quote:"I think it's the ultimate sign of disrespect. We have troops dying for us," Land Park resident Mark Cohen said.
Ummm.... that's the point.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote: "There will always be people who are offended by political speech, and the most important forum of all ... is one's own residence. The First Amendment is meaningless unless dissent is allowed."
True...
quote: "Even if you don't agree with it, he has the right to state his opinion. I don't find it offensive at all."
What he said.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You don’t find a uniform of one of our troops hanging in a noose offensive?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
It doesn't matter whether or not we're offended. It matters whether or not we think he should be prevented from being able to do it.
Obscenity laws restrict free speech in areas such as sexually explicit and foul language. There is nothing illegal, though, about saying something politcally radical.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I agree with this:
quote:I think if this is the way someone feels they can find a better way to vent their opinions
And this:
quote:Even if you don't agree with it, he has the right to state his opinion.
Hobbes Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You can still say they have the right to hang it. But you can still be offended.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I agree.
But I've spent five years in art school and most things don't offend me anymore. A little sad, really.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Jay, are you asking if it is offensive? Yes, it is. But then again, so is this war.
My husband was in the Army and National Guard for most of the 80s. He's damned proud that he served his country. He's offended that his president lied to him and the rest of the country. He's offended that US troops are being used to advance a political agenda. He's offended that his one surviving nephew (because the other one was killed in the Navy) is currently in Tikrit because the Middle East is where the oil is. He's not just offended, he's pissed off about it. He believes the honor of our troops has been stained by this. What we are doing in the Middle East may turn out okay in the end, though he doesn't think it will. But in the mean time, US troops are giving their lives because of lies the government told.
So, yes, it's offensive. And yes, the way we got into the war is offensive. And yes, now that we've started it, we have to finish it. And yes, our taxes really aren't paying for the war. It will be our children and grandchildren's taxes that will pay for the war.
However, all that said, why exactly do you think we are in the Middle East? To bring democracy? To give people free speech? Why do you insist that people who have different opinions than you should be silenced? You need to go watch The American President again and find out why it's a good thing to be a card carrying member of the ACLU.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
The issue here is "Free Speech" more than it is the War in Iraq.
I believe he has the right to do it, but I also believe the community (not the government)has an obligation (as long as they disagree with the way the message was presented) to invoke punishments however they see fit.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I don't mean take him out and beat him.
I mean things like refusing services (f.e. haircuts, oil changes, etc..)
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
Why on earth would there be a fit punishment for this? I can't come up with a single reason this should be punished in any way by the city.
Okay, I read that a little wrong - by community you meant he individual people?
[ February 09, 2005, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Vána ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I mean things like refusing services
I'm glad you added the explaination of "services"... Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Yes, the individuals themselves. I think the government has no right to interject here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, all that said, why exactly do you think we are in the Middle East? To bring democracy? To give people free speech? Why do you insist that people who have different opinions than you should be silenced? You need to go watch The American President again and find out why it's a good thing to be a card carrying member of the ACLU.
WTF? Where did Jay say this person should be silenced? In fact, didn't he say this? "You can still say they have the right to hang it. But you can still be offended."
It's free speech people. That means they have the right to hang the uniform. We have the right to call them offensive. The paper has the right to publish an article full of people calling them offensive. The people in the town have the right to call them names, within the bounds of libel, and to post equally offensive responses.
Dagonee
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Dag, it is pleasantly disconcerting when you write 'WTF' in one of your posts.
Carry on.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I really like Scott’s idea. Any time these people come into a place you just say sorry we’re booked. They come through your check out line. Oops. Sorry this lane is closed. They want to buy a movie ticket, oh sorry sold out. The only problem there is that not very many people watch news anymore and most people wouldn’t have a clue what’s going on. And then there’d be the other group who wouldn’t be offended by it. Oh well. But I do like the idea.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Aside from the fact that he lives in a major metropolitan area, and it's very easy to be anonymous.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Dags, actually, I had you in mind when I posted. Some vague exchange between you and Tom in the "Absurd" thread.
And Jay, by agreeing with the shunning technique, is pretty much agreeing that they should be silenced. Conform or be cut out of society. Seems pretty totalitarian to me.
Jay has always been neo con. It's not much of a leap to suspect that he thinks they should be silenced. Bush has implied that dissent is equal to treason. Card did it recently. I'm sure this would be considered along the same lines as "giving aid to the terrorists."
However, I wanted Jay to know that even bleeding liberals like me think it's offensive, even if we agree with the sentiment.
I don't think conservatives or liberals, but more often than not, conservatives, are willing to admit to faults within their own ideological subset. This is a fault. I agree. It's offensive.
However, that doesn't negate the offensiveness that precipitated it.
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
For the life of me I can't understand why you feel the community has a right to punish someone in any way for something this person has a right to do, just because they're offended.
At the most, I think the community can ask for it to be taken down. Otherwise I find it more offensive to treat a member of your community in that manner solely for speaking their mind.
Edit: Directed to Jay and Scott.
