 - D. 1601-1700
[why did I think Jamestown was at the end of the 1500's?]
Question #14 - C. 1901-1925
[er...guess I thought women got the vote in 1929, but that was the depression; 1921...duh]
Question #36 - D. The authority of a legitimate sovereign. [dangit...I missed that one last time, too]
Question #55 - E. increased for the lower and middle classes and increased most for the upper class. [average household income did not remain the same...duh]

by kat-missouri on February 22, 2008 7:13 PM

PS...I think I said this last time, but someone should have offered me a scholarship by now. :)

by kat-missouri on February 22, 2008 7:22 PM

96.6 here, too. I missed #52 and #58. I was leading at Lex's until Steeljaw showed up.

by Justthisguy on February 22, 2008 8:06 PM

67%. I can be ameriki now?

by Trias on February 22, 2008 8:11 PM

Um, I shoulda wrote #32 and #58. Them's the ones I missed. I have never read all of Tom Paine's stuff, and the thought of bond finances just makes my eyes glaze over.

by Justthisguy on February 22, 2008 11:24 PM

Kat, #1 can be confusing because the first English colony in Virginia was founded in the late 1500s. However, Jamestown wasn't founded until the early 1600s.

Apparently you focused on "Virginia" and "first founded," while not processing "Jamestown."

So your answer was correct, in a way. :)

by Casey Tompkins on February 23, 2008 12:03 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Feb 22, 2008

February 8, 2008

The Cod-liver Oil Election (military edition)

(Since Blogspot is blocked on military networks, I received permission from Our Glorious Leader to repost here. ) - Bad Cat Robot
**************************************
The Cod-Liver Oil Election

By which I mean, nobody is really looking forward to it. The rational know a) someone *will* be elected and b) it behooves us to pick the least of the manifold evils, but you just know even if you hold your nose and get the dose down in one gulp you'll still be burping Essence of Fish Entrails longer than you would think possible. Like many in the blogosphere, I have no patience with those who want to "send a message" by not voting or other such juvenalia. We have many means of communicating with our elected officials that can make quite clear they were only selected because the other options were worse. Ideally, voters would have the option of a "signing statement" to go along with their vote. E.g. "Joe Smith, I voted for you for the State Senate but don't think for a minute I approve of your brain-dead mandatory turtle adoption policy--your opponent's adopt-a-cobra plan was just worse."

(candidate-specific snark in the extended entry. At time of the original writing, Mitt was a condenda. My analysis, alas, stands.)

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

Hillary Clinton: She has proven to the entire solar system *she* doesn't think an intelligent, ambitious woman can achieve anything unless a man opens the door for her. With regard to the Iraq war, conservative commenters have claimed she would never allow the US to be defeated when it would be her prestige on the line as well. Perhaps, but how the hell would she know how to accomplish this? Her contempt for the military is bone-deep, so I very much doubt she's been reading Small Wars or Sun Tzu. She couldn't be bothered to read the NIE when it was her JOB. Plus every time she opens her mouth my wallet shivers in fear.

Barack Obama: Unlike Senator Biden, he can talk at length pleasantly-- and remarkably free of pesky details such as *how* we are going to give everyone a pet unicorn and banish meanness forever. Real presidential candidates know that for every omelette, there are broken eggs. And I'd be more impressed with the great strides for racial justice if he'd written "Dreams from my Mother". You know, the lady that bore him, raised him, and loved him? But no, she's white and doesn't count, so the focus stays on a guy who left when Obama was two, but is black. We've still got a long way to go. Sorry, MLK. We'll keep trying.

Ron Paul: or, "I have no idea where all that Stormfront paraphernalia came from, or maybe I'm storing it for friends who I would not *dream* of asking awkward questions because that would violate their free speech rights and oh, am I even in the right house? Did I mention the Constitution yet? I am so rigid in my beliefs I never get anything done, but I am PURE!" 20cc Thorazine, administered by blowgun. STAT.

Huckabee: God apparently wants him to be president. To quote Phillipe the Mouse, "I talk to God all the time, and he never mentioned you." Go away, already.

