I dunno, I don’t see why we need to have this slavish adherence to the “rules” (which seem to me a LOT more like traditions that just happen to be codified) in this case. I think it’s unusual enough to merit an exception - I certainly don’t see Eleanor Roosevelt objecting…
I expect she will met it with the same calm equanimity that she has exhibited for lo! these many years.
[QUOTE=Leaper]
I dunno, I don’t see why we need to have this slavish adherence to the “rules” (which seem to me a LOT more like traditions that just happen to be codified) in this case. I think it’s unusual enough to merit an exception…QUOTE]
As has already been pointed out by Brutus and Poly, the rules are open to modification when the President deems it appropriate.
If this current situation is not appropriate, then fuck me over with a big sledgehammer, 'cos I dunno what else could possibly fit the criteria.
:rolleyes:
As far as I can tell, the argument is that since no head of state or anything died during the tsunamis, then the RULES SAY that they cannot be honored with the half-staff flag.
That seems… inhumane to me somehow, to value “not cheapening the RULES” over honoring a tragedy of this magnitude. I know those who agree with the OP don’t see it this way, and I’m not sure I can explain why, but it’s just how it feels to me.
Then you didn’t read the fucking cite.
I thought I did. I guess I misread or misunderstood it.
Oh well.
(My bolding)
See?
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes: right back. So what’s the problem?
I don’t see where in the rules/custom/guidelines or whatever they’re called any mention of under what circumstances the half-staff flag mustn’t be used. The President just gets to decide.
Have you not been keeping up with current events?
Exactly. What’s the problem?
I think you might be a tad confused about who’s saying what here Tracy.
:smack:
I’ll just be over here in Idiot Corner. Can I at least blame the last vestiges of a New Year’s hangover?
You’re forgiven. 
Hey, I’ve been relegated to Idiot Corner too many times to recall. But I didn’t have a New Year’s hangover to hang it on, more’s the pity. 
Left-wing, even for Australia, chiming in. And yes, flags are just pieces of coloured cloth, but with looooots of meaning for those who choose to invest meaning in them. Which doesn’t include me.
Post 9/11 the US flag was flown on one side of the apex of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Aus flag on the other, both at half mast. It was there, large as could be, not because a head of state or dignitary was dead, but to show our grief at YOUR loss, and to show we stood with you in your grief. Damn near stopped my heart when I saw it, and I finished that crossing with new tears in my eyes.
Should flags be lowered when “no-one important” dies in an massive international catastrope? When people not of your country die?
Hell yes. It is a symbol for acknowledging a great loss, and showing respect for other countries’ grief.
I have no brief for Bush, but in this he did right. And if you’re a stickler. the rules allow him the latitude to make such a decision.
Here, directly C&Ped from post 20 of this thread (one of Brutus’s posts here), is the relevant information:
Sec. 10. — Modification of rules and customs by President
Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of America, set forth herein, may be altered, modified, or repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed, by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, whenever he deems it to be appropriate or desirable; and any such alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in a proclamation
Basically, the POTUS is well within his right as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States to have the flag at half-staff at his every whim if he sees so fit to do.
I think that Mame has nabbed it all in one single, erudite post.
Ew. I thought that might be off. That should read “if he sees fit to so do.”
[sub]The implications of the quoted phrase are mighty amusing, though:D[/sub]
Heh. Slowpoke. This thread has been there and done that already.
But I’ll forgive you too for your lack of previewing etc. Geez, I’m such a benevolent soul, I even amaze myself with my boundless vituosity.
Yup, Bush did the right thing this time.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go lie down and recover from typing that.
Yeah, I’d say so. They have enough resources to fund a nuclear program, they can certainly pay for their part of the disaster. They have been in general refusing aid recently http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2003/0708india.htm .
"… “India wants to see itself as an emerging regional power with the ambition of having a permanent seat on the [United Nations] Security Council,” he said.
India cannot easily achieve this ambition as long as it depends on foreign aid. …"
and
" … some western aid officials believe that the decision stems from New Delhi’s view that European donors often packaged their aid with sermons about human rights, corruption and good governance. …"