[ February 09, 2005, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Uhleeuh ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It really bothers me, that someone expressed their outrage by desecrating a symbol of the people that fight and die for their right to be able to express it. Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
But most bussiness owners "reserve the right to deny service." Is it Totalitarian to deny service to a person without a shirt? Is it Totalitarian to not let a persons pet in your store?
I honestly think you're throwing labels.
[EDIT: The thread is moving to fast. This was pointed toward Kayla (with all due respect, of course.)]
[ February 09, 2005, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Civil disobedience can be a good thing and, at times, a necessary thing. However, it seems that nowadays, people don't have the sand to stick to their convictions in the face of opposing viewpoints.
It's like Prof. Churchill's drivel on the 9/11 event and the backlash he suffered. Well, if that is what he believes and that is what he published, he has the right to say it, no matter how inflammatory it may be. However, the public has the right to react to his words and shun him at their will. Colleges can cancel his speaking engagements and the press can hound him.
But it becomes a little disingenuous, or even wimpy, for him or his like to then run crying saying "But Mommie, they don't like me... make them stop."
This fellow can hang the uniform if he feels that is the statement he wants to make. But just as the First Ammendment protects his free speech, it protects those of the people who are offended by him. His neighbor can put a big sign in his own yard that says "I live next door to an idiot." (Hopefully with an arrow pointing to the correct neighbor).
But it's like the WTO protesters who were involved in the Seattle rioting a while back. They trashed the city and destroyed a lot of property. And then some of them complained when the police arrested them.
Do we not teach cause and affect anymore? Doesn't anyone hold themselves responsible for the repercussions of their own actions? Does it cheapen the message of a strong political statement if at the end the person says "Don't be upset with me with what I say!"?
Or was this fellow looking to martyr himself a bit and become an outcast, with the hanged uniform an easy way to get there. Let's face it, we do have a large number of neurotic victims in waiting just looking for an incident.
Case in point: Two people called the FCC to complain this year after the Super Bowl's halftime show. They were calling to complain about last year's Janet Jackson breast-baring incident. They said they were still traumatized from last year.
Give me a break.
/rant off
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: Do we not teach cause and affect anymore? Doesn't anyone hold themselves responsible for the repercussions of their own actions? Does it cheapen the message of a strong political statement if at the end the person says "Don't be upset with me with what I say!"?
:applaud:
[EDIT: ASIDE: There was a post between this one and Lost Ashes'. Why was it deleted?]
[EDIT AGAIN: It's the next one down.]
[ February 09, 2005, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Heck, even I agree with that. So, don't invite him to your Super Bowl party. But when he comes in for a burger, sell it to him. Sheesh.
Scott, should I be able to keep blacks and gays out of my store because I don't like them? It's a bit different than no shirt.
And there are reasons why a "pet" should be allowed in a store. You may not like it, but we've all agreed to certain things. Like no shoes, no shirt, no service.
I just don't think "no democrats allowed" is one of the things we've agreed to. Yet.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Kayla, don't pull the racist/biggot card. I never said any of that.
...and who's to say he's a democrat? Maybe he's a Republican who feels deserted. You're the first one here to attach a label to anything.
[ February 09, 2005, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I wasn't calling you one. But it is analogous.
You are defending the practice of discrimination.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Neo Con- Click on US Interesting. Not sure I’ve been called a neo con before. Had to look that one up. And here everyone said it was me who did the name calling. I don’t know. There are parts of the definition I agree with and parts I disagree with.
I’m not saying they are to be silenced. But it would be nice if everyone that was offended would do like Scott says. I’d be scared to be their neighbors right now. I figure there is great risk for something violent to happen to their house or person. I don’t condone that in the least, just saying it’s a great possibility that it will happen.
We could get into the whole flag burning debate here since it’s almost similar. We have the right to, but I think that anyone who does should be arrested.
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
Adam:
All I meant by what I said is I would be upset if I were discriminated against by my community for expressing my opinions.
It may have been in poor taste, but it was this person's opinion and I have a hard time understanding why they only have the options of staying silent, watering down their beliefs or risking alienation for saying what they believe the way they want to say it.
It seems like a way to censor people to me; "Don't upset us or we'll make you pay."
But I'm not going to say anymore. I'm not too comfortable speaking my mind on anything related to politics around here let alone trying to argue something I see as unbelievably wrong.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I'm pro-life but am offended by the full color posters of a bloody, aborted fetus that some pro-lifers use to get their point across. I think people who display phaphic protests would be rather disappointed if no one were offended.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: You are defending the practice of discrimination.
But Kayla, aren't you defending a person that practices discrimination by defending this guy?
BTW, I don't mean any of this as an attack. I mean only to strengthen or weaken my view based on your responses .
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Perhaps I'm mistaken but my take on this was as an indictment of our government and it's policy. I saw the effigy as a statement that our government was using our dollars to send our children to be killed. Am I just misinterpreting the message? Does anyone think that the message was one of hate directed at our troops?
[ February 09, 2005, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
That's what my interpretation was, too, punwit.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I don't know, it also could be seen as saying the troops should be hung because they are criminals of some sort and our taxes are going to support their criminal activites.