John McCain: You know, I could have sworn we already saw the episode with the president that was vindictive, angry, and dealing with an unpopular war. It didn't end well. Note that I have not disparaged his physical courage or service to this country in the military. He could have singlehandedly stormed Omaha Beach and he'd still be political nitroglycerine. Very useful, yes! As long as you don't set it off by accident. The very fact that he is unable to hide his temper points to a certain lack of political acumen. There are probably Bushmen of the Kalahari who know he's got a volcanic temper. How is he going to work constructively with *anyone* (allies, Congress, Supreme Court, visiting Girl Scout troops) when he can't be trusted not to bite? And once having bitten, carry a grudge to the end of his days? I'm sure there are plenty of politicians who have short fuses but they know it should be hidden from public view, like their toenail fetish, and we only find out years later.

Mitt Romney: What a well-oiled weathervane. Props for herding the Olympic cats, that can't have been a trivial exercise. However, where Mr. McCain has too much vim and vinegar Mitt doesn't seem to have any. That's like trailing blood in the political shark tank. Sorry, you can't be nice *all* the time. One well-executed, clearly deserved kneecapping usually makes it clear you can be nasty if necessary, and then you don't have to *keep* kneecapping. But you do have to make it clear that you can do it if they act up. Otherwise you are just an inflatable doll in a room full of reciprocating saws.

Sigh. I keep pushing the fast-forward button on the remote but it's not working ....

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

**By which I mean, nobody is really looking forward to it**
Someone is! Woohoo! Over here! Way up in the upper right hand corner of the country. In the Hub of the Universe. Here I am!

Hilarious post.

by Maggie on February 8, 2008 8:50 AM

So, what if McCain has a temper, at least he's passionate about something... I’m personally getting tired of all the experts that keep saying we need to control our anger. If it wasn’t for them, maybe we would have gotten really angry and killed lots of jihadists before 9/11… Personally, I think anger management classes are part of a conspiracy against ethnic Celts (I’m really just kidding on that last part although I did think of it, didn’t I?).
BTW - The president has a rather lengthy job description, and most of the time, all of those duties are pretty equal in importance. However, as long as the jihad exists, I believe, the duty of Commander-n-Chief trumps all others. That said, I'm convinced that that leaves out everybody running except the Senator from Arizona.

by Oldloadr on February 8, 2008 10:23 AM

I'm one who said I would NOT vote for McCain in the primary and haven't decided yet in the general election. There are only so many times I want to hold my nose when voting for someone. Clinton? No. I want my president able to be their own person and not have their spouse run to their defense. Obama? His resume is weak (so is Clinton's) but he has a nice speech.

It's going to be a long 9 months.

by andrewp on February 8, 2008 4:51 PM

Oldloadr, as one who has both the long, narrow head of the Priest-Ridden Race, and the bad teeth of someone from the big island, (i.e., Scots-Irish) I know exactly what you mean.

I am a Jacksonian. Rubble don't make trouble.

We are the friends of Liberty everywhere, but the guarantors only of our own.

Neo-Cons are, as Jerry Pounelle has said, really just Neo-Jacobins.

Kicking the a$$es of our country's enemies is good, as long as we do that thoroughly enough to scare them out of ever attempting to mess with us again, and then leave. Senator McCain seems to have Neo tendencies.

Owheel, that's better than just rolling over and displaying the tummy, so yep I'll prolly have to vote for the old guy. I just hope he picks a good veep, in case he strokes out or somethin

by Justthisguy on February 9, 2008 3:45 AM

Thank you BCR for the cross posting of this. I usually try to drop by the snark patrol when stateside, and I miss reading your work. I also have to agree with Andrew, this is going to be a LONG 9 months.

