New Tea Party Target: Roger Ebert
Roger Ebert is getting a little taste of some very nasty tea...from tea partiers IRATE at the nerve of Roger Ebert for an offhand tweet he made in response to the California teens disciplined for wearing American flag t-shirts at a Cinco de Mayo school event.
Ebert tweeted:
Kids who wear American Flag t-shirts on 5 May should have to share a lunchroom table with those who wear a hammer and sickle on 4 July.
Well, you know that co-opting the favorite symbol of the tea party crowd wasn't going to set well, especially when you imply the perhaps there is a lack of empathy going on.
There are a few points of etiquette most of us learn early:
- Always send thank-you cards.
- Don't talk with your mouth full.
- Don't mock those who have battled cancer and won.
Those crazy tea partiers? They forgot lesson number three.
It seems they've worked themselves into a tizzy over Roger Ebert's comments on Twitter in response to the case in California where five kids were sent home early from school for wearing American flag garb on Cinco de Mayo.[..]
CNN.com reported response tweets from the Tea Party Tweeters like: “I mean honestly. How many pieces need to fall off @ebertchicago before he gets the hint to shut the (expletive) up” and “You know, @ebertchicago, I’m not as expert on flag etiquette as you. Tell me, which do I fly when you die of cancer?”
Hoo boy. You stay classy now. Ebert, bless his heart, has battled far more formidable foes than your nasty little tea bagger, so he's been giving as good as he's gotten on Twitter (follow him here: @ebertchicago). He also blogged about it in more than 140 characters on his blog:
The impression is spreading that I have drawn an equation between the American flag and the hammer and the sickle. I'm currently serving for target practice on some right-wing websites, and a group of Tweeters are having jolly fun portraying me as an America hater and worse.[..]
[My post] was tweeted at the height of the discussion over five white California kids who wore matching t-shirts to school on Cinco de Mayo, and were sent home by their school. This inspired predictable outrage in the usual circles.
Tweeted from lonestarag05: Its the USA not Mexico. They are allowed to be proud of their country. I wonder sometimes why you even stay here.
Many others informed me that Americans have the right to be proud of our flag, and wear it on T-shirts. Of course they do. That isn't the question. It's not what my Tweet said. What I suggested, in its 108 letters, is that we could all use a little empathy. I wish I had worded it better.
Let's begin with a fact few Americans know: Celebrating Cinco de Mayo is an American custom. The first such celebration was held in California in 1863, and they have continued without interruption. In Mexico itself it is not observed, except in the state of Puebla--the site of Mexico's underdog victory over the French on May 5, 1862.
Cinco de Mayo's purpose is to celebrate Mexican-American culture in the United States. We are a nation of immigrants, and have many such observances, for example St. Patrick's Day parades, which began in Boston in 1737 and not in Ireland until 1931. Or Pulaski Day, officially established in Illinois in 1977, and not observed in Poland. The first Chinese New Year's parade was held in San Francisco in the 1860s, and such parades began only later in China. In Chicago this August we will have the 81st annual Bud Billiken Parade, one of the largest parades in America, celebrating the African-American heritage.[..]
The question is obviously not whether Americans, or anyone else, has the right to wear our flag on their t-shirts. But empathetic people realize much depends on context. If, on Cinco de Mayo, you turn up at your school with a large Mexican-American student population wearing such shirts, are you (1) joining in the spirit of the holiday, or (2) looking for trouble?
I suggest you intend to insult your fellow students. Not because they do not respect THEIR flag, but because you do not respect their heritage. That there are five of you in matching shirts demonstrates you want to be deliberately provocative.
Give 'em hell, Roger.
Bullshit. The kids should be allowed to wear anything they want provided it's not offenseive, violent, or violates safety rules or something.
Not just the tea bagging racist scumbag Republidiots are angry at this political correctness BULLSHIT shoveled out by the extremist left, normal people are angry about it also.
This is this fucking United States, after all, not shithole Mexico. If people want to celebrate Cinco de Mayo or other foreign festivals and holidays, they may, but throwing some ****** upset about people expressing their heritage pride is too fucking much.
The extremist left is just as bad as the extremist right. Getting all shit-up in outrage about kids wearing American flags is fucking stupid.
and not openly show your bigotry.
Cinco de Mayo is NOT a Mexican holiday. It's celebrated here more than there. Those kids were at a Cinco de Mayo celebration with their Hispanic schoolmates itching for a fight. Do you really think the school just told them to turn their t-shirts inside out because they were being politically correct?
The kids were asked to tone down their actions. They chose to go home instead.
I'd be careful about defending bigots if I were you.
Those kids were at a Cinco de Mayo celebration with their Hispanic schoolmates itching for a fight.
Yeah, and the Hispanic kids gave them exactly what they wanted. Good call there.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
..than the response Ebert received for exercising HIS first amendment rights. I understood why the principal did what he did, even if I don't agree with it. I can't unring his bell, but how does that give Caleb Howe and others the right to be so completely loathesome?
PS: Intentionally ignoring the xenophobic racebaiting on the top comment...because, well...it's xenophobic anonymous racebaiting.
I didn't say anything about Ebert, did I? I'm a big fan of his and I follow his blog, which I enjoy very much. The right-wing assholes are being their usual loathsome selves with this garbage; truthfully, I don't find anything to say about them that isn't painfully obvious.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
I managed to make that a reply to you, but it was really aimed at the top comment from damOTclese
'S cool. I've made that mistake a time or two myself. Easy to hit the wrong "reply" link. :)
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
with you, Nicole.