Also, advocating the violent overthrow of the government is apparently illegal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"We have the right to, but I think that anyone who does should be arrested."
That seems kind of incoherent to me. Do you define "right" differently than I do?
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
quote: I saw the effigy as a statement that our government was using our dollars to send our children to be killed.
That's exactly what I took it to mean.
I think mothertree's interpretation is way too literal. I could be wrong, though.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote: We have the right to, but I think that anyone who does should be arrested.
Arrested for what? Exercising their constitutional rights? On what grounds, for heaven's sake?
Ironically enough, I'm currently watching the Simpsons episode where Bart accidentally moons the flag.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I think the more clear way to get across what punwit expressed would be a coffin with a flag draped over it labelled "our tax dollars at work". The noose definitely implies guilt on the part of the wearer of the uniform.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I interpreted it the same way Punwit did.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Mothertree
I suppose one could assign that message but it certainly didn't jump out at me at first blush. I guess I don't have the requisite cynicism to assign that type of dastardly intent.
[ February 09, 2005, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: The noose definitely implies guilt on the part of the wearer of the uniform.
I interpreted it to mean that the government had sentenced the soldier to death by sending him to Iraq. I disagree that it implies guilt at all.
edit: I guess I'm just restating what punwit said. Oh well.
[ February 09, 2005, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
quote: The noose definitely implies guilt on the part of the wearer of the uniform.
Not to me, it doesn't. A noose more often than not reminds me of unjustified lynching.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I get the unjustified lynching vibe, too.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
But who is doing the lynching? It's just all around a poorly constructed piece of propaganda. Unless you want to call it installation art. Then it is surprisingly lucid.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:You don’t find a uniform of one of our troops hanging in a noose offensive?
You don't find a president sending over a thousand of those filled uniforms off to die offensive?
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
mothertree:
I think punwit said it best, in that the statement was about the government sending soldiers off to be killed. So if someone or something must be responsible for a lynching, it'd be the government.
However, when I mentioned lynching, it was strictly to point out that a noose creates the idea of a lynching in my mind and does not make me think of the party in the noose as being guilty of a crime, as you suggested it "definitely" means. Instead a noose reminds me of the many innocent people who have died in that manner to appease others, namely African Americans in the South. That is the parallel I drew.
[ February 09, 2005, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Uhleeuh ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Well, I am more inclined to think of the treatment of Vietnam vets, which people are bolder and bolder in declaring this war as being like.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We could get into the whole flag burning debate here since it’s almost similar. We have the right to, but I think that anyone who does should be arrested.
Apparantly Kayla was right about your lack of commitment to free speech.
Have at 'im.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: We have the right to, but I think that anyone who does should be arrested.
Then you are a neo-con, and that isn't meant as a compliment.
Arrested for what....disagreeing with the government?
If they have the right to do something then how can they be arrested for it?
Perhaps you should look up "rights", as your statement doesn't make any sense.
For the record, I am offended by the display, and would make sure they knew it. I wouldn't refuse to serve them, but I would have no problem with making sure they knew they were not welcome.
And that would be me using my right of free speech in answer to them using theirs. If they have a right to do that I have the right to express my distaste of it, within reason.
Kwea
[ February 09, 2005, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Could someone please explain where they get that neo-con's want to surpress free speech?
And no using Jay as an example - that would be tautological at this point.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Perhaps you should look up "rights", as your statement doesn't make any sense.
Be fair. He said, "We have the right to", not implying that he agreed we should have such a right, just describing the current facts. Then he said, in essence, that the right ought not to exist. This may be a touch fascist, but it is not nonsensical.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Could someone please explain where they get that neo-con's want to surpress free speech?
Dunno about the neo-cons, but personally I am in favour of curtailing the free speech of anyone who uses apostrophes for plurals. By lynching, if necessary.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*yawn*
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, the neo-con's ( ) are in favor for an amendment to ban flag burning. That qualifies, right? I don;t like that, and would not hang with anyone who would do such a thing, but they have the right to do so.
What Jay said was that they have the right, but should be arrested. That isn't logically consistent, and seems like nonsense to me.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yeah, we have the right to burn the flag currently. But it would be nice to arrest them for something else. Say, illegal burning. Lighting a fire without a permit.
Sure an anti flag burning amendment would be great. There are so many other ways to protest and it is just so disrespectful. But I can see the free speech arguments, and think the other ways of arresting them might work better.
I like free speech just as much as the next guy. But these acts showing such vial disrespect don’t really need to be put up with in a civil society. We censor various offensive things all the time (FCC regulations, foul language, nudity, sexual acts). Why can’t flag burning and hanging our troops in effigy be included in the same sort of censoring? Just like the KKK guy has a right to spew his hate speech on the corner is fine, but if he would try to put up a burning cross I doubt that would be allowed. There is a difference between the speech and the acts.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Sure an anti flag burning amendment would be great. There are so many other ways to protest and it is just so disrespectful. But I can see the free speech arguments, and think the other ways of arresting them might work better.
What sort of speech was the 1st designed to protect? Respectful speech? The idea that flag-burning should be outlawed because it is disrespectful is a stupid one, unless one thinks the 1st Amendmant should not be in the USC.
