Thread
Taking prowar to another level
some people...
__________________________
Our Flag, Too
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 3 April 2003
The residents of an unassuming house, tucked away in a quiet corner of a small New England college campus, have found themselves at the center of a disturbing fight for the basic right to express their opinion as Americans._ Seven students at 44 Howard Street on the Wheaton College campus, located in the rural community of Norton, Massachusetts, have discovered, with suddenness and fury, how difficult it is today to speak your mind in a nation divided by war.
It started on the day the Bush administration took this nation to war in defiance of the international community and with little, if any, justifiable rationale._ The American attack upon Iraq, fraught with all the terrors of American and civilian casualties, spiraling regional hostilities and the surety of reciprocal attacks here at home, convinced these students that their beloved country was in grave danger._ The leadership of this nation, and the deadly course they chose, motivated the seven in this small house to make a large statement of disapproval.
And so, on that day, the young men and women of 44 Howard hung an American flag upside-down outside of their house.
There is no question but that this is a loaded symbol._ Generation after generation of Americans have saluted this flag, served under it, died under it, and have been wrapped in it when finally delivered to the darkness of the earth or the depths of the ocean._ The flag represents, for many Americans, all that is great and true and noble about this nation; it is a snapshot of our idealized hopes and dreams for the country we are and the country we wish to be._ Of course, these kids were asking for trouble by doing this._ People do not react rationally when confronted with an American flag flying in anything other than an upright, orderly fashion.
44 Howard got trouble, in spades.
Some days after placing the flag on their house in this manner, a truckload of local men pulled up to the front door._ This took some doing; the house is not located on any road easily accessible by the main streets of Norton, but is buried in the campus near the central quadrangle._ Six men, whose ages ranged from between forty to fifty years old, stormed into the house while two of the residents were there._ The residents locked themselves in a room and called campus security, while them men crashed through the house, pounding on bedroom doors and yelling, "Come out, you cowards!"_ It was clear from their actions that these men intended violence.
Rocks have been thrown through the windows of 44 Howard._ Death threats have been telephoned to the house and left on answering machines._ Cars from the town of Norton have constantly driven passed the house with passengers screaming threats and insults._ A dead fish was strapped to the front door, symbolizing a death threat as per the movie 'The Godfather.'_ The harassment grew to such a fevered intensity that the residents of the house were ordered by campus security to leave the premises for three days, because their safety could not be guaranteed.
As of this printing, there has not been one arrest made in these matters by the Norton police.
more here:
http://truthout.org/docs_03/040403A.shtml
__________________________
Our Flag, Too
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 3 April 2003
The residents of an unassuming house, tucked away in a quiet corner of a small New England college campus, have found themselves at the center of a disturbing fight for the basic right to express their opinion as Americans._ Seven students at 44 Howard Street on the Wheaton College campus, located in the rural community of Norton, Massachusetts, have discovered, with suddenness and fury, how difficult it is today to speak your mind in a nation divided by war.
It started on the day the Bush administration took this nation to war in defiance of the international community and with little, if any, justifiable rationale._ The American attack upon Iraq, fraught with all the terrors of American and civilian casualties, spiraling regional hostilities and the surety of reciprocal attacks here at home, convinced these students that their beloved country was in grave danger._ The leadership of this nation, and the deadly course they chose, motivated the seven in this small house to make a large statement of disapproval.
And so, on that day, the young men and women of 44 Howard hung an American flag upside-down outside of their house.
There is no question but that this is a loaded symbol._ Generation after generation of Americans have saluted this flag, served under it, died under it, and have been wrapped in it when finally delivered to the darkness of the earth or the depths of the ocean._ The flag represents, for many Americans, all that is great and true and noble about this nation; it is a snapshot of our idealized hopes and dreams for the country we are and the country we wish to be._ Of course, these kids were asking for trouble by doing this._ People do not react rationally when confronted with an American flag flying in anything other than an upright, orderly fashion.
44 Howard got trouble, in spades.
Some days after placing the flag on their house in this manner, a truckload of local men pulled up to the front door._ This took some doing; the house is not located on any road easily accessible by the main streets of Norton, but is buried in the campus near the central quadrangle._ Six men, whose ages ranged from between forty to fifty years old, stormed into the house while two of the residents were there._ The residents locked themselves in a room and called campus security, while them men crashed through the house, pounding on bedroom doors and yelling, "Come out, you cowards!"_ It was clear from their actions that these men intended violence.