The students were specifically told to go home or turn their shirts inside out. Their attire was cited as a reason for the attention they received.
IF their ACTIONS were incendiary, then those actions are what should have brought rebuke from the adults in charge.
IF the ACTIONS of ANY youth, regardless of ethnicity, was incendiary and/or dangerous, then they should be removed from the situation as necessary to ensure safety regardless of what nation's colors they have on their chest.
When attire became central to the issue, the issue became a 1st Amendment issue.
when someone wears a FUCK GOD t-shirt to your church, y'all are about love and respect for the individual and their right to First Amendment protection
yeah, i buy that
your name's Lebowski, Lebowski... and your wife is Bunny
may be assuming much more than you can chew.
As an Atheist, I don't go to church.
I would much prefer, however, FUCK MYTHOLOGICAL DEITIES.
Yes, a church-goer, believer or not, can wear anything they want.
See. That's the difference when somebody truly believes in the 1st Amendment and someone who plays fucking games with it like the school administrators did.
Where do I send the bill for your purchase?
but I wonder how many people know it's not really celebrated that heavily in Mexico. It's certainly not Mexico's Independence Day which is on Sept 16th. Corona Beer did more to make it a big day of celebration in the US than anyone else. So it's really a drinking holiday like St Patrick's day. I just think it's odd that people are getting upset over this event. I also don't know why wearing an American flag logo on this day or any day inside our country should be ever be considered offensive.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Now, if while wearing the shirts they were making snide gestures towards Mexican classmates, I can understand.
their ACTIONS are the issue.
Not what they wear on their bodies.
Back to DamOTClese... oh, yeah SWORD yeah we get it dude... I took great umbrage at his comment, and while i for one have absurdly ranted herein (full disclosure) the tell here, and great concern, is that someone has fomented such hatred in the (normal? whaddid he mean by that?) man.
Assumably a man.
Anyway, props to Ebert. Whole retort he offered made me wanna say... yeah, what that guy said.
His whole life.
your name's Lebowski, Lebowski... and your wife is Bunny
the article before you posted. Obviously not or you'd have learned it's not a foreign festival.
America has a shithole and you're it.
This is this fucking United States, after all, not shithole Mexico.
Gee, I wonder which side of that extremist divide YOU fall under.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
You don't have the right nor is it moral to deliberately antagonize another person. The only reason these jr teabaggers got together to all wear the same shirt on the same day was to try and stir up trouble on a day they knew kids of Mexican decent would be displaying pride in their own heritage.
"but throwing some ****** upset about people expressing their heritage pride is too fucking much."
You mean like being upset that Mexican Americans are expressing their heritage and trying to provoke trouble because of it?
"Getting all shit-up in outrage about kids wearing American flags is fucking stupid."
Yes it is, but as I said that's not why people are upset with them.
If Mexican-American kids get upset at seeing an American flag, then they're living in the wrong country.
I swear, doesn't the left stand for anything anymore other than subordinating whites to brown people? Whatever happened to liberal causes like unions and environmentalism and public education? Oh yeah, I forgot, all that went away when the New Democrats (aka moderate Republicans) took over the Democratic Party. Apparently liberals have nothing left to do now except attack whitey.
Unless you've been hibernating, you may be aware of "liberal causes" like unions, environmentalism and public education in regards to the mining disaster, oil spill and Texas school curriculum respectively.
Somehow, celebrating a symbolic holiday with Mexican Americans means we're being subjugated by them? My friends who are Mexican are and always will be my equal. Not sure if yours are considered as such, if you have any friends of other races, being poor, poor whitey and all.
How embarrassing. The KKK carry American flags all the time. I assure you it's not to show patriotism.
These students - or any other citizen of this country - should be allowed to wear an American flag anytime or anywhere they want. It's a simple matter of free speech, but of course this case involves whites being allowed to do something some brown people oppose, so liberals immediately argue against the Bill of Rights.
Actually, wherever there is a conflict between the desires of white and brown people, liberals will immediately oppose the white people. The facts of the situation are irrelevant - brown people are always right, and anyone who disagrees is a klansman. This is clearly a form of subjugation, and unfortunately it has become a defining characteristic of the left.
BTW, you must be the one hibernating if you think the left has any issues other than race and immigration. For example, why aren't progressives out there protesting against the corporatist policies of the Bush III administration? I see lots of left-wing anger and protests related to the Arizona profiling law. I don't see any of those same people picketing the White House over the healthcare mandate or the new *drill, baby, drill* policy. In fact, Obama could probably adopt the GOP platform and not raise the ire of *progressives,* assuming he left out the bits involving race and immigration.
These are students. They do not have the same rights of free speech at school. And it wasn't the simple wearing of shirts that was at issue. That's a reductive and false way to look at the issue.
The school officials felt that these students were antagonizing others and presented a safety issue. They were asked to tone it down and turn their shirts inside out to prevent a fight. They chose to go home instead.
As to the rest of your dribble, you are clearly selective in your reading. We've had a HUGE amount of anger at the Obama administration over the healthcare reform and off shore drilling policy. You choose to see what you want.
Please, no one is banning the flag, but don't pretend these little "patriots" were wearing their flag shirts because of pride in their country. It was to stick it in the face of Mexican-Americans on a day that's a very American celebration. Again, the flag as a weapon is something the Klan does very well.
It's hilarious that you claim liberals could care less about the facts of a situation when you wrote a fact-free carpet bombing of generalities about liberals. Glenn Beck and Hannity could learn a thing or two from you.