It's almost equally amusing to hear people say and agree that, although neither is perfect, conservatives are much more likely to be stupid, intolerant bigots (or else just unwilling to admit they were wrong) than liberals are-and not recognize the irony.
We say the same damn things about each other, while both nodding wisely, reassured in our own superiority, damnit!
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
I'd like to poll those that found this display offensive. Did you assume that the Pearcy's were making a statement about our government or was it aimed at our men and women serving the government? If you assumed it was targeted towards the troops, what, in particular, painted that picture?
I find it a bit presumptious to decry the Pearcy's political protest without truly knowing their stand. I suppose you could attack the ambiguousness of their display but other than that I'm perplexed.
[ February 10, 2005, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm sad to say, Kwea, that the flag-burning amendment more than likely has has originated with the traditional conservative branch, although it has a lot of neo-con supporters as well. Most of its supporters probably do so for more "conservative" reasons.
Probably a meaningless intellectual quibble, but "neo-con" is becoming the left's version of "liberal": a word to hurl at anything the right is doing that they don't like.
Neither the left nor the right is as protective of free speech as they should be.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd like to poll those that found this display offensive. Did you assume that the Pearcy's were making a statement about our government or was it aimed at our men and women serving the government? If you assumed it was targeted towards the troops, what, in particular, painted that picture?
I assumed it was about the government, and I still found it offensive.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It isn;t easy to support someones right to do something you find offensive, so I think you were right about that. I also think that the neo-cons support for it is very vocal, and that a lot of the people who supported such a ban did so before the neo-con movement, back when there was a term for such rabidly conservative people.
Jay, you either repect peoples right to disagree with you, or you don't. You can't, under current law, say that they can disagree but only in the manner which you approve...that is the opposite of free speech.
As a former soldier I really dislike their display, regardless of their intention, becasue it is disresectful of the service in general, and of service members in particular. However, I would allow them to continue their protest ( I can't even really bring myself to say that I "support" then in this at all) because the same law that allows them to do this protecet my right to disagree with them, and guards my right to religious freedom as well.
I haev heard a lot of "slippery slope" arguments in my day, and a lot of them really were not accurate. Free speech is one of the areas where the slippery slope arguments hold true though. I am not willing to give up any of my current rights to free seech, so I have to defend everyones right to free speech. There have been amny examples of represhion all over the world, and most of them began with the suppression of free speech.
Kwea
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think calling the neo-con position conservative is a disservice to conservatives.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
neo-con <> rabidly conservative.
Neo-con is a collection of specific policy goals that aligns more closely with traditionally conservative goals than with traditionally liberal goals, but the philosophical basis is very different.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:"Unfortunately or fortunately this is protected speech by the First Amendment ... so there is nothing we can do about it," Sacramento City Councilman Rob Fong said.
Holy moley. Talk about a spineless politician. Take a stand, one way or another.
[ February 10, 2005, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
They share a lot of the same political values, and the conservatives have used the neo-cons to gain power, so I don't think it is any more than they have asked for....you are judged not only by what you say, but by what you do and who you associate with.
I am not saying that they are the same, I am saying that the neo-cons came mostly from the conservative party, and that before the phrase was coined that is how they would have been know...as conservatives. Not your run of the mill ones, but they sure wouldn't have been liberals, would they?
Kwea
[ February 10, 2005, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
And speaking of taking a stand. . .
I don't find this particularly offensive. We can clearly see that there is some writing on the chest of the clothes-- 'Your Tax Dollars At Work.' Therefore, the message isn't 'Die American Pig-dog!' but that American military resources are being wasted on the war.
They are not encouraging or applauding the deaths of our soldiers.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Scott, I agree with him...as nice as it would be to force then to take it down, there are times when I am glad that we can't under the current Constitution.
I can see both of those...this display is disrespectful, but at least we live here where we are free to do it if we so choose to do so.
[ February 10, 2005, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Actually I believe its been the Neo-Cons who have used the conservatives to gain power, and now have to worry about the conservatives fighting them for power.
Dag, I don' know of any Neo-Con agenda to limit free speech. I do recognize their love for secrecy, deniability, and more secrecy as a tool they use to accomplish other things on their agenda. Free speech is not so much something they are against, but an innocent bystander to be shoved out of their way.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Kwea-- I must be more cynical than you. I see Fong's statment as blatant pandering to both sides of the issue.
Posted by Hermocrates of Syracuse (Member # 7233) on :
Personally I think that it is a deplorable way of voicing his opinion. But I also think that he has the constitutional right to do so. As an american he has the right to say whatever he likes, or demonstrate in whatever way he sees fit. Though we may not agree with him, it is not our decision to make it is his. Though I do find it a tad ironic that he is protesting the very troops that are dieing so that he can protest them. But that is not the point here, the point is that as much as we may disagree with it, it is not our choice and we therefore should leave to him and pay him no further notice.
HOS
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:we therefore should leave to him and pay him no further notice.
Or use our free speech rights to decry him.
Certainly, if he owned a business in town I wouldn't spend money there.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
He isn't protesting the soldiers.