Rocks have been thrown through the windows of 44 Howard._ Death threats have been telephoned to the house and left on answering machines._ Cars from the town of Norton have constantly driven passed the house with passengers screaming threats and insults._ A dead fish was strapped to the front door, symbolizing a death threat as per the movie 'The Godfather.'_ The harassment grew to such a fevered intensity that the residents of the house were ordered by campus security to leave the premises for three days, because their safety could not be guaranteed.
As of this printing, there has not been one arrest made in these matters by the Norton police.
more here:
http://truthout.org/docs_03/040403A.shtml
When you beg for an ass-kicking, sometimes you get one.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy: When you beg for an ass-kicking, sometimes you get one. |
Oh - NOW I see the reason.
Cowards. When you can no longer make a statement against our Government without the fear of reprisal.
America dies just a little more.
America dies just a little more.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy: When you beg for an ass-kicking, sometimes you get one. |
Well done Spliffy. Spit on everything your troops are supposedly fighting for.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mastrap: Well done Spliffy. Spit on everything your troops are supposedly fighting for. |
Never said I thought it was proper.
Just stating a cold hard fact.
If you wish to exercise your right to free speech by hanging a banner outside your residence - then more power to you.
If that banner's message can be universally translated into "please kick my ass" - then don't waste my tax dollars by bothering the police when somebody kicks your ass.
common sense goes a long way.
[sarcasm] Hey wait a second, isn't this band of thugs just using civil disobedience to get their point across? [/sarcasm]
Of course these students should know how seriously some people take this issue. it is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. However, they do have a right to express their opinion, and the acts of this mob are way out of line.
Honestly though, what did they expect, that people would give them, a big hug?
And while we on the subject of keeping this a fair and balanced board, lets not forgetthis one
http://www.worldwiderant.com/archives/001059.html*
Of course these students should know how seriously some people take this issue. it is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. However, they do have a right to express their opinion, and the acts of this mob are way out of line.
Honestly though, what did they expect, that people would give them, a big hug?
And while we on the subject of keeping this a fair and balanced board, lets not forgetthis one
http://www.worldwiderant.com/archives/001059.html*
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy: Never said I thought it was proper. Just stating a cold hard fact. If you wish to exercise your right to free speech by hanging a banner outside your residence - then more power to you. If that banner's message can be universally translated into "please kick my ass" - then don't waste my tax dollars by bothering the police when somebody kicks your ass. common sense goes a long way. |
So "agravated assault" should be protected when it is a response to protected speech?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by boots: So "agravated assault" should be protected when it is a response to protected speech? |
Are you suggesting that it should?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy: Are you suggesting that it should? |
no, but this:
Quote:
|
If that banner's message can be universally translated into "please kick my ass" - then don't waste my tax dollars by bothering the police when somebody kicks your ass. |
suggests that you support "decriminalizing" it.
Ladies and gentleman, don't feed the trolls.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Timo: Ladies and gentleman, don't feed the trolls. |
But sometimes that's the funnest part of going to the petting zoo.
Dad, can we please feed the trolls? Please?
Hey, are you alling Andi*Pandi a troll? Because that's not very nice. Short of thousands of dollars in plastic surgery, she can't help what she looks like!
Quote:
|
Originally posted by boots: But sometimes that's the funnest part of going to the petting zoo. Dad, can we please feed the trolls? Please? |
Certain grumblybears 'round these parts have sustained track records that may be characterized as nothing more substantial than mere blurted, confused and ultimately double standards; such is the only conclusion one can draw from reams and reams of posts with one-line provocations that have -- it must be obvious to everyone -- no point other than solo, personal entertainment. This kind of "participation" is mostly closely akin to masturbation or smoking that pot alone.
Insofar as I'm correct such should not be enabled.
**WARNING** Thread hijack in progress. All avaliable units should head to Pandi-corner to provide backup.
Are you saying people shouldn't masturbate?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Timo: This kind of "participation" is mostly closely akin to masturbation or smoking that pot alone. Insofar as I'm correct such should not be enabled. |
Are you saying people shouldn't masturbate?
I'm sayin' I don't want to watch.
Quote:
| Hey, are you calling Andi*Pandi a troll? Because that's not very nice. Short of thousands of dollars in plastic surgery, she can't help what she looks like! |
hey, wait, i thought i was a cute little hamster???? ya know booty, i knew there was a reason i don't come in here...
heh heh she said "booty" heh
Going back to the original point, I don't think anyone here thinks what happens is right. (At least I hope not) However reverse the situations politically a bit. Consider a white guy going down into Harlem with a sign that reads "I Hate N*****s" We'd probably all expect him to get his ass kicked. Does it make it right? No. But is it understandable? Yes.