Now that my primary candidate has dropped out, the dream that I am having is that Mitt is selected as VP, and John actually listens to him on some things. Will it happen? Not in this version of reality, but I can have dreams, can't I?

by Jon The Mechanic (From Germany) on February 9, 2008 5:41 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Denizens on Feb 08, 2008

April 30, 2007

Having recieved a Boot to the head.(A response to John’s response in the H&I*)

PSA note to parents who read here at the Castle: it may be cheaper to buy from the big box store, but you’re not as likely to get an honest answer about the content from the clerk. It might be worth the extra 20% you might pay, 12 bucks or so, to get honest answers from the niche store clerk about content. Just like the explicit lyrics label the ESRB rating, when not covered by the price tag, doesn’t tell you near enough about what you’re buying. Ask around before you buy. Come here and ask if you’ve got nowhere else to go or nobody else you trust on it. Some of us Denizens are big juvenile delinquents who still watch cartoons, read comic books, and play video games. Some T rated games you’ll be utterly comfy with and others will cause you to break out the Crucifix and garlic.

Mostly I was just yankin’ your chain, Armorer. The Ferret hissing at The Bear and getting reminded why hissing at the Bear isn’t that smart a recreation. But there is a little more to it than that.

All true, well mostly. The target demo is skewing higher, like comic books. This is a Mature (M) rated game---so it’s audience isn’t 12-20 but 18-35. Maybe I’m still in the wrong with you since you’ve got Prodigal Son and PS’s Best Bud in mind, and, no, I didn’t link to the game as you’d just reach over the Internets and choke me, that’s to what the ESRB says about what an M game is. The same people interested in buying Pl@yB0y and other adult things are the target audience of the game and the party in question. And yet, this outrage is over goats and b00bies(PG-17 spelling), something maybe not that far removed from the toga party that inspired the toga party in the classic ‘Animal House’, and not nearly as bad as the lewd costumes and behaviour one can run into at anime or gaming conventions or even in rather pedestrian anime.
(more after the jump)
--ry

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

Exceptionally indulgent, artsy fartsy, and connected 20 somethings--- who the party was really for--- don’t need video games to do things this crass and stupid(P@ris H7lton for instance). If it shifts away from the game launch parties it’ll wind up somewhere else, as it always has. That other launch parties I’ve heard of, third hand I assure you as I’m not kewlpeople, are just as bad but nothing is heard of about them because no outrage industry group’s offended strikes me as hypocrisy. And this is just one big game launch party where someone noticed the dead goat but not the tens of other launch parties that’re just as troublesome from a moral living aspect.

A dead goat? Is that what it takes for people to pay attention to game content and what happens at parties? The outrage industry that is PETA working up to full honk is when we get all bent out of shape about marketing parties(where, as one recent party had game execs firing everything from glocks to sniper rifles in the Nevada desert while taking drinks served by bikini clad beauties, likely because the Outrage Industry didn't make noise about it.) and game content? That seems like a non-sequitor and uncritical thinking to gollum, but gollum is often wrong on matters social, not to mention plain odd. It just strikes me as the same faux outrage as that we experience over Imus. Sure it’s offensive. Sure it’s annoying and tempting of children to misbehave, as misbehaving is seen as kewl. But worthy of the level of scorn heaped on it? Ich kenne nicht.

This is sooo a niche activity and audience. We’re only talking about it because PETA and other animal rights wet blankets got upset. Not because any one really notices how whacked out these parties are whether it be for club openings, album or game launches; or the content in many of the games. Nobody even noticed the guns, booze, and bimbos extravaganza that was the industry introduction to the Marcinko title. Nobody said much at all about the launch party of $0.50’s launch of his atrocious, Thug Life glorifying game or the game itself(largely because it sold like piece o' crap it was). That’s annoying. Yes, we, the small number of gamers are to be the fall of Civilization as we know it. All because some marketing joker who’s likely never picked up a controller, but attended lots of parties for the rich and famous, decided to be fashionably outrageous and included t0pl3ss womins and a dead goat we will be ones who left The West open to the Scimitar. How horrible we are. We’re worse than NAMBLA.

I guess you could say my pique is that we’re kowtowing to the outrage industry. That’s never a good thing. Sure, they’re proll’y right this time. Maybe, since I think we’ve all gone to parties of one type or another that are racier than dead goats, offal, and b00bies since we broke the hallowed age 18 barrier---it’s an M rated game after all, the same as an R rated movie. But that just means they’ll feel better about throwing paint at someone, or trying to close down my local Kentucky Fried and the local to you Australian Outback sometime in the future (the wastards).

