pudge's Journal: Some Thoughts

In The Simpsons tonight, they had an American flag up on the wall, backward. When on the wall vertically, the field of blue goes in the top left, just like if it were horizontal. This episode was moderately antiwar. Infamous officer/criminal Ehren Watada also habitually includes the backward flag in his appearances.

The Pat Tillman statue is ... unattractive. Frankly, the hair looks stupid.

*sigh* The Simpsons...

[ellem]

OK, we get it... you're against the war.

Can you guys even pretend you're going to make us laugh? Or are we all supposed to trot off to the Movie for that?

Re:

[FroMan]

Hmmm, not that it is likely to bother you, but I found the Simpsons too raunchy after buying a couple seasons. The earliest seasons were pretty funny since they took shots at everyone, but from what I hear now if it isn't a conservative they are given a pass.

Re:

[ellem]

Too raunchy? Perhaps. You must crawl out of your skin when you catch The Family Guy.

last week American Dad had a gay couple with matching cars with License plates that read PITCHER CATCHER

Even I thought that was over the top for Sunday @ 2030.

Re:

[FroMan]

Heh, never seen Family Guy. I just finally got around to watching V for Vendetta. It wasn't until after watching it, then watching the "making of" that I realized it was Natalie Portman. Pop culture just doesn't affect me since I avoid most of it. Mostly I avoid it because it tends to be trashy or vulgar.

Backwards flag

[giverson]

Odd thing about that - we noticed when visiting the Air and Space annex near Dulles that the flag on one side of the space shuttle was backwards. We're not quite sure why that is, but it seems pretty typical for space shuttles.

http://www.edwards.af.mil/history/images/enterpris e.jpg [af.mil]

If you look closely you can see it there. A better picture is here:

http://gregr.smugmug.com/keyword/shuttle/1/5640680 4/Medium [smugmug.com]

While writing this I remembered that a guy in my office just got out of the Air Force.

Re:

[GMontag]

On stuff that moves the field is forward, like on the right sleve of a soldier's uniform, right side of a car, right side of an aircraft, etc.

Re:

[pudge]

Yep. For horizontal flags.

Re:

[ahamilton]

Title 4 of the US Code prescribes the display of the flag [gpo.gov]. In short, the union is always on the left if the flaq is fixed, or in the directional of forward motion on a moving display. On a flag pole, the union is always closest to the peak (although an inverted flag is a recognized though unlegislated signal of distress). There are other guidelines, such as the union being either to the north or to the east when you can approach the flag from two directions, as you can when the flag is suspended over a walk

Ehren Watada

[John M W 321]

Thanks for the link about Mr. Watada. Did he have a trial? I thought he was only facing charges. When I saw you write that he is a criminal, I was thinking about this American principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

You are a journalism major; is it libel to write that someone is a criminal, before their trial and conviction?

Re:

[pudge]

Thanks for the link about Mr. Watada. Did he have a trial? I thought he was only facing charges. When I saw you write that he is a criminal, I was thinking about this American principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

I am not in the justice or law enforcement system. No such presumption is required of me. If I were a judge or police officer, I would not say such a thing, but I am not. It's kinda like complaining to a coffee shop about "freedom of speech" because they won't let you pass out some flyers

Re:

[John M W 321]

Thanks for that. You know more about libel than I do.

I actually think his actions are honorable, as much as I saw in Wikipedia. He studied the issue, he made conclusions, and his actions were deliberate and not done in the heat of battle. But he put himself in a category the military was not prepared for; not a conscientious objector to war, but to a specific war.

I wonder what oath he took in entering the service?

I wonder why the military did not work with the issue more; say send him to Afganistan

Re:

[pudge]

I actually think his actions are honorable, as much as I saw in Wikipedia. He studied the issue, he made conclusions, and his actions were deliberate and not done in the heat of battle. But he put himself in a category the military was not prepared for; not a conscientious objector to war, but to a specific war.

First, his analysis of the war's legality is flatly incorrect. The war is legal, period. There's simply no question on that matter. There is the UN Charter which supposedly outlaws wars of aggress

Re:

[dr_turgeon]

Because the military doesn't work that way. You are ordered to go, and you go.

I don't believe blind obedience is what the modern military (or state, but I am a progressive) demands. You would be correct in pointing out that it has often worked that way in the past. Additionally, I could list many great figures (perhaps ones that you would admire) who were labeled as criminal; that would require hours to type.

Yes, this cuts both ways. I know conservatives (usually religious) who forget that Jesus was condemn

Re:

[pudge]

I don't believe blind obedience is what the modern military (or state, but I am a progressive) demands.

It's not. But this is not about that. You're missing the point. You have a right -- indeed, an obligation -- to question the legality of orders. But there is no legitimate question of legality regarding the orders he was given, nor indeed regarding the war he was ordered to serve in. You don't have the right to question orders you merely don't like, or that are "immoral" according to whatever you happ

Re:

[ahamilton]

Soldiers in the US military take an oath that does not say anything about following every order: I, ...., affrim that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance in the same, and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Watada, however is an officer. His oath is

Re:

[ahamilton]

[totally boffed the last reply's formatting :(]

Soldiers in the US military take an oath that does not say anything about following every order:

I, ...., affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance in the same, and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice