Patterico's Pontifications

11/11/2011

A Fire Alarm in the Night: Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist.

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 9:38 am



Guest post by Aaron Worthing. Follow me by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Update: Instalink! And I went over it again, made corrections and generally spiffed it up.

Okay, here comes another long one.

Via Volokh, I learned this morning of a case that should make your blood boil, if you are either 1) patriotic, or 2) just a believer in freedom of speech. And of course many of us are 1) patriotic precisely because this is a nation that 2) believes in free speech—the two viewpoints are not neatly segregated. In the case of Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., the court held that if a school believes that a certain symbol will so enrage students that any person wearing it is likely to be attacked, they can ban students from wearing that symbol. This is, frankly, a fairly straightforward application of the principles set down in Tinker, where the Court said that speech could be suppressed based on “facts which might have reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.” As the Dariano court correctly noted, this is a much lower standard justifying a ban in school than government could get away with in dealing with an ordinary citizen walking down the street. As it stands right now, the government cannot ban a drawing of Mohammed in a newspaper; but it probably could ban it in a student newspaper, or even just on a student’s T-shirt.

So three students decided to wear this symbol on a T-shirt to their school on May 5, 2010, and were told to turn their shirts inside out or go home. The court reasoned that the symbol was so offensive to some students that you could expect those students wearing it to be attacked, and school officials could not, or would not, effectively protect the students. And what was this symbol that is so offensive that other students can be expected to fly into a rage at the mere sight of it?

The American Flag.

Because of course it was the Fifth of May, a.k.a. Cinco de Mayo, and thus it is a great affront to some people to see an American flag that day.

There is an impression in the desk before me where I have banged my head into it. The more I think about this case, the more I think it is like Jefferson’s fire bell in the night—a sign that something has gone seriously wrong, here.

The correct answer is simply this. First, the school get enough control over its student body that it can stand to be offended without lashing out. Second, the school has to make a concerted effort to instill pride in America in its students of all races and nationalities. That is their job. And applied to immigrants and the descendants of immigrants, you teach them that while they might trace their lineage to another country, and indeed they might have been born in this other country, America is their homeland, now, and the American flag is their symbol as much as it is any one else. And we do a terrible job of teaching that to immigrants these days although it’s not entirely the fault of those who are supposed to be teaching this.

It was with some pain that I admit that when I first met my wife (who is mostly Filipina), she used the term “American” as synonymous with “white.” As in, saying about a couple, “he is Korean and she is an American”—when in fact, he was born in America and she was white. One of the most invidious stereotypes attached to some ethnic groups is that they are “perpetual foreigners.” I knew a man of hispanic descent who complained to me once, “why does everyone assume I can speak Spanish?” This happens to people of Asian descent and Hispanic descent more than most, but it is safe to say almost every ethnic group besides the English themselves have suffered from some of this at one time or another. For instance, about one hundred and fifty years ago it was considered a grave insult to refer to a black person as an African American, because it was seen as an effort to imply that somehow they were not full Americans. So it was a dismaying example of a minority (my wife) actually absorbing the stereotype of the majority held against her, and being the history geek I am I said something along the lines of what I am about to say to you to convince her not to do that anymore.

I cannot tell you how profoundly un-American that attitude is. But in order to explain this, I have to talk about the original meaning of a word that we in America have profoundly muddled: nationalism. Originally, up until around the 1840’s, nationalism was a happy-face word for racism (and back then what we would refer to as different ethnicities—i.e. Scottish, French, etc.—were referred to as separate “races”). It was commonly believed that the most perfect form for a country was the “nation state” that is a country whose borders fit neatly with the ethnic identity of its citizens. It was believed simultaneously that states tended to be organized along ethnic lines, and that when countries were established encompassing more than one ethnicity, it led inherently to instability. A state without a strong national (ethnic) identity, it was believed, could not survive.