Quote:
| heh heh she said "booty" heh |
Quote:
|
clarkgoble: Does it make it right? No. But is it understandable? Yes. |
No, it isn't understandable. Are we equating using our free speech to hate crimes? What if your KKK'er posted that n*****r sign on his front lawn? Ok to throw rocks at him and intrude on his private property? Understandable? How?
The editorial did say that it was the equivalent of waving a red flag at a bull, but it's a constitutionally protected red flag. Unlike the marching protesters, these students did not disrupt traffic, teargas cops, delay anyone's heart transplant delivery... If we can't protest on our own property, what is this country coming to?
What is especially ignorant is the way the intruders and harrassers don't even know the code of conduct for the flag. The students weren't p!ssing on the flag, they were displaying it correctly as a distress call for the country... Is the country at war? Are we not at red alert? Should not all citizens be distressed and worried about the state of the country?
Then why stone people who display this sign?
(damnit, I seem to have wandered back on topic.) Boots, you are sooo in trouble!
Quote:
|
Originally posted by andi*pandi: No, it isn't understandable. Are we equating using our free speech to hate crimes? What if your KKK'er posted that n*****r sign on his front lawn? Ok to throw rocks at him and intrude on his private property? Understandable? How? The editorial did say that it was the equivalent of waving a red flag at a bull, but it's a constitutionally protected red flag. Unlike the marching protesters, these students did not disrupt traffic, teargas cops, delay anyone's heart transplant delivery... If we can't protest on our own property, what is this country coming to? What is especially ignorant is the way the intruders and harrassers don't even know the code of conduct for the flag. The students weren't p!ssing on the flag, they were displaying it correctly as a distress call for the country... Is the country at war? Are we not at red alert? Should not all citizens be distressed and worried about the state of the country? Then why stone people who display this sign? (damnit, I seem to have wandered back on topic.) Boots, you are sooo in trouble! |
Quote:
|
Originally posted by andi*pandi: hey, wait, i thought i was a cute little hamster???? ya know booty, i knew there was a reason i don't come in here... |
Well, you stopped posting in the other thread, so I had to vent somewhere. And maybe trolls bear an uncanny resemblence to over-sized rodents.
Besides, I did say it wasn't nice of Timo to call you a troll.Back on topic:
Quote:
|
Clarkgoble said: Going back to the original point, I don't think anyone here thinks what happens is right. (At least I hope not) However reverse the situations politically a bit. Consider a white guy going down into Harlem with a sign that reads "I Hate N*****s" We'd probably all expect him to get his ass kicked. Does it make it right? No. But is it understandable? Yes. |
Two things.
1) You are right. It is probably a "natural" response. It isn't right. My objection was that the police shouldn't be bothered because "they deserved it." Sorry I disagree. The police should also intervene in Harlem.
2) Part of the problem (as I see it) is that this response is a learned response...or perhaps more accurately, we can learn to respond more appropriately.
If you really believe in freedom of speech, you have to let some one yell at the top of his/her lungs things that make your blood boil and that you would spend a lifetime fighting against.
If it is seen as "understandable" that someone would become violent over words or a symbol, then there is something wrong with the social fabric of that community. As long as people shrug stuff like this of as "unfortunate but understandable" then these unfortunate things will continue. I find that prospect unacceptable. We should be encouraging people to voice concerns and respond to their arguments with discourse, not discord. Only then will we truly be the home of the free.
From the United States Flag Code
The code formalizes and unifies the traditional ways in which we give respect to the flag and includes the following:
The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing. It is flown upside down only as a distress signal.
The flag should not be used as a drapery, or for covering a speakers desk, draping a platform, or for any decoration in general. Bunting of blue, white and red stripes is available for these purposes. The blue stripe of the bunting should be on the top.
The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard.
The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations.
The flag should never have placed on it, or attached to it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind.
The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
The code formalizes and unifies the traditional ways in which we give respect to the flag and includes the following:
The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing. It is flown upside down only as a distress signal.
The flag should not be used as a drapery, or for covering a speakers desk, draping a platform, or for any decoration in general. Bunting of blue, white and red stripes is available for these purposes. The blue stripe of the bunting should be on the top.
The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard.
The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations.
The flag should never have placed on it, or attached to it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind.
The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by andi*pandi: No, it isn't understandable. Are we equating using our free speech to hate crimes? |
Walking through Harlem with such a sign isn't a hate crime. It's reprehensible but it isn't a hate crime.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by clarkgoble: Going back to the original point, I don't think anyone here thinks what happens is right. (At least I hope not) However reverse the situations politically a bit. Consider a white guy going down into Harlem with a sign that reads "I Hate N*****s" We'd probably all expect him to get his ass kicked. Does it make it right? No. But is it understandable? Yes. |
Agreed.