I pointed out three instances where the "left", even your cartoonish version of them, is up and arms and making noise regarding issues. My inbox is full of petitions to sign, causes to get behind and congressmen to write and call. Sorry you're so inactive you didn't get them. I'll be sure to let you know when the rights of whites are getting trampled, assuming those whites aren't gay or lesbian, so you can take arms.
What a fucking joke.
There is nothing overtly provocative about a t-shirt with an American flag printed on it, and there is absolutely no justification for a school to ever ban such clothing. What you're saying is that a symbol that is generally inoffensive to Americans is equivalent to a swastika or KKK emblem. It's ridiculous. Should we now ban white clothing because klansmen wear white robes? Your argument has no merit whatsoever, and indicates an underlying hatred for the United States.
You claim I'm making false generalizations about liberals. Ok then, give me one example where progressives/liberals/Democrats have generally come out on the side of whites in a dispute between white and brown people. In this particular case, a liberal-minded person could easily place freedom of speech ahead of ethnic interests, and support the (mostly) white students. As you can see in this thread, it's clear that the vast majority of liberals will never, ever support white people over brown people, irrespective of the facts of a situation.
A generalization isn't false if it's based in fact, and there is vast evidence to support the assertion that liberals are biased against white people. On the other hand, you have no evidence at all to support your assertion that I'm bigoted against gays and lesbians. In fact, I support full civil rights for gays and lesbians, including gay marriage. It's obvious that liberals are usually the ones guilty of making false generalizations, even as they accuse others of the same thing.
Their motivation is only irrelevant because if you discard it, they're simply wearing the American flag on their shirts. Just one day 5 kids decided to wear an American flag on their shirts. No reason whatsoever. Just god ole patriotism. We both know that's complete bullshit.
I never said the American flag is equal to a swastika. Why must you make shit up? I said the KK uses the flag to hide behind. They use it because they're "patriots." Lots of groups do this. Doesn't make their motives clean or all-American.
One example of liberals for white people? Hilarious. How about the ACLU for Christian groups? Or, how about the ACLU for that bloated piece of bovine excrement, Rush Limbaugh? Two off the top of my head. Or, or, or..The ACLU for the right of the KKK to march. White enough for you yet?
I am gld you're for gay and lesbians rights. I am, too. You may have noticed some of them are also white. Nutty, huh?
It doesn't matter if those T-shirts were worn as a protest, because there is nothing inherently provocative about a T-shirt with an American flag on it. If the Mexican-American kids were provoked at the sight of an American flag, then they were the ones who should've been sent home, not the kids wearing the T-shirts. Sheesh.
As I said below, under the standard you're trying to set here, anything that anyone considers offensive could be banned from a school. For example, school administrators could ban biology textbooks because they might provoke a conflict between fundamentalist Christians and students who believe in the theory of evolution.
Defending Neo Nazis the right to march in Skokie, IL is one. I'm sure if you hustled your grey matter over to ACLU.org, and searched around, you could find more, like when they did a letter writing campaign to get Sean Hannity his radio show back at UCSB. He had been dismissed after denigrating homosexuals several times on the show. He was offered his job back as a result.
Edit:Answering freequark, where have progressive come down on the side of...
posted in wrong spot.
me-oww!
...committed to 1st Amendment rights, so they defend a lot of different groups. I was talking specifically about individual liberals defending the rights of white people in cases like this. It never happens. Everytime there is some dispute involving race or ethnicity, liberals immediately jump to the defense of the ethnic group, just as Ebert did here.
it's your claim, prove it.
me-oww!
Wed, 05/12/2010 - 17:06 — freequark
It's not that simple in the case of Prince v. Massachusetts, Supreme Court of the United States, 1944, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct, 438, 88 L.Ed. 645, and other related cases the Supreme Court established a governmental interest in the child that even over-rides the wishes of the parent.
Additionally, while the kids are on school property they are subject to the school's loco parentis.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
oh, so now we're talkin' numbers here, is that what we're doin'?"
I loves me some US Code, baby
your name's Lebowski, Lebowski... and your wife is Bunny
Should administrators remove biology texts from schools because those texts might provoke some fundamentalist Christians? It's clearly not reasonable to argue that school administrators have a right to remove anything from school which could potentially cause a disruption, because under that standard, administrators could remove anything from biology texts to buttons.
that you should see it that way. Merely respecting other peoples heritage is an imposition on "whites". I wonder why the Orangmen march through the Catholic areas of Northern Ireland. Couldn't be they're looking for trouble could it.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
It's the flag of our country, fer cryin' out loud. Now if we were talking about students wearing the Confederate flag during black history week or something, Ebert might have had a point.
you are arguing an untenable position
I mean we all all already agreed around here "it aint the meat its the motion," dude, so chill that out
your name's Lebowski, Lebowski... and your wife is Bunny
Offensive to whom? Because the problem here was that a lot of the other students were offended.
Not a good standard in my book.
True colors shining through.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Look, I scanned the following, and got about 1/2 way before I finally found someone that knew wearing the flag in any way shape or form, is not correct flag etiquette, (that is a fact). Frankly, that alone, in my opinion, is enough to send the kids home.
It would seem, however, if the flag was such an important symbol to someone, they'd know the rules for its proper care.
Ebert is not saying anything about the kids not being allowed to wear what they want. He's just pointing out that the kids are the ones picking a fight here.
If you don't understand the point, I suggest you go to a St. Patrick's Day parade wearing orange.
I agree DamOTclese. I think Cinco de Mayo is a fine holiday, but so what if the kids wore American flags.
If they wore shirts that put down Latinos, then its an issue.
Yes they were being provocative, but not enough to be kicked out of school.