But a number of philosophers in the 1840’s, particularly Americans of German descent (because of their affinity to America and Germany), were confronted with two examples that seemed to defy these “laws” of political organization. The first was Germany, which many people felt should have been a nation at that point in time, but instead was a balkanized mess. The second was America, a country of multiple ethnicities even then, which to most observers seemed to be defying the laws of political gravity. Further, in the case of America, it was slowly tearing itself apart at that time. And so to explain this contradictory phenomenon, they redefined the word “nation.”

Where other nations were defined by common language, ethnicity and faith, they reasoned, America was bound by something else: its ideals. It was our shared belief in what America stood for as a “nation” that provided the glue that ethnicity, language and so on provided in other countries. And as we approached the Civil War, it was precisely because of a disagreement about those ideals that we were being torn apart as a country. There was one part that believed that all men were created equal, that all men* of all colors and ethnicities were equal not in a literal sense of having the same inborn abilities, but in having the same right to freedom, democracy and to profit from one’s own labor. And there was another part that believed that this only applied to white men—and maybe not even all ethnicities who were considered “white.”

Lincoln reflected the first view when he made this comment about the meaning of the Declaration of Independence:

Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometimes about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them.

We are now a mighty nation; we are thirty or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years, and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country, with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men; we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity.

We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men; they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity which we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time, of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves, we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age and race and country in which we live, for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have–besides these, men descended by blood from our ancestors–among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men; they are men who have come from Europe, German, Irish, French, and Scandinavian,–men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us; but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”; and then they feel that that moral sentiment, taught in that day, evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration; and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.

And Lincoln then showed how pernicious and dangerous it was to limit the Declaration’s principles to white people:

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of “don’t care if slavery is voted up or voted down,” for sustaining the Dred Scott decision, for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now, I ask you in all soberness if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and indorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow,–what are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says, You work, and I eat; you toil, and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will, whether it come from the mouth of a king, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent; and I hold, if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this should be granted, it does not stop with the negro.

I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?

By comparison, the view that the Declaration of Independence applied only to white men found its endorsement in the Dred Scott decision itself, where the Court ruled that a black person was not a citizen of the United States and could not be made a citizen of the United States, and thus could not sue in federal court by the rules of the time. After reviewing the language of the Declaration of Independence, the Court said:

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men — high in literary acquirements — high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.

So the argument was a perversion of patriotism: if the founders really meant that “all men” were created equal then they were hypocrites, but these guys were so awesome they weren’t capable of being hypocrites, so they must not have meant what they plainly said. And of course Lincoln’s narrative has its own patriotism embedded into it: the founders were so awesome that they knew to denounce even slavery, even if their deeds did not match their ideals. And in a real sense that was the core philosophical problem that tore this country apart, the conflict between those who believe that America is a “nation” in something like the traditional meaning of the term, that it was a “nation” of whites, or perhaps even of specific ethnicities among whites (let us not forget, for instance, that the Confederate flag was an “Americanization” of the Scottish flag, the St. Andrew’s Cross), and those who believed America was a nation bound not by race or ethnicity, but ideals. That is indeed the profound meaning of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The purpose of the Thirteen, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments was to encode the ideals of this “Second American Revolution” (as many in the North called the Civil War, referring to their overthrow of slavery and the unnatural dominance its advocates enjoyed). By declaring that all persons born here (with limited exceptions) were Americans, the American people declared that Dred Scott was wrongly decided, that all citizens, whatever their race or ethnicity, were equally “Americans” and therefore we are not a “nation” bound by blood, but by ideals.