He is protesting the war.
Believe it or not, there's a difference.
Posted by Hermocrates of Syracuse (Member # 7233) on :
A war fought by soldiers who volunteered to serve in the United States Military and swore and oath to defend this nation against all foes, foreign and domestic. When a man signs up for that service he has voluntarily put his life upon the line and knows the dangers far better than the majority of this country does, we should not disrespect their sacrifice, and they knew what they were getting into when they signed up. He has the right to protest it, and he has my respect for utilizing his rights, but I still strongly disgaree with him.
And yes Dagonee, vote with your feet is always a good policy.
HOS
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How do you feel about a display of war photos from the Iraqi war in a museum? What if the photographer is a known dissenter?
The only difference here is public access.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The difference? The photographer is not using an effigy, and not implying that the only result of the soldier's sacrifices are dead soldiers.
Posted by Hermocrates of Syracuse (Member # 7233) on :
Again, he has the right to record whatever he sees, and alter it however he wishes. It is his constitutional right, and one that the soldiers are dying for. People can say anything they want and I am fine with it with two exceptions, Slandering a religion based upon ignorance, and insulting or tainting the soldiers honor, and not respecting and thanking them for their sacrifice, even if you don't agree with the war, we should still all thank the soldiers for what they do for this country. Free speech is one of our most important rights, and even though we may say many stupid things, we must still fight to protect our right to say those stupid things, in whatever forum or battefield neccesary.
HOS
[ February 10, 2005, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Hermocrates of Syracuse ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dag, I think those differences are superficial.
The Pearcy's display isn't showing men covered in bandages and burns.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And I don't, Scott.
Posted by Hermocrates of Syracuse (Member # 7233) on :
The hanging uniform is stating that the only thing coming from this war is a death list, a photographic display is different as Dagonee said because of the abscence of a effigy. Though a photographic display may only show one side of a story, it is a least showing part of the story, and is not just a blatant statement of opinion.
HOS
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Scott is right that there is a difference, and I think it is dangerous to confuse the difference.
Do you believe that all war is above protest? Do you believe that criticism of the Bush administration is disrespectful of the bodyguards, secretaries, or cooks in the White House? Should we never speak out against policies and actions we feel are dangerous to our country because that would be disrespectful of the men and women who simply work there?
I think it could be argued that the display in question was actually acutely respectful of our troops. I think the protest is stating that our soldiers lives are being squandered. That might be disrespectful to those who think all the American deaths in Iraq have been offset by the gains. And some soldiers might believe that too. But isn't it actually respectful of our soldiers and their sacrifices to question if their ultimate sacrifice isn't actually being squandered?
Now you might think that this was a distasteful way to pose the question, but I believe that the shock value was necessary for it to even be noticed. Current zeitgeist, at least in this administration, has so discounted the value of the opinion of nearly half the country that this guy probably felt he needed something that would scream from his rooftop just to be heard at all.
Posted by Hermocrates of Syracuse (Member # 7233) on :
Karl, I was a United States Maring for seven years, and I fought on the ground in Iraq, and have recently returned home. I lost my left leg below the knee due to an IED Improvised Explosive Device. As a soldier in Iraq I saw things I thought I would never see, the birth of a free nation, I saw schools built, infrastructure, I saw the Iraqis joining together as one person to rebuild their nation from the ruin it had become in the years of dictatorship. This mans statement is one of the singularly most insulting things I have seen in the last few years. I was proud to be there, the civilians I met were glad that I was there, they took us into their hearts, and gave us a home away from home. Each man in my unit would have been glad to give up his life for those civilians that we knew. We grew to have such a bond with those around us, they became like family. On the day I was wounded, I was saved not by my fellow soldiers, they too were all out of action as we were on patrol far from help. The villagers came out to us, put out the fires, and carried us on sleds to the nearest hospital, I owe them my life. I would be proud to give up my life for any of those people. And yet even those this man who knows not what we do due to one sided reporting by the media slanders the loss of life by my friends both Marines and Iraqi, I would also gladly die to defend his right to slander me.
HOS
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
What's wrong with a blatant statement of opinion? That criticism baffles me WAY more than the controvery being discussed here.
I think the protest could be read in more than just ONE way, anyway. It's an image of a dead soldier. The body is hanging. Where have we seen images of hanging bodies before and who hung them? Maybe he's saying that the war is only serving to increase hatred of the US and animosity toward our troops. The "Tax Dollars" quote strikes me as an indictment of us as citizens. Clearly not enough people who now are critical of the war were vocal enough about it to have prevented it. Maybe this guy is saying "and for you who don't care that our soldiers are dying (or think it's a noble sacrifice) maybe you should consider that it's hitting you in the pocket book. Will THAT get your attention?"
NOTE: I'm not stating any of that as my opinion. I'm simply stating what I think might be the opinion of the protestor assuming he thought deeply about how he delivered his message.
Personally, though, I'm not that offended, but principally because I don't see this as an affront to our soldiers at all.
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
Has anyone bothered to ask the person who put this display up what he's trying to say?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hanging typically denotes intentional death inflicted on the hung person, with that person being a passive actor with no choice.
