What's Wrong With This Picture?

The flag should never touch the ground. I know that.

I'm not sure of the protocol of putting an image of the flag on a doormat but if anything I think it's in bad taste.



Violation #2. "In July 2003 President Bush autographed a small flag. This picture was circulated across the Internet noting its violation of the Flag Code: "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature." Photo credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak"



Violation #3. "
"No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America."
"... It should not be ... printed or otherwise impressed on ... anything that is designed for temporary use and discard."

The icing on a cake would generally be eaten, digested, and "discarded" in a most disrespectful way. We suggest that it is an inappropriate display of the flag."

Yeah, I'm a screaming liberal and Democratic Leftard as well. But I don't disrespect my flag.

 

Thus proving our President cares as much about the flag as he does the country it represents.

 

I love it that the president wipes his feet on the flag. It's a scrap of cloth for crying out loud! He can wipe his butt with it for all I care, and nobody would be hurt by it.

Now when he illegally invades a country for purely cynical and political motives, brutally killing tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of innocent non-combatant civilians and turning the entire country into chaos, then I think he should be thrown in jail. But he can put whatever pattern he likes on his doormats and his toilet paper.

The fetish some people have for the flag is insane.

But I'll disagree with Evan on one point: I don't think Bush cares a rat's nice person for the United States of America. He cares about imposing his narrow, bigoted religion on the nation, he cares about making money out of political graft, and he might even care about making his political cronies rich and paying back the favors he owes to the Saudi princes who bankrolled his failed oil companies. But he sure doesn't care about the American people.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 9 2007, 11:48 PM) [snapback]509860[/snapback]</div>

I have to disagree with you. GWB does not care about the country or its founding fathers. And I quote...

2005/12/09

I wish this this was made more public. <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 9 2007, 09:09 PM) [snapback]509871[/snapback]</div>

Of that I will agree completely on the grounds that nearly every environmental regulation he has removed during his time in office has a direct effect on the American people. Many of those corporations liberated were already in litigation for violating public health and environmental regulations. By liberating these corporations he has subverted the democratic process and knowingly allows pollution into communities (familiarize yourself with the Smithfield Foods debacle). So tell me, how can one truely care about his people when you knowingly poisons them on a regular basis? If he is truely THAT STUPID then he has no business being in such a seat of power. I used to think being president of the United States would be very difficult and required much education. I don't believe that anymore. You just have to know how to play the mafia game well.

As for the flag. I do not buy into all the reverence and worshipping. I do think there is a level of respect it should be afforded and I abide by the basic "rules" out of respect but it gets a bit out of hand at times. I've seen many a fight start because some dumbass rednecks get upset when some guy is dancing and forgets to take his hat off during Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA". That is utter stupidity in my opinion.

Here is a small piece of a testimony submitted by a WaterKeepers Alliance representative Richard Dove regarding Smithfield Foods and CAFOs in general.

"Over the past thirty years we have seen some of the post popular and effective environmental laws ever enacted in our country’s history. The creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Acts improved our rivers, streams, and groundwater as well as the air we breathe. These laws and regulations, while not yet fully implemented, have helped protect our forests, parks and wildlife. As a direct result, the quality of life in America has substantially improved. Clearly, this period has been one of the most progressive and prosperous in our nation’s history.



There have been periods of darkness as well. A serious threat to our environment and its dependant economy were under heavy assault during the 104th Congress. Fortunately, under the strong leadership of President Clinton and his administration, America weathered that storm.



Now our environment and economy are once again being placed in serious jeopardy. The environmental laws and regulations that promoted the strong economy of the 1990s are being attacked once again, this time not by a wayward Congress but by a President out of touch with the importance of a healthy environment—a President and an administration blinded by corporate interests.



President Bush’s disregard of the nexus between good environmental policies and a healthy economy is not surprising. His record in Texas predicted it (see APPENDIX D). While anti-environmental statements did not flow from his lips during the presidential campaign, actions immediately following his oath of office gave clear warning of what was in store.



Through his Chief-of-Staff, President Bush issued a directive that prevents a series of Clinton environmental actions from taking place. The directive imposed a moratorium that effectively prevented any new rules from being printed in the Federal Register until they were specifically approved by the administration. That blocked most of Clinton's executive orders. These directives specifically targeted environmental restrictions on runoff from animal feeding operations. President Bush also proclaimed that many older regulations would be actively reviewed and possibly rescinded.