I hate tea partiers, George Bush, and most things Republican, but this makes those of us on the left look like idiots. I
I may have to drop my self-imposed ban on a twitter account to support this tet-a-tet.
I think the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, anyway. (Sorry about the pun, but no other expression captures the thought.) Whether the kids were trying to be offensive or not, offense is something that is taken, not forced on a person. When you choose to take offense at an action, you're giving the power in the situation over to the person who's trying to provoke you, and he gets the victory, not you. Had the Chicano kids just shrugged and said, "Fuck them, they're assholes," and ignored the t-shirts, the ones trying to hurt them would have failed to do so. As it is, they succeeded, which is unfortunate.
We as Americans have got to start learning to grow a thicker skin, and not allow ourselves to be hurt so eagerly, and certainly not go about whining at the top of our lungs about it. Does anybody remember the old childhood saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" anymore? There was a very good reason for that saying - showing hurt at an insult just makes the insulter the winner. A strong spine is the center of a strong soul. Let's all work on growing ours.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
around."
That applies to everything. So?
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
.
"Whether the kids were trying to be offensive or not, offense is something that is taken, not forced on a person."
Only a true douchebag could say such an inane thing.
(Clearly if this guy takes offense to my comment, it's solely based on his choice. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the generally understood conventions of discourse in our society.)
Here's a screenshot of the tweets that Caleb Howe, RedStater and self-proclaimed "journalist" sent. Had these come from a left-sided journo (self-proclaimed or otherwise), there would have been an outcry that reached Congress. Yet, no apology. No contrition. This is what Howe thinks passes for acceptable dialogue.
It goes beyond any ideology. This is human stuff. For Howe to make statements like this in public should be career-ending. Instead they applauded on the right and until today, very little was said on the left other than the Gawker piece.
Lower than dirt, that guy is.
"Nicole, you're too kind"
And so are you karoli!
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
if you're into the Flag and what it means and what the founders said about it, you know it should never be worn in any way, ever, including flag pins, flag shirts, flag hats, etc. Also, nationalism and patriotism are very questionable and subjective. I am actually offended by both. Just like I don't want to see folks wearin religious symbols or dollar signs....all that said, we have the right to do whatever we please unless there's a law against it.
Damn good point. I've never worn anything with the flag on it, including those stupid pins that right-wingers seem to think show one's patriotism when in fact they show one's DISrespect.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
why did CNN think this was so important that they had to go national with it. What, no more news about Michael Jackson, Anna Nicole Smith or missing girls in Aruba? Oh that's right, they are dead. Maybe the rotattion of the world slowed down that day and nothing else happened.
necessitates making hash out of the most trivial of events. Compare any "news" broadcast these days with one of Cronkite's show from, say, 1964. Watchers get HOURS of meaningless shit and drivel pounded in to their brains because all that airtime has to be filled with something, and the gods know they can't fill it with REAL news.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
it's important that CNN not spend its time covering the greatest environmental disaster in American history.
Nothing to see here! Move along!
Telling school children that they may not wear an American flag T-shirt on Cinco de Mayo? Wrong, stupid and unconstitutional.
Believing that school children who wear an American flag T-shirt on Cinco de Mayo are mere innocents coincidentally expressing pride in their own heritage on what happens to be a day of Latino pride? Wronger, stupider and maybe some hyper-constitutional kind of sentiment.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
"Wrong, stupid and unconstitutional."
Not wrong or stupid, if it keeps kids from getting hurt by other kids. This was a school, after all. The school was just trying to get a match away from the gasoline, and didn't mind being rude to do it.
Not unconstitutional, unless the school is considered the government.
That's always the argument trotted out by school officials. That the censorship is necessary to maintain order.
Sorry, I'm going to expect a little more from our nation's youth. If Student1 becomes violent because Student2 is making a statement with which Student1 disagrees, Student1 has the problem and needs to be dealt with, not Student2. Student2 has free speech rights, and Student1 should not be appeased by censoring Student2 to keep order. Keep order by explaining that we all have freedom of expression in this country, and people get to disagree peaceably.
Censor them as kids, and they'll learn that censorship is okay.
It was a public school.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
nail it.
But unconstitutional, Karen? Hasn't the SCOTUS ruled that students have limited rights of free speech in school? If I'm correct, doesn't that mean that the principal's action was constitutional?
On edit: I mean, Plessy vs. Ferguson made "separate but equal" constitutional until it was overturned by Brown vs, Board of Education, right?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
The Supreme Court also ruled that corporations have unlimited free speech rights, and as we commonly note here, the Supreme Court is full of shit.
I suppose you can insist that "Constitutional" is whatever the Supreme Court says is Constitutional, but that's a matter of semantics. I have my interpretation, and enough arrogance to believe I am correct.
on edit: As a matter of practicality and realism, Plessy was the law of the land. But I would argue that the Court corrected an interpretive mistake, not that they changed the Constitution. By the way, Brown technically did not overrule Plessy, but that's a whole 'nother story. :)
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
What the principal did seems contrary to the precedent of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
However, I'm unable to shepardize it since I don't work anywhere near a law library.
(I just found The 'Lectric Law Library has something on Shepard on-line).
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I know that Fortas was sort of vague in the majority opinion, but he did lay a framework, writing that schools, "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," but going on to add that schools could put the kaibosh on actions that, "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Yeah, it was something like that.
More gobbledygook from the highest court in the land.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
I'm impressed that you even have the energy for shepardizing just for the C&L comment section.