You really don't see the difference between a statement that the government is intentionally killing soldiers for the purpose of killing them and presentations demonstrations of the cost of the war in human lives?
It's disrepsectful because it removes the element of choice and volunteerism from the soldier, turning him into a mere victim.
Dagonee
Posted by Hermocrates of Syracuse (Member # 7233) on :
My last post is all I really have left to say on this subject, but I might as well say this. It is his right to say whetever he wants, it's not our business. Vote.
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
Now I'm pretty sure trespassing is crime. I like this part of the story. "There's an Iraqi flag in a window and the homeowner also put up a Palestinian flag in the front window, which has his jewish neighbors across the street perplexed. Marque Cohen/Neighbor said "Both my wife and I are jewish we found it very offensive." What's offensive about a Palestinian flag?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
HOS, if I say that although some good might ultimately come from the war, I firmly believe it was ill advised and untimely and sets a dangerous precident for international relations and was thus a mis-use of our troops, do you feel that I have personally insulted you?
I don't in any way discount your experience or your sacrifice. It's good to have the confirmation that people are generally good everywhere, regardless of the particular trials they have to suffer. I think it is heroic that you chose to serve and stuck with your obligation during a time of war. I was an airman in the USAF for 6 years and did two tours of duty in South Korea. I have great respect for US soldiers. But even heroes can report events with a certain myopia.
quote: As a soldier in Iraq I saw things I thought I would never see, the birth of a free nation, I saw schools built, infrastructure, I saw the Iraqis joining together as one person to rebuild their nation from the ruin it had become in the years of dictatorship.
From most accounts I'm aware of, we're the ones who necessitated much if not most of the rebuilding. Certainly we're the ones who made it necessary to rebuild themselves as a nation. Whether that is a "free" nation and how long it will remain so remains very much to be seen. I hope it does remain free. I hope the Iraqi people prosper. I hope the troops come home quickly. That does not close the debate on whether the war was the best choice to have made at the time, nor whether any individual lives lost on either side weren't too high a price to pay if other means might have worked.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The biggest difference between that and a photo display is that fact that this man's neighbors have to put up with it day in and day out.
You have a right to have whatever opinion you want to have, but I have the right to hold my own opinions, and I resent that fact that he would feel free to impose some dort of one way "conversation" with the public in this manner.
I don't care what his views are, nor will I ever.
Does he have the right to do this? Yes
Should he? If he really wants to, as long as he accepts the fallout from it.
You can't make a contraversial public statement like that and expect everyone to accept it without question. He did this for shock value, plain and simple; there would be no other reason to do it. So if he (or anyone else) complains about the repercussions it rings false.
If you expest people to be civil to you and respect your opinions you have to be the same to them. If you feel you MUST make this type of statement, that is fine..you have that right.
But that right goes both ways. To do this and then complain about harassment is disingenuous at best.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now I'm pretty sure trespassing is crime.
Of course it is. And, of course, this affects the analysis of the offensiveness not at all.
Posted by Hermocrates of Syracuse (Member # 7233) on :
No Karl I found no offense from you, but from the mans blatant direspect for our soldiers sacrifice. Your arguments have been objective for the most part. An as to the rebuilding of a nation, no, where I was there was little to no bombing during the war, but during the reign of Saddam Husseing and his nefarious cohorts, where there had once been three schools, there were now none due to no funding and conscription of the educators, there was no power, no infrastruture, and seventy percent of their crops went to a government storage facility leaving them starving, and no these were not Kurds. During my year there, we built five schools with our own hands, with help from the civilian poulation and the army corp of engineers. We brought in electricity, new farm equipment, and now due to our efforts there are two elementaries, one middle, and two high schools, the second middle is under way, and they now are more than substenance farmers, they now sell theirs goods for great profit in markets near Basrah.
HOS
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Dag wrote:
quote: You really don't see the difference between a statement that the government is intentionally killing soldiers for the purpose of killing them and presentations demonstrations of the cost of the war in human lives?
Presumably this was in response to my post. I wrote:
quote: Where have we seen images of hanging bodies before and who hung them? Maybe he's saying that the war is only serving to increase hatred of the US and animosity toward our troops.
I don't see where what I've written parses with your re-statement of my supposed opinion. You do underscore the ambiguity of the statement by the protestor, however. It quite possible that he didn't mean anything I suggested and that he was in fact trying to be offensive. I'll grant that's possible, but I don't think it's patently offense.
I don't think this is at all a statement that the government is "intentionally killing soldiers for the purpose of killing them". I think you have to make a very giant stretch to reach that conclusion. I don't think anyone has even remotely suggested this. What has been suggested, though, is that perhaps our government has wasted our soldiers lives and our tax dollars in an ill advised and very possibly unnecessary war. Does this protest express this? I think it might. Is that a legitimate opinion and one I could respect? I think it is. Was the method appropriate to the message? I think it might have been done better and with less ambiguity, but I don't find the method patently offensive.
quote: It's disrepsectful because it removes the element of choice and volunteerism from the soldier, turning him into a mere victim.
Our soldiers exercise their volunteerism when they enlist. Beyond that, they have very little element of choice. When they volunteer, they trust that their lives will not be squandered. If they are put in harms way unnecessarily, they have been turned into "mere victims" by the very people they trusted not to do so. Whether this applies to the war in Iraq is precisely the subject of the protest. This also underscores that the protest was more about the WAR than about any individual soldiers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He chose a symbol of inentional murder. That's what is offensive. Whether he meant that or not, the symbology is there. He used a symbol most associated in this country with the lynching of black people - the complete denial of due process or even meaningful access to this country's civil processes.
It doesn't matter if he intended to adopt that baggage - it's present in the display.
That's why people (at least me) find it offensive.
Dagonee
Posted by Hermocrates of Syracuse (Member # 7233) on :
quote: Our soldiers exercise their volunteerism when they enlist. Beyond that, they have very little element of choice. When they volunteer, they trust that their lives will not be squandered. If they are put in harms way unnecessarily, they have been turned into "mere victims" by the very people they trusted not to do so. Whether this applies to the war in Iraq is precisely the subject of the protest. This also underscores that the protest was more about the WAR than about any individual soldiers.
Every marine in my platoon reinlisted the day they were eligible to do so, and at that time we had all been in Iraq for several months with pretty regular combat as well as the death of several friends behind us, each of us had to opportunity to get out, but none of us did. And I would be there still but for the abscence of a neccesary body part.
Posted by Hermocrates of Syracuse (Member # 7233) on :
Dagonee, sorry but its symbolism not symbology, otherwise I agree.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
HOS, thank you for your last post. [edit: penultimate post] I agree that this sort of news is drastically under-reported. If the people are as appreciative of your sacrifices as you say, then you have done a great service not only to them but to our country in terms of "winning hearts and minds".
I do truly feel for you in the loss of your limb. I can't imagine the difficulties you have and will face because of it. This also underscores that the sacrifice of our soldiers goes on and on well after the wars are over. All the more reason to hold our leaders supremely accountable for how they are used.
[Edit: as to your last post, that is laudable of you and shows your support of your work and belief in what you were doing. This sentiment is not universal among the troops, your experience notwithstanding. In this war, I can't blame any soldiers who would have been glad to leave as soon as they could, any more than I'd disparage you for staying.]
[ February 10, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, sorry but its symbolism not symbology, otherwise I agree.
Oops. Minor mental blip.
Posted by Hermocrates of Syracuse (Member # 7233) on :
My thanks Karl, I am getting along fine, the military provides top notch prosthetics and I am using the GI bill to go to college to beocme a police officer, hell I can still out run my brother in a footrace so I should be fine.
But anyway, yes I agree our leaders should be held responsible, but in this case I believe that our soldiers were used to do the right thing, WMDs or not, Iraq was a bad off as Bush made it out to be, and withthe elections, I truly hope that they can create a self sustaing free state.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Dag, I don't doubt you and many others find it offensive. I clearly see how it might be found offensive, especially now that you've clarified what you take away from it. I just don't think it is patently offensive and I didn't see what you saw when I first saw the pictures. What you have expressed is much more thoughtful than most of the "I'm offended" posts, however. You might be right that he intended the message that offends you, but I'd bet he simply didn't think about it in that way, precisely.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What if the soldiers are not 'dying for us?'
If there is no threat to America. . . if the war is a cover up to gain wealth for Bush and his cronies. . . if the White House lied (as opposed to merely being mistaken) about our purposes there. . .
What then?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd bet he simply didn't think about it in that way, precisely.
Very possibly.
Tombstones would have been a much better choice. Or even photos of the casualties.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Get real, Jay. You like Dubya killing off US troops. Makes ya feel like a real man "rah rah"ing way up in bleachers and taking credit for their bravery.
[ February 10, 2005, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Hermocrates of Syracuse (Member # 7233) on :
Any news on what happened to the fellows who tore it down?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I doubt they were caught. If they were, trespass and petty larceny - misdemeanors, probably no jail time assuming no priors.
Posted by Hermocrates of Syracuse (Member # 7233) on :
Apectre, I was there, he didnt kill us off, we fought with honor and with pride and we do so still.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hey look at that, Bean Counter's back.
---
If I'm reading the guy's intent correctly, I think what he was trying to say was pretty close to what punwit first said. If so, I think it's an important point that is being suppressed* in most official channels. However, the guy's choice of ways to express it was very poorly made. It comes across initially as him wanting to hang soldiers and then, even on deliberation, still is (as Dag pointed out) a pretty bad symbol for his complaint (unles h'es trying to say that the American government or it's people are trying to get the soldiers killed.
* The factual reporting is there, but the emotionally resonant images like what this guy seems to be going for have been excised.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I doubt Jay is Bean Counter.
Fills the same ecological niche, though.
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Nope Dag I believe Squick was referring to Hermocrates of Syracuse as BC/Jarhead etc. As I recall he slipped once and signed Bean Counter to a Hermocrates post.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not talking about Jay.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, missed that. He seems a lot more articulate than BC was, but the signature thing is pretty damning.