While America’s attention has been focused on the war against terrorism, President Bush has been quietly unraveling federal rules established to implement the environmental laws of our country and to safeguard our natural resources. We once again risk corporations who profit from pollution gaining the upper hand. The progress we made and from which we economically benefited over the past thirty years is fading fast.



Specifically, after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the Bush administration began to intensify its effort to turn back the environmental clock by gutting old and new environmental rules and regulations. With the nation focused on the war, the Bush administration weakened Clean Air and Water initiatives and enforcement, weakened wetland protections, gave a green light to pollution based mining activities, blocked rules that would minimize raw sewage discharges into waterways and gave new power to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to weaken and tie up existing environmental rules.



The citizens of this country need and deserve protection from the environmental and health dangers posed by CAFOs and the industry giants who control them. EPA must focus on the protection of the environment, not protection of the livestock industry.



Although they failed to do everything necessary to solve the environmental and health problems from CAFOs, EPA’s January 12 regulations were a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, EPA’s November 12 CAFO regulations propose to diminish even these improvements.



The EPA must refocus its efforts on promulgating CAFO regulations that will fully protect the environment. It is the house in which we live. The Congress should see to it that the President lives up to his responsibilities to protect our environment, which in turn protects our national heritage and national security.



Respectfully submitted,

Rick Dove

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Sep 9 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]509853[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I have to disagree.

I just think he's ignorant of the flag rules. Which I consider to be inexcuseable in a President. But I don't consider it to be lack of caring, just lack of education. I believe he has people who *do* know the rules and may have even tried to educate him on them. But I believe he is also fails to heed the advice of those who know better than he does. Another failing.

All told this just makes him stupid, not uncaring.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 10 2007, 12:35 AM) [snapback]509900[/snapback]</div>

OK, I'll give him signing the flag, that was one of those in-the-moment things. I'll even give him the cake - he has no control over what the caterers will provide. Also, as far as we know, in that photo he's saying "I can't cut this up! That would be desecration!" (OK, so probably not, but I'm trying...). However, deliberately stepping on it? Isn't that an OBVIOUS no-no?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 9 2007, 09:19 PM) [snapback]509875[/snapback]</div>

This is where we disagree. I understand the point. But my view of Bush differs from yours. I think he is cynical and self-serving, as well as stupid.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 10 2007, 06:45 AM) [snapback]510004[/snapback]</div>

I respect your view, but I do not share it. I do not deliberately desecrate symbols without an overriding reason. (I would burn a flag if it were necessary to start a fire and the flag was the only kindling available; but I would not burn it just to show my disrespect for it.) But I do not afford them any special respect.

There are people out there who would kill a human being for stealing their TV set, but who would be outraged if someone used a flag for kindling to build a fire that was needed to save the life of someone suffering from hypothermia. To me, such people are entirely off kilter.

 

Being a life-long sailor, I am also a student of flag etiquette. If someone intentionally mistreats the flag to make a point, then that's their business, but it bothers me when people misuse the flag simply because they don't know any better. It especially bothers me when it's someone who should know better, and who should know better than the President of the United States? He has a whole staff of people to address these etiquette issues; he should know better.

Tony, one of my pet peeves with the American flag involves which hoist to use. Somewhere along the line people got the notion that the American flag is always flown from the highest spot, which is rubbish. The American flag is supposed to be flown from the place of honor. Granted, this is usually the highest spot, but not always. On gaff rigged sailing vessels, the place of honor is at the tip of the gaff, not the truck of the mast. Not many people have gaff rigged sailing vessels these days, but in coastal communities like ours there are a lot of gaff rigged flag poles (they have a nice yachty look). Being a replica of a sailing rig, the same flag etiquette applies to a gaff rigged flagpole as a gaff rigged sailing vessel. Many of these flagpoles feature American flags mistakenly flown from the truck, which is third in terms of honor. Proper etiquette states that the club burgee is flown from the truck, the state flag from the yard, and the American flag from the gaff.

Tom

 

My two cents (in no particular order):

1. Funny how it was considered unpatriotic and near-treasonous when Abbie Hoffman created and wore a shirt made out of the American Flag, but was considered patriotic and fashionable when Ralph Lauren made and sold (a lot of) sweaters with a very large image of the American Flag all over the front of it.

2. Why is it that we have to stand (and maybe sing) The Star Spangled Banner before sporting events? Imagine having to do that before a movie or a play?