Just to emphasize though, I think that the threats to the people in that house were wrong.
boots: Part of the problem (as I see it) is that this response is a learned response...or perhaps more accurately, we can learn to respond more appropriately.
To a degree I agree. However think about probabilities for a moment. Consider that only 5% of people have this attitude. That is a rather amazingly small figure. (Consider that probably a lot more than 5% in a general population have abnormally low intelligence by birth)
Now if even a few of these 5% act then you'll encounter their actions in fairly regular intervals. Lets say that, for any given day you have a 1% chance of these people acting. Then the probability that you don't encounter any action in 100 days is 0.99 ^100 = .32. So that implies you have about a 2/3 chance seeing these idiots do something.
Now obviously I'm just estimating these figures. But realistically we shouldn't be that surprised, especially in times of stress, that these fringe elements act. Thus we ought to expect bigots persecuting Muslims. We ought to expect idiots in France doing things like vandalizing those graves or raising anti-semetic actions.
It doesn't make it right. But to assume that somehow education and free speech resolve the situation is somewhat naive. We can try to minimize it. And by and Iarge I think the US has done this. But to start drawing conclusions about the country as a whole from scattered incidents seems unwise.
When you take into consideration that there are a lot of stupid people, throw in some liquor, then bad things happen.
The police certainly ought to act, but there is only so much you can do. This guy has drawn national attention and thus is going to become a focal point for a lot of frustration for a large group of people.
To a degree I agree. However think about probabilities for a moment. Consider that only 5% of people have this attitude. That is a rather amazingly small figure. (Consider that probably a lot more than 5% in a general population have abnormally low intelligence by birth)
Now if even a few of these 5% act then you'll encounter their actions in fairly regular intervals. Lets say that, for any given day you have a 1% chance of these people acting. Then the probability that you don't encounter any action in 100 days is 0.99 ^100 = .32. So that implies you have about a 2/3 chance seeing these idiots do something.
Now obviously I'm just estimating these figures. But realistically we shouldn't be that surprised, especially in times of stress, that these fringe elements act. Thus we ought to expect bigots persecuting Muslims. We ought to expect idiots in France doing things like vandalizing those graves or raising anti-semetic actions.
It doesn't make it right. But to assume that somehow education and free speech resolve the situation is somewhat naive. We can try to minimize it. And by and Iarge I think the US has done this. But to start drawing conclusions about the country as a whole from scattered incidents seems unwise.
When you take into consideration that there are a lot of stupid people, throw in some liquor, then bad things happen.
The police certainly ought to act, but there is only so much you can do. This guy has drawn national attention and thus is going to become a focal point for a lot of frustration for a large group of people.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by clarkgoble: Now obviously I'm just estimating these figures. But realistically we shouldn't be that surprised, especially in times of stress, that these fringe elements act. Thus we ought to expect bigots persecuting Muslims. We ought to expect idiots in France doing things like vandalizing those graves or raising anti-semetic actions. It doesn't make it right. But to assume that somehow education and free speech resolve the situation is somewhat naive. We can try to minimize it. And by and Iarge I think the US has done this. But to start drawing conclusions about the country as a whole from scattered incidents seems unwise. When you take into consideration that there are a lot of stupid people, throw in some liquor, then bad things happen. The police certainly ought to act, but there is only so much you can do. This guy has drawn national attention and thus is going to become a focal point for a lot of frustration for a large group of people. |
Again, I guess I didn't make the point clear. That we say "it's understandable" is a problematic response. Yes, there will always be idiots. Yes, there will always be drunks. Yes, there will always be problems...but to say "it is understandable" when something happens is a tacit approval even if you later say "it isn't right."
And if the attitude of a community is "it's understandable" then there is a problem with the community as a whole.
These actions are not understandable. They are flat out wrong, and the community has a responsibility to make sure people know it is not acceptable. There should not be mixed messages such as "it's understandable but not right."
Boots: ...to say "it is understandable" when something happens is a tacit approval even if you later say "it isn't right."
You see, and that's where I disagree. "Understandable" deals with cause and effect. It doesn't attribute approval.
I think both the right and the left have people who mistake this. For instance if someone says 9/11 was understandable given our actions in the world and the level of frustration in the mid-east that doesn't imply that they think the US deserves it. (Although some may take that additional step)
Likewise if I understand that a woman walking alone down a dark unlit street in a high crime area probably will be raped, that doesn't condone it. It simply points out that understanding takes into consideration ones environment.