I usually say something is "unconstitutional" because of how I would rule if I were on the Supreme Court. At least, when I'm arguing here. If I'm court, well, then I know better than to think that anyone involved cares about the Constitution. ;)
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
...they nominate you for a seat on the SCOTUS, Karen!
:D
TTFN. Work calls.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Not sure I want the job, though. Most of those cases are hideously boring.
I guess I won't really worry, though. I'm not in any danger of any president appointing me. ;)
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Additionally, the conservatives have never accepted the idea of symbolic free-speech as per Tinker. It goes against their idea of the X amendment (since states and local districts run the schools).
But they seem to use it when they call money speech.
But then they used the incororationist doctrine from the XIV Amendment, also seen as opposing states rights, and the Equal Protection clase to basically have the supremenes settle boosh v Gore in their favor.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Their ilk is only consistent in that they always believe that they are right no matter which side they take on any given day.
And while I do think the Tenth Amendment has been largely, wrongfully ignored (and the Ninth, and the Fourteenth's first couple of lines) I don't think it means what they think it means.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
I'm not sure the X Amendment has been ignored.
They have the power to tax their citizens,
They have the power to conduct trials (especially pointed out in The Federalist Papers)
Even Federal District Courts tend to follow the law of the state where the offense was committed
They have their own executive and legislative branches
They have their own agencies and regulatory bodies, and share power with the Fed in many cases like unemployment and welfare
They control much of education, although there's some give-and-take between federal education funds and some local control
They control their own police forces and fire stations and DMV's.
Primarily all they've really lost is the public's attention since FDR made the presidency so visible, and some Police Powers: general welfare, morals, health, and safety.
They even set the minimum age you can be married, set up the certification of birth, marriage and death and even state licensing boards for various trades and professions.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
"I have my interpretation, and enough arrogance to believe I am correct."
Most of us try to use common definitions for words. Your private definitions are not of interest to the society at large.
I was pretty sure that I knew what Karen meant, but I think it needed a little clarification.
And, btw, Karen makes excellent contributions to the site, imo. I'm interested in anything she chooses to write here, and I feel confident in saying that I don't think I'm the only person around here that feels that way.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
#3 Don't mock those who have battled cancer and won.
YEAH, because they win the right to automatically win every argument.
Because that makes you an uncouth, insensitive asshole. Difference.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
If somebody wants to argue with Roger Ebert about fighting cancer, then his having beat it will be relevant. He doesn't get to make a political statement and then say 'hey back off I had cancer'.
Not that HE'S doing that, some of you are. Which isn't to say that I agree or disagree with him, and I'm certainly no teabagger.
Who among us is saying that? Point it out. You've inferred something very weird from the simple admonition not to mock people who have suffered from cancer.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
So, I guess you can't win an argument with someone who has battled cancer without mocking him for having cancer?
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
I'm clearly not defending heckling somebody about having cancer. And if this article had been simply 'check out these asshole teabaggers', fun times.
But somebody had to suggest that the fact that he had cancer puts him above argument, and it doesn't.
I guess my point went over your head too.
Who is saying that the fact that he had cancer puts him above argument? Who? Where in the comments is that being said? Where in the post is that being said?
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
because nobody said what you are saying. Argue the points, don't mock the man for having a serious illness that we all have a pretty fair chance of getting.
http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html
Albania, June 10, 2007, the woman's flag is union out; the man is wearing flag shorts; his flag is touching the ground. Section 7h reads, "the union of the flag should be placed at the peak of the staff." Section 8d reads, "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel." Section 8b reads, "The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground." Of course, the Flag Code doesn't apply in Albania. Photo credit: Damir Sagolj/Reuters
(United States Code. Title 4, Chapter 1 pertains to the flag; Title 18, Chapter 33, Section 700 regards criminal penalties for flag desecration; Title 36, Chapter 3 pertains to patriotic customs and observances. These laws were supplemented by Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations).
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Ebert: Kids who wear American Flag t-shirts on 5 May should have to share a lunchroom table with those who wear a hammer and sickle on 4 July.
Teabagger: I’m not as expert on flag etiquette as you. Tell me, which do I fly when you die of cancer?
Progressives: It's not nice to mock people who have cancer.
TomPiltoff: He doesn't get to win arguments just because he has cancer.
Progressives: Who said that he gets to win arguments because of it?
Crickets: Chirp chirp chirp chirp
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
an idiot mean YOU get to win every argument?
We needed another FDR, instead we got another clinton.
The argument is about idiots. Just like if the argument was about cancer and surviving.
But that isn't the case here.
I do believe his comment(Ebert's) had nothing to do with cancer or surviving it.
It was some jerk who made the vile comment about his medical condition.
Gotta love those faith based, family value folks.
They never let opportunities to hurt someone like this go by.
I didn't read all of these comments. And I'm not going too.
All I have to say is, Hang in there Roger.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
But they do have the right to be treated with some human dignity, as does everyone else. If you are defending the remarks Howe made, you've lost me. There is absolutely no constitutional argument to be fashioned from "...but he'll be dead pretty soon. So fuck him."
Sorry, but there isn't.
From torture to cancer jokes, they show what a classy lot of people they are.
I remember when wearing the flag as part of your clothes (not lapel pins), was likely to get you beaten up by construction workers.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I remember farther back, when it was inappropriate to wear a flag except on a uniform. Wearing the flag became a form of protest in the 60's, but conservatives adopted it as a counter-protest. Then came the flag decals, often with the phrase "America, love it or leave it."