Yeah, it’s a bit much, a bit indulgent, and a bit done in bad taste even for a theme party based on the game---about a guy trying to kill Greek gods for the cruelty they show in tricking him into slaying his own family. But it is intended for the same aged audience as Pl@yb0y, slasher flicks, and racy beer commercials---not kiddies or even HS kids. If it does get parents to actually pay attention a bit more and, to look just beyond the ESRB rating when they buy for their kid then it’s a good thing. But pissed over a dead goat and b00bies, small potatoes, at a launch party is a bit of the hypocrisy I loath so much. I don’t agree with it, I’m not one for enjoying fashionably outrageous stuff in the first place (the game that spawned the party in particular, or art for that matter), and a sign of the industry getting way out there(as was the extravagance of the now cancelled E3)? Sure. But artists are always this weird and barely tolerable. I get annoyed when we jump in time to the tune called by the outrage industry instead of being smart about how we get annoyed at the gaming industry and its practices.

There’s worse stuff out there too. The game itself is a bit more troubling to this gamer than the party, particularly how many kids wind up playing the dang thing. The game is a blood orgy. This game is horrendously, gratuitously bloody and violent enterprise. The Wife is in love with an M rated series that deals with occult subjects that drive me from the room. The GTA series, while groundbreaking in open-ended story telling, is a macabre celebration of being sociopathic---but the people criticizing that are scolds, donchaknow, while protesting a dead goat is a fine moral stance (the cool celebrities who are part of PETA said so.). The content of much of the more recent games is much more bothersome to me than the avant garde party for the small number of ‘cool people’ that actually got invited---which I wouldn’t be surprised wasn’t much of a gamer crowd but a partier crowd staffed with celebutaunts and ‘artists’.

So, yeah, I hear ‘ya Boss(and a lot of other parents). It isn’t what you raise your kids to aspire to. But if you want to really see the problem of the industry rifle through someone’s game (or DVD) collection, and pay less attention to the party. It’s the right reaction….to the wrong target. –ry
(ry can be reached at Ultimatewhinner at aol dot com for questions about videogame content. I only check that one about once a week so be a little patient, please.)

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Denizens on Apr 30, 2007

April 19, 2007

Patriot's Day, 2007.

The US Wall at The Arsenal Of Argghhh! (yes, I know the flag is reversed, it's fixed in the Arsenal, but I haven't taken a new picture).

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set to-day a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

-Concord Hymn, Ralph Waldo Emerson. Sung at the dedication of the Battle Monument, commemorating the Battle of Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1836.

And, as Ry put it, up in the H&I Fires:

Today is another dark anniversary. 12 years ago another group of self important and deranged individuals decided to make their statement with a body count.

Make this small change:

Today is another dark anniversary. 232 years ago another group of self important and deranged individuals decided to make their statement with a body count.

And it becomes an opinion that can be heard now and again among many of the elites of world, especially cosmopolitan transnational Euro-elites.

Heh. Things haven't changed much. If they had any Red Coats, they'd come to disarm us again, given the chance. Oft times, our own elites have felt the same way about we plebs.

Interestingly, as we sit in the aftermath (and in some cases unseemly media frenzy regarding the shooter) of the murders at Virginia Tech, there has been some indications, however slight, that some of the elites *do* pay attention to us. We, of course, must keep on them, lest they forget.

But the knee-jerk reaction, except from those heavily invested in the issue, like the NRA or Brady Campaign, has some interesting nuance in it. I was bemused this morning to find a link to my Gun Control Policy Debate post from Unpartisan.Com. Not surprised at the link - but at the excerpt.

Lawmakers resist gun control revision WASHINGTON | After the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cautioned Tuesday against a “rush to judgment” on stricter gun control. (11 hours ago)

The link to their links is above the quote.

Secondly - there is an indication that Representative Nancy Boyda (D, KS), who wrested her seat from a clueless Jim Ryun (R, ex-Ks) does have some understanding of her constituency, at least until she's firmly established enough to allow the full perks of incumbency to protect her. In a "Congressional Briefing" (itself quoting an AP article) from the Lawrence Journal-World, Ms Boyda is on the record as saying:

“As tragic as this incident was … I don’t think we need additional federal gun laws,” Boyda said Tuesday. “We need to enforce the laws we have.”