And it gets worse at many major league baseball games when during the seventh inning stretch, instead of singing Take Me Out to the Ballgame, we have to stand (and maybe sing) Irving Berlin's God Bless America --- which song disgusted Woody Guthrie so much that he wrote This Land is Your Land in response. And during the Vietnam War, God Bless America came to symbolize the pro-war side.

3. Chorus from John Prine's Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore:

But, your flag decal won’t get you
Into Heaven anymore.
They’re already overcrowded
From your dirty little war
Now Jesus don’t like Killin’
No matter what the reasons for.
And your flag decal won’t get you into Heaven anymore.

4. I'm obviously not into flag-waving, and I think it is too often a dangerous call to colors for war or worse. However, I won't "desecrate" the flag because I understand a lot of people's well intentioned, symbolic attachment to it. But I refrain from desecrating the flag out of common politeness, civility and respect to and for others. I don't think you need to or should have a law prohibitting flag desecration ... this ends up being a prohibition against speech and political protest.

 

I don't think most people are really up on flag ediquite, but the bush standing on the Flag Rug could be some photo trickery. I never take these things at face value.

Flag patterns are not supposed to be used as a design on clothing, except for the flags on uniforms.

And the President is supposed to be the only one who can authorize flying the flag at half mast.

 

What I really find funny, and a bit sad, is that the Betsy Ross site is hosting such an obvious photo-shop fake. I particularly like the way there's a strong backlight on the wall, a strong sidelight on the Pres, and shadows as if they were toplit. That, of course, and the oddness of the angles. As if that weren't enough, actual photos from the purported date (Sept 11 2006) show the first lady in slacks ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...233-2-515h.html ).

But all this begs the question...is a photoshopped flag violation as serious as real one?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 10 2007, 12:09 AM) [snapback]509871[/snapback]</div>

You're entitled to your view, but it's not a bad idea to respect those who think otherwise. Many folks (not just soldiers who survived the revolution, or the civil war, ww1, ww2, korea, vietnam, etc ... and those still living are willing to kick folks nice person and willingly spend time in jail for doing so to those who smear the symbal of the flag and what they feel it stands for) take it as personal. Some take it personal to the level as if someone photoshoped your child next to a known molester. Even the fed Supreme Court have considered giving protection to the flag, for respect to all who have died to give us what we have. We don't have to "get it" ... ie; agree with the view, but we CAN still show viewpoint respect. Too often, we seem to not be able to respect another's viewpoint (and I'm pointing at myself) ... whether it's the flag, or the dem's or the neocons, or the tree huggers, or the red necks, or what ever the FHOP topic may be. R. E. S. P. E. C. T.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NoMoShocks @ Sep 10 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]510082[/snapback]</div>

It seems that the doormat picture is real.Its in the section
"Flag Code Violations in the News"
"September 11, 2006, President Bush and first lady Laura Bush stand on a carpet of the American flag at Ground Zero in Manhattan, the site of the September 11, 2001 attack. Section 8b of the Flag Code reads, " The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground..." Photo credit: Reuters/Jason Reed"

I can just imagine if Bill Clinton or any current Democratic candidate had made the same faux pas.It would have been plastered on the front page of every news outlet.Pundits would discuss for weeks the lack of judgement.Compare how the press treated Howard Dean's scream or John Kerry's go to school joke.The Bush occurrence is seriously the actions of an idiot.There are not many Americans who would consciously step upon a flag.
As a metaphor for the entire Bush era I couldnt dream of a better representation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Sep 10 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]510102[/snapback]</div>

Just because someone attributes something to a source doesn't make it so. You can see real pictures of people standing in front of that memorial wall at http://www.fdnytenhouse.com/fdnywall/wall.htm . In the fake photo, Bush is standing partially in the first square of pavement off the wall, yet somehow is taller than the bronze memorial. It's an obvious fake.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 10 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]510087[/snapback]</div>

The photo of the first lady in slacks was taken at the Pentagon.The flag pic was in NYC.
Heres another pic from NYC 9/11 2006 with Laura Bush in a skirt.[attachmentid=11331]
Search "Reuters/Jason Reed" and the byline is real and for a legitimate press photographer.http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&q=Reuters/Jason+Reed+&btnG=Search+Images

I dont see any obvious indication of photoshop just from the lighting.Its ambient light from various sources not on camera flash.There are bounce lights on the wall which appear yellowish.The main light on Bush is probably overhead flourescent.