Not like the old days indeed - I've seen the flag used as a tablecloth and as makeshift drapes.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
And Ebert had every right to explain what ignorant jerks they were.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Or conversely - we could outlaw both? (doesn't seem as good an idea)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
100 per cent.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Schools do have the right to determine appropriateness of attire. My youngest school bans ALL clothing with cartoon characters on it. It may sound fascist, but the school is there to be an appropriate environment for all, and some t-shirts are inappropriate for children. Others (specifically, those with cartoon villains and superheroes) led to play that caused children to be injured (kids were trying to fly off the play structure). So therefore, kids cannot wear those kind of t-shirts to school any more.
I don't think it was merely the wearing of t-shirts that caused the school to act, although that's an easy thing for the media to focus on. Those kids were looking to make a statement and provoke an incident. The school officials tried to get them to be more sensitive and those kids opted instead to be sent home.
As I said before, any American citizen who is offended by the American flag is living in the wrong country.
Be intellectually honest.
Do you REALLY think that the ONLY thing those kids were doing was wearing a flag shirt?
The vast majority of Americans don't even know Mexico doesn't celebrate this holiday there. That says a lot.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
school, not lets say an after school optional party. And yeah I think that for the most part they were simply wearing the clothes.
If they were doing anything else don't you think the school would of made it known? At least making a statement that there were other extenuating circumstances.
The school said they were being a disruptive presence and they feared for the general safety.
said that the shirts were a disruptive presence, not the actions of the kids, at least in every report of it I've read. Do you have any that say different?
As a supporter of human rights, I believe even high school students have a right to non-violent protest. If the principal believed these Mexican-American kids could be offended to the point of violence, then they're the ones who should've been sent home.
one of the kids that was wearing flag clothes was of Mexican descent.
a kid wearing the flag as a T-shirt offends me.
A bunch of kids wearing flag T-shirts to display their nativist arrogance on Cinco de Mayo - well that's far beyond what I consider to be a respectful and appropriate display of the flag.
I find the usage of the flag as an weapon in internecine cultural wars to be quite offensive. It is invariably used by a subset of people who claim themselves to be "true Americans" and while rejecting other people who are just as American as they are.
schools do have the power to set dress code regulations. But they must be fair and equal. Did any students who had a Mexican flag on have to turn their shirt inside out or go home?
To use your cartoon characters for an example it would be like a school banning Loonie tunes but allowing Disney.
I'm telling you that it was NOT just merely the wearing of t-shirts.
To carry over your Loonie Tunes vs. Disney metaphor, what if the kids were wearing Daffy Duck and telling those kids at a Disney Fair that Donald sucks Daffy's cock?
stating that it was not just the wearing of shirts, do you have anything to back that up?
And I would expect the kids to be punished for obscenity not just turn the shirts inside out or go home. If the kids were doing anything else don't you think the school would of punished them for it?
Nicole, my paper said it wasn't only that they wore the flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo but that they never wore those kind of flag shirts at other times. So the thought was that those boys were trying to provoke an incident. Therefore the school acted correctly.
Mesquite schools are relaxing their dress code overall, but are still against pseudo-mohawks, although the rule is still a little unclear, something like a ridge running in the middle of your head is ok.
These same folks screaming bloody murther are likely writing letters to the editor in our area saying kids should get used to rules concerning clothing, since future employers will likely have some rules too, and they might as well get used to it...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Displaying the flag on any kind of garment or temporary item is disrespectful to the flag. The tea partiers STILL don't know what they're talking about.http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagcode.html
Late,
QSE32
But isn't wearing the US flag, or making a garment out of the flag,or, making a garment replicating the US flag illegal?
And once a Flag is soiled,or, worn out, it is to be burned. Not thrown in the garbage.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
etiquette but not really against the law. And yes it should be burned in a respectful manner, but I think burying it is also acceptable if burning is not able to be done.
Ok, I'll buy that. I have never worn the flag. I have served it.
But I have never worn it. Not even a hat.
So , does this mean the teabaggers and all who wear it are disrespecting the flag?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Of course, I served four years in the Air Force, E-4, Top Secret Clearance, Honorable Discharge, having to report every time I moved during the 10 years following my enlistment that I was sworn to secrecy.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
to mutilate or use the flag for advertising in DC. The rest of the flag code lists rules and customs but does not make it unlawful to not follow them.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode04/us...
And for if it's disrespectful or not, imo it depends on the intent more than the act itself.
It's just bad etiquette. Ok, gotcha.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
for federal law anyway. State laws may vary. For instance in my state it is a class a misdemeanor to desecrate the flag. Although I have never heard of any prosecutions for it.
IC 35-45-1-4
Flag desecration
Sec. 4. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally mutilates, defaces, burns, or tramples any United States flag, standard, or ensign commits flag desecration, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) This section does not apply to a person who disposes of a flag in accordance with 36 U.S.C. 176(k).
No one's arguing whether or not they were unlawful but you in a lame attempt at ignoratio elenchi.
If it were illegal, the kids would've been arrested, not kicked off campus, so your argument is not relevant to the situation as it happened.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And I attempted to answer. How is that not addressing the question at hand?
He was referring to the actual desecration of the flag which is unquestionably against the law. My understanding is you can only bury the flag once it is burned to ashes. But the part about, "Isn't wearing the US flag, or making a garment out of the flag,or, making a garment replicating the US flag illegal?" The answer is essentially yes, although it fuzzes with the replication part.
I'm referring to the case at hand. What happened to the students, so any further discussion is purely academic.
The irony is those who are supposedly showing respect to the flag are actually showing disrespect, a symbol for unity for disunity, wearing the flag or a representation of the flag when at one time you could be arrested for doing so, if not today. People still get arrested for burning the flag in protest, and attempts are made to pass amendments to protect it so courts can't throw out such cases.