I stand by the last sentence in my previous post.
[ February 10, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I went back and searched where I thought it was, but several posts have been edited and it could have been deleted. I wish I had facts to back up my recollection though. If the accusation is false I would deeply regret it.
AJ
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I'm sure if you made a mistake it was unintentional. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Was that the same thing you saw, MrSqucky?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Nope, I didn't see that. If we deleted all the stuff up to my initial post and BC hasn't seen them yet, I might be able to show you what I'm talking about, but I'm pretty sure that chance is gone. *shrug* No big deal really.
[ February 10, 2005, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Was it ever proven that BC was impersonating a soldier? If he got caught once I would be somewhat surprised to see him try it again with HOS.
Sorry, HOS, for all this fuss. We've been burned before. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BC admitted it at one point. Someone dug out the thread at some point in the last month.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Thanks Dag. I lost track after a while.
/derailment
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The person BC admitted to being was DisgruntledPostman, IIRC.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
To be fair, I was never quite sure that BC “admitted” that. Right after someone accused him of being Disgruntled Postman, he posted something along the lines of, “yeah, I’ve been lying about what I do this whole time, I’m really an upset postal worker from [some town]. If you want to send mail I’m sure this guy would be glad to get it.” Followed by a name and armed forces mailing address. I think the post may have been an attempt at sarcasm based on the “Disgruntled Postman” accusation.
I didn’t post at the time, or the last few times this has been brought up, because I think he was an inconsiderate and disruptive poster and I’m glad he’s gone. But I’ve been feeling a little guilty about that. I know he was using at least two IDs, because I (along with others) saw him accidentally sign the wrong name to one of them, and he was definitely using the two IDs to manipulate conversations. I still think he was a troll, but he might have been an actual military troll rather than a civilian impersonating a soldier troll.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dana, I never thought of that, but you're right - it could be interpreted that way.
Dagonee
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
But now BC could be a guerrilla troll, a military troll blending in to the civilian troll population. He could be anyone!
Then we would need military trolls trained in counterinsurgency to handle him.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think it's in poor taste. My first impression is uncertainty as to the meaning of the gesture. It very clearly (to me) can be interpreted the way that Trisha did. In fact, that's the direction I lean toward. I can understand how others view it differently, but the very ambiguity makes it a poor choice.
I agree with those who have said that they recognize their right to protest like this, but would reply with their feet or their dollars (or their own voices). I don't think this is contrary to the principals of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not equate to lack of consequences for speech. The government should not interfere. The neighbors shouldn't vandalize his property. The law should not be broken. But if people want to express their opposition to this message in other ways, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Having taken a day to ponder on this topic I see several areas of discussion. Originally I was under the impression that the outrage was fueled by disgust at the message that the Pearcys were sending. I wasn't surprised that some saw it as an indictment of our troops but I surely don't see it that way and unless we hear it from the horses' mouth we won't know for sure.
Following that line of thought leads us to Dagonee who said,
quote: I assumed it was about the government, and I still found it offensive.
So now we see that at least some of us don't hate the message but, rather the vehicle.(I'm assuming this was what Dag meant, although I could be wrong) I'd suggest that this falls under the category of poor choice. I can see this line of reasoning but I am still perplexed at the amount of anger generated.
I guess the point I'm getting at is that the level of greivance must be a combination of the vehicle as well as the message.
*ends blundering about blindly trying to make some sense*
Edit to clarify that the poor choice comment was directed at the Pearcy's method of protesting and not Dag's opinion.
[ February 10, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Then we would need military trolls trained in counterinsurgency to handle him.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I am offended by the style of the message, but not the substance, assuming that the issue is the misuse of the American military for selfish or foolish purposes rather than any misconduct on the part of the troops. I agree that there are so many better ways of expressing this, some of which are sufficiently thought-provoking. The "Your Tax Dollars at Work" on a flag-draped coffin, for example.
The hanging American soldier leaves too much open to interpretation, and the desecration of the uniform is distasteful to me. Sure, there are some soldiers who do horrible things, but many (I'd guess most) are good and honorable people. If you're going to hang an effigy, hang someone who deserves it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
dkw, that isn't all that happened. He signed BC to disgruntled postmans post, and then a few posts later said, oops I guess the secret is out now.
The he went on to "admit" that he wasn't a soldier and wasn't about to head to Iraq, as he claimed to be doing.
Then he posted saying that he didn't know why people were saying that, could they please get back on topic....with a snicker at the bottom.
He was Disgruntled Postman as well as BC, although he never admitted he was Jar Head.
No doubt about it.
I have no idea if he is currently posting as anyone else here, I must have missed it.
One thing I do know, as my aunt was a Marine for years, and was one of the highest ranking Rapid Deployment Officers .........the Marines missed their recruiting goals for the first time since Vietnam this year. At least that is what she told me.
Also, the Marines retention rates are lower then they have ever been, and re-enlisting is a moot point....the Marines aren't letting people go any more than the other branches are, they are forcing people to stay in even though their term of service is up.
Kwea
[ February 11, 2005, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)