I bring up that last example because I had a discussion of this with some feminist friends a few years back. Their position was that a woman ought to be able to basically run naked anywhere she wants and not be accosted. In one sense I fully agree. In another though I think we, as individuals, have a duty to recognize our environment and conduct our behavior accordingly. If a woman was to do that I think she would be massively irresponsible and the consequences would be understandable. I'd be horrified at the consequences. I'd think them wrong. I'd want the perpetrators punished. But at the same time there is some responsibility on her for ignoring the environment.
In the same way I think the US has often been naive with respect to how the rest of the world reacts to our actions. We might feel them still right. But if we act, we ought to act knowingly and understand what the consequences are. Especially given past terrorist attacks on US soil and US interests the US should not have been surprised by 9/11. Further that blame rests on the public as a whole and not just various intelligence organizations.
Going back to the thread, if a professor makes the comments this one did during wartime when many people feel very strongly he ought to know that not only will some people be *verbally* angry but a few people will cross the bounds of propriety. To not take that into consideration isn't just naive. It is stupid in a very irresponsible way.
You see, and that's where I disagree. "Understandable" deals with cause and effect. It doesn't attribute approval.
I think both the right and the left have people who mistake this. For instance if someone says 9/11 was understandable given our actions in the world and the level of frustration in the mid-east that doesn't imply that they think the US deserves it. (Although some may take that additional step)
Likewise if I understand that a woman walking alone down a dark unlit street in a high crime area probably will be raped, that doesn't condone it. It simply points out that understanding takes into consideration ones environment.
I bring up that last example because I had a discussion of this with some feminist friends a few years back. Their position was that a woman ought to be able to basically run naked anywhere she wants and not be accosted. In one sense I fully agree. In another though I think we, as individuals, have a duty to recognize our environment and conduct our behavior accordingly. If a woman was to do that I think she would be massively irresponsible and the consequences would be understandable. I'd be horrified at the consequences. I'd think them wrong. I'd want the perpetrators punished. But at the same time there is some responsibility on her for ignoring the environment.
In the same way I think the US has often been naive with respect to how the rest of the world reacts to our actions. We might feel them still right. But if we act, we ought to act knowingly and understand what the consequences are. Especially given past terrorist attacks on US soil and US interests the US should not have been surprised by 9/11. Further that blame rests on the public as a whole and not just various intelligence organizations.
Going back to the thread, if a professor makes the comments this one did during wartime when many people feel very strongly he ought to know that not only will some people be *verbally* angry but a few people will cross the bounds of propriety. To not take that into consideration isn't just naive. It is stupid in a very irresponsible way.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by clarkgoble: Going back to the thread, if a professor makes the comments this one did during wartime when many people feel very strongly he ought to know that not only will some people be *verbally* angry but a few people will cross the bounds of propriety. To not take that into consideration isn't just naive. It is stupid in a very irresponsible way. |
That's a different thread. This thread is about a group of students that hung a flag in a "distress call" for the country, them had some a$$holes break in and try to pount the crap out of them
So, On one hand, I agree that from a realist perspective, this stuff will happen and it is regretable. From an idealist perspective, this is unacceptable. My point was that we cannot let "reality" deter the idealistic goal...a society that doesn't understand acts of violence.
So, we are arguing different aspects of the same the same thing.
....and I'm all for women feeling free to run around naked.
I thought I'd just chime in here, but while this is expected in America, in a lot of other countries it is unsual - a lot of people in places I've been would not care, and probably wouldn't even notice (although in countries like mine - reversing the flag would not make it look any different).
I don't have anything against America or it's principles, but sometimes when you start preaching the Flag and the Constitution as if it was the bible, it can be overwhelming.
I don't like the idea of a flag, or a country, defining who I am. I want to express myself as an individual and to be treated as such, and I would feel that is being taken away by those who wish to push their idealology onto me.
I understand that I have a responsibility to the people around me, not my country - and that I should try to maintain an equilibrium - but the idea that someone can come into my house and tell me what I should do with no authority - IMO breaks that equilibrium.
I don't have anything against America or it's principles, but sometimes when you start preaching the Flag and the Constitution as if it was the bible, it can be overwhelming.
I don't like the idea of a flag, or a country, defining who I am. I want to express myself as an individual and to be treated as such, and I would feel that is being taken away by those who wish to push their idealology onto me.
I understand that I have a responsibility to the people around me, not my country - and that I should try to maintain an equilibrium - but the idea that someone can come into my house and tell me what I should do with no authority - IMO breaks that equilibrium.