These "patriots" fly tattered faded flags made in China, from their car antennas day and night, fair weather or foul...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
is only illegal under federal law in DC. Other states as I mentioned may have other laws in effect. For the rest of the flag code, it is not against the law but against custom. Otherwise they would use the term Shall not rather than Should not. And from my understanding the flag can be buried if done in a respectful manner if burning is not available. From the US Code on it
"(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."
And from what I think is your view, I agree with you on those that fly tattered flags. I've went into businesses and complained before. And I have flown the flag after dark but with proper illumination. And I make sure mine are made in America.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
with Eberts initial tweet. From my understanding of the incident the five boys were setting at a table by themselves, and no one forced anyone else to share a table with them. I could be wrong as I have not followed this incident very closely.
As for his follow up post, I also do not believe the five boys were wearing "identical" t-shirts. As for the list of observances Ebert itemized, how many times have schools, or anywhere else for that matter, made a point to single out someone for wearing any patriotic materials. Do the Irish get upset if an American flag is displayed at a St. Patricks Day Parade? Or the Chinese at a Chinese New Year Parade? Or Poles during Pulaski Day? Or African-Americans at a Bud Billiken Parade? I am not aware of it.
With that said, you can disagree with someone without being douche bags. And some of the responses to Eberts initial tweet are from douche bags.
I don't think Ebert is literally suggesting that children should be forced to sit next their ideological enemies at lunch.
I think he's suggesting simply that the same kids demanding tolerance for their views on Cinco de Mayo would not tolerate anyone else's views on the Fourth of July.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
And I don't understand why that point is so difficult for the tea-baggers to understand.
exactly what he said. Based on his one sentence tweet, I don't see how it could have been interpreted any other way. If he would have left the word "table" out of the sentence and left it at lunchroom, then that would be different. By doing so, he is making it sound as if other students of Mexican-American heritage were forced to sit with these five students.
Fair enough, but I would suggest that you read a little more of the man's commentaries for some context about who he is.
I don't think he literally wants to force them to sit next to one another at a lunch table. I think he was making a broader point, and I base this not on his one sentence tweet in isolation, but my understanding of Ebert's views in general.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
read or seen Ebert before this, but I have heard of him. Therefore, all I have to go by is what I have seen here.
As I said, fair enough. :)
Ebert's a decent writer, and has some interesting views. I find his movie reviews to be a treasure, though I often think he's crazy. [Cuz, you know, it's my opinions on the movies I see that count. ;) ]
And often he adds in his political thoughts on his blog. He's funny and insightful. I don't always agree with him, but I do enjoy reading his articles.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
I do try to find places in the inter-tubes to find interesting political thoughts, especially the ones that differ from my own so I can expand my own thought processes. I have stopped visiting many sites that are nothing but one-sided cheerleading "crap-fests".
Thanks for your recommendation, I'll have to check him out. :)
wearing American Flag regalia should in no way be seen as provacative on Cinco de Mayo - especially if it is indeed a more celebrated day here than in most of Mexico. The United States was all too happy to see the French pushed out of Mexico anyway. This is NOT like wearing a confederate flag on Martin Luther King Day - or the 4th of July for that matter (the hammer and sickle being a somewhat lame comparison).
Anyone who percieves the wearing of American Flag clothing on CdM as offensive is an idiot, as is anyone who thinks they are making a "statement" by doing so.
I generally agree with Ebert politically, but this is another example of why twittering your first impulse is a bad idea. Also, for most Americans of both Mexican and non-Mexican descent, Cinco de Mayo is more a celebration of Mexican Food, Mexican Beer and Tequila than Mex-American culture in general, as the vast majority of both groups are largely unaware of what it originally comemmorated in the first place, but are always open for another excuse to party (the reason many of us celebrate St. Patrick's Day as well)
I dunno about that one. I think the purpose does matter, as does the context of the particular situation and the particular students involved. After all, wearing Orange on St. Patrick's Day could be seen as provocative by some Catholics. Depends on the context and the purpose of the people wearing the color.
Whatever the purpose, though, telling American children they may not express themselves with the American flag is crazy.
Heh, it did generate publicity for his twitter account. :) He's pretty savvy with new media, fully recognizing that the old format he and his colleague Gene Siskel dominated is dying.
I wouldn't be surprised if he is the one being deliberately provocative. ;)
And Christmas, and Mother's Day and on and on. Not that we drink ourselves into stupors on Mother's Day, but most modern "holidays" are excuses to party and/or give gifts. (I guess we humans need excuses for both our indulgent and our generous sides.) And most holidays are far removed from their original purposes, and commercialized.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Lynch v Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984). 465 U.S. 668 Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU ... In County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
...by assuming that tea-baggers are capable of being reasoned with.
Oh, and Caleb Howe is disgusting loser. Roger Ebert accomplishes more in one day than Howe ever will in his sad, lonely pathetic life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX7WgJEHgyg
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Thanks for the good laugh.
On a somewhat related note...
"The child is father of the man," Wordsworth wrote. That seems literally true as we look at these films. The 7-year-olds already reveal most of the elements, good and bad, that flower in later life. Sometimes there are surprises; a girl who is uptight and morose at 21, vowing never to marry, blossoms in the later films into a cheerful wife and mother. --Roger Ebert
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Long live Roger Ebert.
You are one cool dude.