So we see in this immediate case an example of a school failing grossly in one of its primary missions. It is supposed to be preparing students to be citizens of this republic, by teaching them to embrace the ideals that unite us. Instead, we are seeing students being taught that 1) if you don’t like someone’s speech, get violent and make threats and you will be rewarded with that speech being suppressed and 2) that the American flag is the symbol of white Americans only. And when I say that second part, it is not just the children of Mexican or Hispanic descent who apparently think this is the case, but evidently some of the white kids, too. While I will not impugn the motives of the plaintiffs in this case, certainly this portion of the opinion, if true, suggests a number of other white students who got the wrong message, too:

On Cinco de Mayo in 2009, a verbal exchange and altercation arose between a group of predominantly white and a group of Mexican students. This altercation involved an exchange of profanities and threats were made. A makeshift American flag was put on one of the trees on campus. A group of Caucasian students began clapping and chanting “USA” as this flag went up. This was in response to a group of Mexican students walking around with the Mexican flag. One Mexican student shouted “fuck them white boys, fuck them white boys.” Vice Principal Rodriguez directed the minor to stop using such profanity. The minor responded by saying “But Rodriguez, they are racist. They are being racist. Fuck them white boys. Let’s fuck them up.” Vice-Principal Rodriguez removed the minor from the area.

Of course the other thing that makes it harder to instill the ideal that America and its principles are not the sole property of one ethnicity or another is the constant problem of illegal immigration. A citizen can say to a citizen of Hispanic descent that “you are just as much an American as I am.” And with a person who is a green card holder, a citizen can say, “when you become a citizen, you will be just as much of an American as I am.” But you can’t say that to an illegal immigrant, now can you, because who knows when or if that person will be a citizen?

In Plyler v. Doe, Justice Brennan wrote:

Sheer incapability or lax enforcement of the laws barring entry into this country, coupled with the failure to establish an effective bar to the employment of undocumented aliens, has resulted in the creation of a substantial “shadow population” of illegal migrants — numbering in the millions — within our borders.  This situation raises the specter of a permanent caste of undocumented resident aliens, encouraged by some to remain here as a source of cheap labor, but nevertheless denied the benefits that our society makes available to citizens and lawful residents.  The existence of such an underclass presents most difficult problems for a Nation that prides itself on adherence to principles of equality under law.

Justice Brennan will never make any conservative’s list of favorite Supreme Court justices (and the outcome of the case should infuriate most conservatives), but in isolation, that passage is mostly correct in identifying the problem. It is an anathema to our republic to have such a substantial portion of our population be persons who labor under conditions we generally consider too inhuman for our citizens, to have so many people living here who have no say in our government and at best a problematic affinity with the country they live in. As I just explained, a citizen can’t say to them “you are as American as I am” or that they will be someday. There are still clumsy attempts to make that argument, such as Harry Reid’s infamous description of illegal immigrants as “undocumented Americans.” And worse yet, we even count those illegal immigrants in representation, so that the power of certain politicians will be increased by people who have no say in their election. It is not unconstitutional per se to do that, but it is in profound violation of the spirit of it and closely resembles the situation that existed under the three-fifth clause before it was rendered a dead letter; a population of persons who are denied the right to vote whose bodies are used to increase the power of those who might not have their best interests at heart.

And indeed the illegal immigration problem itself may very well be put at the feet of our nanny state. It is said that illegal immigrants do jobs that Americans won’t do, but um… really? At over 9% unemployment are there really Americans who think that they are above certain jobs? Once I read of a janitorial job opening in New Jersey that had 50,000 applications. If a sizable number of Americans are out of work and able to work, and not interested in doing any honest work that is available, then you have to put that at the feet of a social safety net that lulls them into the belief that sitting on your ass is a viable lifestyle choice.

But I think bluntly we are profoundly misunderstanding the problem with illegal immigration and why it is that Americans don’t do these jobs. Everyone agrees that the illegal immigrant problem is fed by the illegal immigrant labor problem, but there is another name for the illegal immigrant labor pool: the black market for labor. These are people who are not lawfully being employed, and when they are hired, often work under conditions that would be unlawful for legal immigrants and citizens. Their wages are often below minimum wage, they are worked beyond maximum hours without overtime, they are not granted as many breaks and time off, and so on. Could it be, my liberal friends, that the existence of this black market for labor is the inevitable and predictable result of the onerous regulations placed on businesses when they hire legal workers?