What she said.

I'm cautiously optimistic regarding Ms. Boyda - on this issue, as well as some others, such as Veteran's Affairs, though we disagree on the GWOT. I admit it - I like divided government, it keeps either side from running roughshod over the other. Not that I'm going to let my guard down.

In keeping with the spirit of Kim du Toit's Nation of Riflemen, I'm going to order up some ammunition from the Internet (all legal, of course), and I'm going to order one of these - a hand mortar. SWWBO has already approved (lotsa brass, not hard to win her over with lotsa brass).

It will look something like this when completed (though the stock will not have the ivory inlay, and the butt-shape will be more consistent with 18th century stocks, rather than the 17th Century stock in this example from a museum ~~in Germany~~. [Oops. Too many pictures, not enough captions. That pic was stuck in with a bunch of pics I have from a museum in Nuremburg - but as reader Randy Knight points out - it's probably from a set he sent me of the Imperial War Museum or the British Museum. More of Randy's work can be seen here. Never hesitate to call me out if I'm stealing your credit! -the Armorer]

Hosting provided by FotoTime

It's a kit. I'll probably run a series on building it and shooting it.

And yes, I know the flag is displayed incorrectly in the top photo. While it's been long fixed in the Arsenal, I've not taken a new picture. And yes, grognards, that Ross is US Ordnance marked, so it hangs there appropriately.

Update: For those who just can't get past the flag - here, it's hanging correctly. Just don't ask me where I got all those left-handed antique weapons. Let's just say they are very rare and not often found in the wild.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

John, isn't the flag displayed backwards in the picture with "Patriots Day 2007"? Or is the photo reversed?

Still enjoying your blog!

Don

by Don Hickey on April 19, 2007 9:57 AM

Sorry John, didn't read the last paragraph!

by Don Hickey on April 19, 2007 10:00 AM

That's okay, Don - you tipped me into putting in something I considered but rejected.

by John of Argghhh! on April 19, 2007 10:06 AM

Thanks for the pic of the hand mortor and the link to the rifle shoppe. I hand and lost it. I want to do a Ferguson rifle myself. But the hand mortor would go great with the Coehorn I have...

by emdfl on April 19, 2007 1:58 PM

The Ferguson is on my list *after* I manage heat treatment and polishing!

by John of Argghhh! on April 19, 2007 2:14 PM

I think I see a Krag and some Springfields, but would you be willing to identify the rest?

by Brad on April 19, 2007 2:20 PM

Hmmm. Is the rare, left-handed antique weapon related to the more common left-handed wrench?

Heh.

by Casey Tompkins on April 19, 2007 2:27 PM

Indeed, Casey. The one was developed to work on the other, and was found to have more staying power as a useful tool.

by John of Argghhh! on April 19, 2007 3:20 PM

I lust for the hand-mortar (as I do historical re-creation, that'd be a hoot!), but my God, someone needs to get that man an HTML editor that won't let him use the blink tag.

by Sigivald on April 19, 2007 6:11 PM

Sigivald - my apologies, I'm running IE7 in a minimalist mode, nothing blinks. I had to open the page in Firefox to see what you were talking about...

by John of Argghhh! on April 19, 2007 6:30 PM

Hmmmm.....methinks that hand mortar just might have been the great-great-great-great granddaddy of the coolest looking weapon ever, the M79 grenade launcher.

Oh, forgot to mention. John, you won me $20 the other day, one of my Marines bet me they didn't make a 40MM buckshot grenade. Took him to Google, and just guess what site came up first??

by sandman6actual on April 20, 2007 3:17 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 19, 2007

Wahabism Delenda Est!

If cease fires in the name of peace actually produced peace the Middle East would be the most peaceful place on earth by now.
.
Mebbe it's just Clobbering Time.
.
Just sayin'
.
"The Iraqis don't want Saddam back - they want the stability. But they want the stability without being fed into industrial chippers."
. -The Armorer, on Hugh Hewitt, 27 December 2006.

Life Member