Why is that nobody gets upset when people -- even those who clearly don't have one single drop of Irish blood in them -- wear green and fly Irish flags on St. Patrick's Day, but do get upset when people celebrate Cinco De Mayo? And why is it that nobody ever seems to get upset over an Oktoberfest celebration? As I see it, there must be more to this than the fact that the Irish and the Germans are two of the most highly-represented ethnic groups in this country. Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Irish and Germans are white Europeans (and northern/western Europeans at that) whereas Latinos are not?
I find it particularly ironic in the case of the Irish given the fact that they were regarded with a mixture of hostility, contempt, and suspicion when they first began emigrating here very similar to that which Latino immigrants (illegal and otherwise) are being subjected to these days. Is it possible that this is a case of the sh!t rolling downhill? Speaking as a person with Irish blood in her own veins, I'm well aware of the fact that many Irish-Americans aren't quite as open-minded as they could be (and especially considering their history in this country).
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
People weren't upset because the kids were "celebrating Cinco de Mayo"
Your analogy? Epic Fail.
In the 60s, the wingnuts hated the liberals for wearing the flag as clothing.
Now, those same nutbag people wear flag t-shirts without even a hint of irony or knowledge of history.
It would be funny, if the wingnuts weren't so dangerously stupid and angry.
at least two of Roger's reviews. Just an admirable, brilliant guy.
Seems to me that the outrage is basically about publicans wanting special rights, ie the right for them to say whatever they want without repercussions.
Ebert actually wrote a movie
Return to the Valley of the Dolls...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It was "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls". A masterpiece of weird.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
Now that I think of it, the US flag was no where on our Air Force uniforms.
On our sleeves was our rank, over our left pocket our last name, over our right pocket US Air Force, on our right pocket our squadron or command symbol, and couple of buttons on the epaulets of our dress blues that just said US, I think our medals went over our left pocket, and on the front of our dress blue hat the E Pluribus Unum symbol meaning, "Out of Many, One."
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
flight suits carry the flag on a shoulder.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Kids+sent+home+...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.ksbw.com/news/23512008/detail.html
It's obvious that they weren't trying to show their pride in their heritage...because by wearing the shirts, they actually DISRESPECT THE FLAG!
Section 8d of the U.S. Flag Code states: "The Flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding or drapery." So by wearing the U.S. Flag as a t-shirt, they were actually disrespecting the flag!
But, of course, wingnuts are too stupid to realize this. They would probably wipe their asses with U.S. Flag toilet paper if they they thought, in their own minds, that it would make them more patriotic.
Might I suggest a slight rephrasing of the opening sentence, in spite of the nice metaphor? Due to his battle with cancer, Mr. Ebert has not been able to eat or drink anything (or, for that matter, speak) in several years--hence, no tasting of tea for him. Or perhaps that pun was intended.
Although I have mixed opinions on this particular issue, I am a huge fan of Ebert's blog. The writing is absolutely masterful.
I think Ebert's comment is beyone the pale. This is the USA....GOT IT?: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." Americans of any age of persuasion can wear a tee shirt with the American flag any and every day of the year IF THEY CHOOSE. This is not Mexico. Americans have no obligation to observe any Mexican holiday or the holiday of any other country. May 5th is a very small holiday in Mexico, promoted by American liquor companies & other businesses to make a buck. Sept. 16 is Mexican Independence Day and it was between Mexico & Spain - and HAD or HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA....period!
Woody McBreairty
is you on the keyboard, dude... the issue here is the zenophobia, in which Ebert references civility (emphasis mine) questions whether the clarion call to nationalist fervor at all expense leads to incivility. The mandated authority of the school officials is to maintain civility, not some ED-drug fueled machismo that keeps harping on The Flag and Wearing It? Irony of ironies, cuz when i was a child (i'm 51) you didn't wear the flag... wear it? what are you, high? it's sacred, you just said. And you wanna wear it. Like make it all sweaty ande stuff like Dr Joyce Bros sweatball on the end of her nose? Wha'?
Wear it?
WEAR THE FLAG. NOW THAT'S FREEDOM.
your name's Lebowski, Lebowski... and your wife is Bunny
Roger will give them hell and I love him for it.
*
A similar thing happened at my high school about a decade ago. I live in a very ethnically diverse area, and the student body of my high school was about 50% Hispanic, and 30% Vietnamese. In ethnically diverse schools, there’s often an element of underlying tension and I saw this surface in a similar situation.
The Vietnamese students had wanted to set up a special assembly and lunchtime event for their Tet Lunar New Year but were denied and told that no student body money would be budgeted for them. When Cinco de Mayo came around and the school sponsored an assembly and spent money on festivities, many of the Vietnamese students were incensed at what they perceived to be unfair ethnic favoritism, and so a few of them wore the yellow and red stripped South Vietnamese flag on the same day as the Cinco de Mayo events.
I can’t recall any real violence, although some of the Vietnamese students were taunted as FOBs and told to get out of the country by some Mexican students, the principal at the time didn’t require that they take off their clothing or go home.
I do not know what the purpose of these 5 students were in wearing those clothes, but I do wonder why the immediate presumption is that they were looking for a fight. When the similar incident happened at my high school, I sympathized with the Vietnamese students and thought that they chose a silent, although provocative way to voice their opinions. Despite purposely risking the ire of certain students, they were not looking to create a race riot. The 5 students here may not have had such noble intentions, but one has to question all groups in this incident, from the 5 student who chose to do such a thing, to the other students who complained so vociferously that some school officials claimed to they would resort to violence. It seems to me that the situation on the ground is not simply a case of 5 “white” students looking for trouble, but a mixture of racial tensions and misunderstanding, coming from and directed at both ethnic groups.
Comments are closed on this entry