Btw, on re-reading that I realized that it looks like I’m referring to that poster as being assholish. I want to emphasize that I’m not. I was simply adding that because of other things that happen frequently that make people in other countries roll their eyes at Americans.
I never said he broke the law. I said he showed disrespect.
Are you putting words in my mouth?
I guess I was misunderstanding your entire rant, then, Reeder. Or perhaps you have another unspoken reason to both quote a law and to rant about someone not following it blindly?
FELLOW DOPERS–
I thought we were supposed to be sophisticated (if uninformed re: this or that).
S’howcome nobody has a clue that this OP is (very likely) written tongue in cheek?
Its point being that America’s right-wing gets very worked up about (perceived) patriotism and (arguable) disrespect for national symbols WHEN people they don’t care for anyway (the Clintons et al) can be tagged as the perpetrators–but when it’s their buddies, they get a pass.
And the left does the same thing.
Purity of soul finds no place in politics. But it helps to have, if not a sense of humor, at least a concept of irony.
If december can post daily Democrat-bashing drive-bys based on nothing more than an editorial in the Wall Street Journal or a random blog somewhere for months without getting any diciplinary action, I think Reeder should be given some leeway for a periodic Bush-bash, as silly as the reasoning may be. 
It’s only a “periodic Bush-Bash” if you consider periodic to be at least five times a week.
That’s once every week day. Kinda like getting to watch all the hilarity of Friends on the WB.
Flip the script.
“President Bush, can I get your autograph?”
“Well, no, citizen! I can’t sign this, it’s a flag!”
“But, Mr. President…”
“I can’t desecrate a flag!”
“It’s a 4x5 inch piece of paper!”
“It’s a flag. Sorry. Who’s next? Who has paper? Nobody? Oh well then! Thanks everybody, see you soon!”
Fast-forward 24 hours on the SDMB.
Great Debates: “Bush Refuses Autographs for Citizens”
IMHO: “Bush Shouldn’t Disappoint People If He Wants To Be Re-elected”
BBQ Pit: “Real Nice Attitude, President A$$hole!”
I’d like to point out that I personally (being a non-American) never roll my eyes towards the USA, or her citizens in particular. It’s never a gracious thing to do in my opinion. If I have a position which is contrary to an American’s position on some given thing, I’ll happily state that position as articulately as possible, without resorting (hopefully) to an offensive kinda tone.
But you know, it has to be said in the interests of fairness that often, you poor Americans are damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.
Take Liberia for instance. I’m hearing commentators the world over demanding that USA step up to the plate and make things better. But I’m not hearing anyone bring such pressure for example onto the Chinese, or the French, or the Russians, or the Germans. This is a dreadful, unenviable position to be in if you’re an American citizen. On countless occasions, I’ve heard it said that the genocide in Rwanda in 1995 could have been prevented if ONLY the USA had gotten involved. And this is a patently ridiculous thing to say. Many, many other countries could have made the effort to send a massive stablising force to sort out Rwanda - and yet, none of them tried to do such a thing (to the best of my recollection). At least in terms of mobilising a massive force. I’m not talking about pitiful numbers lke 1,500 troops for example.
And now, in another perverse form of hand-sitting, Iraq seems to be unravelling badly, and all those countries who sit on the Security Council who COULD, if they chose to be genuinely magnanimous and actually put the well-being of Iraqi citizens in FRONT of international posturings, well they COULD lend a helping hand to the USA and actually make things in Iraq an awful lot better, an awful lot quicker. Both by helping economically AND by providing troops on the ground. But noooooooooooo… I suspect said countries would prefer to relish the USA suffering a humiliation rather than actually helping the poor bastards within Iraq herself.
So, certainly it’s true - being an American at the moment is a tough job - regardless of whether your President is a hawk or a dove - you’re always going to be bashed from pillar to post by those who say you’re going too far, or not doing enough.
Nonetheless, it still pays to be gracious on the world stage I find. It never goes astray. The USA is Number One in many, many areas - doubtless - but humility on this is a wise course of action, every time. And without doubt, there is a perception amongst non-Americans that there is a culture of all-consuming worshipping of symbols within America - such as flags and Presidential seals, and stuff like that - and that sort of thing is very easy to be interpreted the wrong way I find. The very symbols which you use to affirm your internal pride, are those symbols which are used (by non-Americans who have a grudge to bear against the USA) to rub into your face.
So, you’re saying this random anti-Bush rant is cogent?
Actually, I agree it’s a pretty silly thing to attack Bush over. The hypocrisy angle is the only thing that makes it even remotely worthy of public criticism.
Dewey Cheatem Undhow:
He’s signing it for people who want it, not as an act of protest and not to be flown. This differs greatly from true flag disrespect in which people fly it in poor shape, poor weather, poor lighting, etc…or even burn it.
Obviously, some signs of respect for the flag - as in getting someone famous to sign it - are tehcnically against the suggested flag care protocol, but there is no misinterpreting the intentions, lest you just an biased Bush hater.
I know people who love and respect thier kids, parents, country and their "god(s)’…and even their flag. It doesn’t mean that they have a 100% pefect track record according to all protocols.
Since we are focusing on flag protocol, what specific part of the ‘rules’, per se, indicate what the meaning of signing or improperly marking a flag is? In other words, while signing it should not be done, if one does sign it, how would this be interpreted accordng to the rules? A flag so adorned is unfit to be flown, afaik, but beyond that…
You’re right, Reeder.
Somewhere among my late father’s posessions is an American flag signed by all the members of his company that survived WWII.
I’m gonna look up every one of them commie sumbitches and thrash ‘em within an inch of their desecratin’ lives.
Just a question…
If that’s the rule, what about military flags stating the regiment and past battles??
No, I am saying it is still a stupid thing to attack Bush over. There was no intent to desecrate, anymore than respectfully burning a soiled or damaged flag is an attempt to desecrate the flag.
And the hypocrisy comes in from the utter silence of the Usual Suspects when Clinton does it, and the instant attack when Bush does it.
As always.
Regards,
Shodan
But as I noted above, Clinton was against amending the Constitution to ban “desecrating” the flag. I do think that if you’re going to favor a friggin’ Constitutional amendment to ban “flag desecration”, you ought to be careful to follow all the rules yourself.
Well, maybe not. For one thing, this heinous crime against God and Country apparently took place in Livonia, Michigan, not the District of Columbia. It’s also not clear if this was done “for exhibition or display”, although ya gotta figure people with a Presidentially-autographed flag would want to show it to the folks back home. (“Lookie, here, Marge, the President himself signed our flag!”)
As I mentioned in my first post in the thread, I do not consider the President signing a flag to be desecration in any sense that would be addressed by a Constitutional amendment.
If you want to accuse me of hypocrisy, please provide a cite where I condemned Clinton for signing the flag, as Dewey has demonstrated he did. Or perhaps a cite where Bush attacks Clinton for signing the flag, which would be evidence that Bush was being hypocritical.
So far, the only demonstrated hypocrisy is coming from those who agree that Bush is desecrating the flag by signing it, and should be condemned/impeached/roundly criticized, but meet the evidence that Clinton did the very same thing with resounding silence.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, think of all the women who fought and died for the flag…
…at K-mart when it went on Blue Light Special. 