Stu Tarlow (6/26, Opinion, “Plaza protester disrespects flag”) passed by a rally at the Plaza in which folks protested George Bush and Dick Cheney’s war by asking for impeachment. Immediately Tarlow sees the flag in scorn and suggests that “probably” the folks there disregard dead soldiers. I was there at age 70.
The piece is a shameful mess to pontificate about flag etiquette, which wearies me. The way to honor the flag is to stand with courage preserving what the flag means. One honors the flag in damning a war built upon lies even if formal etiquette about touching the nation’s soil is offended.
As for soldiers, my own uncle died at age 26 upon the beaches of Normandy. He volunteered because a president like Franklin Roosevelt drew him there with one means: the simple truth. That honors the flag, and wins a hand over my heart. Without that the flag is only a piece of cloth which is now despised by most of the civilized world because of Cheney and his puppet, Bush.
Scruples over frilly “etiquette” never replace the flag’s real inspiration: the call to protest any abuse of liberty.
James V. McCormick
Kansas City
Truth? Non-existent in places like Jefferson City, MO.
The flag stands for nothing today, so long as we as a society allow this type of criminal government ffraud and lobel to happen.
http://www.auditor.mo.gov/press/2007-59.htm
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | July 04, 2008 at 01:21 PM
Jim
This really isn't of any import. Looking at Kate's link it is obviously a spoof. And one four letter sentence is a "rant"?
JayhawkinMO
Call it "defaming" FDR if you want, but he was a complicated, devious man. He exercised a great deal of that deviousness in getting us into the war. He was correct, and he was the leader we needed, but he was devious.
Posted by: Engineer | July 03, 2008 at 08:11 PM
jack, if you look at the clip from Fox & Friends (which I couldn’t view at work), you’ll see that this was not a serious news segment. Even my untrained eye picked up on the photoshopping, and I bet you could, too. It’s pretty easy, but here’s a hint - most NYT reporters don’t have the body of a poodle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfCsQeOnsrk
Posted by: Kate | July 03, 2008 at 07:17 PM
Mr McCormick writes "Flag should stand for truth"....and Rogue calls that wedded to defeat of thier country. So what is the success of our country to you Rogue, more lies?
Posted by: Stifled Freedom | July 03, 2008 at 05:59 PM
Eng,
I don't quite understand the point of your rant about Fox. This has nothing to do with whether or not Fox "News" has a right to exist. They came up in the discussion because they have obviously doctored photos of these two NYT reporters to show them in a bad light. As I pointed out earlier, they couldn't deal with the facts presented in the article, so they just resorted to measures a five-year old would appreciate.
I can see, though, that anything Fox does, no matter how ridiculous, will get a pass from you.
Posted by: Jim | July 03, 2008 at 05:39 PM
While defending the flag, Engineer defames FDR. Had anyone else held the presidency in 1941, our country may have fared differently. Engineer would have voted for Alf Landon in '36 and Wendell Willkie in 1940... Regarding the flag, it is but a symbol—granted a very powerful symbol. I feel like hanging it upside down this weekend in front of my home as a symbol for what has happened to this country as a result of the W years. That will all soon end. McCain's time has past. He won't be the president...
Posted by: JayhawkinMO | July 03, 2008 at 05:38 PM
As to the letter, if there was one thing with which FDR never dealt, it was "the simple truth". In WWII it was concern for the Country, not FDR, that drew us to service. There is a proper etiquette in handling and displaying the flag. Those who willfully ignore it are to be held in contempt. Those who violate it out of ignorance are to be pitied.
Posted by: Engineer | July 03, 2008 at 05:13 PM
The Left just can't stand the fact that they no longer have a monopoly on news outlets as they did in the past. They pretty much do with newspapers and with network TV. How dare FOX exist!
Posted by: Engineer | July 03, 2008 at 05:03 PM
"Guess who doctored the photos."
It's pretty clear that Fox did, Bill. And for no other reason than those two reporters did their job. Any time someone reports something unflattering to Fox "News," it's denounced as a "hit piece" and the reporters' names are trashed (as well as their photos). Fox "News" never spends any time presenting facts to debunk the story, they just slime the person reporting it.
Posted by: Jim | July 03, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Jack, whenever you reference 'Media Matters' your credibility is out the window. Guess who doctored the photos.
Posted by: Bill Moses | July 03, 2008 at 02:20 PM
It is amusing that the bastion of journalism, the NY Times never saw fit to comment that 15 of the 18 objectives to be met by the surge have been attained in Iraq.
I suppose when you are wedded to the defeat of your country as Mr. McCormack effectively is, it is hard to report on any success. It gets in the way of his Bush bashing, what a sorry excuse for a human being.
McCormaack mentions he marches with the rent-a-mob people, and that his Uncle was in Normandy. He is pregnantly silent about his military service. Figures, he fits the mold perfectly.
Posted by: Rogue | July 03, 2008 at 01:24 PM
jack, thank goodness the watchdogs are on to this! The use of doctored war zone photos and altering the appearance of the Secretary of State pale in comparison to this defilement. These are NYT reporters we’re talking about for heaven’s sake. And mark my word, unless this kind of thing is nipped in the bud we’ll end up having some anchorman showing forged documents on network news.
Posted by: Kate | July 03, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Go Mr McCormick!
I think most of the citizenry is getting sick and tired of rule by fear and smear.
From "Media Matters":
"Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters
Summary: During a segment in which Fox & Friends co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade labeled New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe "attack dogs," Fox News featured photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe that appeared to have been digitally altered -- the journalists' teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and portions of Reddicliffe's hair moved further back on his head."
What had these reporters done to merit the Faux News treatment? They had reported that Fox News viewership has been trending downward and might portend hard times for the network. How dare they!
Posted by: jack | July 03, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Well said Mr. McCormick. I think most people will rejoice in Jan 09 when this administration is finally out of office. They may have to be forcefully removed, but out. Then we can get on with rebuilding what the flag stands for.
Posted by: Stifled Freedom | July 03, 2008 at 10:46 AM