Whether by choice or design, the left has perpetuated a grave injustice on this group. They have created a safety net giving some Americans the false belief that they don’t need to work. They have created regulations so onerous that businesses seek out a black market for labor, ensuring that they will be working under conditions that liberals claim is too inhuman for regular Americans. And they have blocked any effort to stop the constant flow of new laborers into that illegal work force. And we end up counting them for representation without obtaining their vote—just as we did for three-fifths of all slaves. And what do you know, the people making up this illegal work force are for the most part not white. I am not saying it is slavery—since the illegal immigrant labor force is still doing all of this voluntarily—but the resemblance to Southern slavery is creepy and alarming.

What needs to happen is that we finally solve it and do it the right way. We need to finally shut down our border to illegal immigration. If we only do that the illegal immigrant community will eventually wither away; the current “crop” of illegal immigrants will eventually pass on, and their children will be—under the Fourteenth Amendment—full citizens. I mean there will always be a few illegal immigrants, but we can cut this problem down to a more manageable size. But that’s not all that I advocate. After we successfully get control of our border, I advocate amnesty—and I am not afraid to call it amnesty. Yes, it is not fair to those who play by the rules, but what else can we do? You can’t deport them all, and you can’t make life so miserable they self-deport; you have to assimilate them. But that only works if we actually shut down the border; otherwise the moment we make the current “crop” of illegal immigrants into legal immigrants, a new crop will come in to fill the void. And finally, we need to reduce the demand for this black market for labor, by cutting back on the nanny state to more reasonable levels.

So in the end the case is a straightforward application of a bad precedent taken to the point of ridiculousness. In Barnette v. West Va State Bd of Ed. (1942), the Supreme Court said that a Jehovah’s Witness could not be forced to express his patriotism. And in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court said you cannot prohibit an adult from burning an American flag, even if there is a fear of violence against the pyro. And today, we learn that an American student can be prohibited from expressing his patriotism, due to fear of violence against the student. I don’t blame the judge for it; it is the precedents he has to work with that stink, not his reasoning. And we can rationally hope that this absurdity might convince the current Supreme Court to overturn that dicta in Tinker and affirm as they did in the flag burning case that there cannot be a heckler’s veto.

But the fact we reached this point should alarm everyone. It is a sign of a decay in America’s sense of itself, a sickness in our soul. It is obviously a degradation of patriotism in this country, but more important than a lack of respect for the flag is a lack of respect for the republic for which it stands, that we are one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. (And it is worth remembering that not long ago the Pledge of Allegiance was actually banned in the same circuit until the Newdow case was overturned by the Supreme Court). These students are not learning that all speech must be tolerated or even to consider themselves one indivisible people. And that second unifying message is further undermined by a set of policies that have created a true segregation; a separate and unequal illegal labor pool consisting mainly of ethnic minorities, operating under conditions considered too inhuman for ordinary Americans.

So we should not read the decision and indict the judge. We should indict ourselves for letting it get to this point.

————————————————

* The implied sexism of using the word “men” is meant to intentionally reflect their limited view of the rights of women. As I always say, I disagree with the use of the word “man” and would instead use the word “person” in the Declaration.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

220 Responses to “A Fire Alarm in the Night: Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist.”

  1. DING!

    Oh snapz

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  2. First, the school has to make a concerted effort to instill pride in America in its students of all races and nationalities. That is their job.

    It’s really not. Not unless we live in Germany in the 1930’s, and last time I checked, we don’t.

    [Released from the filter because it shows you just exactly how devolved his thinking is. Yes, Kman, it is the job of the schools to teach kids to love their country, by gentle persuasion. And doing so doesn’t make us Nazis. –Aaron]

    Kman (5576bf)

  3. :roll: What the hell is wrong with these people.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  4. Clinton is the worst President of the 90S and Obama will be the worse president of the 00s and 10s.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  5. Regrettably, the “heckler’s veto” is being given more and more power in current events. And far too much of the time, the excuse given for denying a person’s “free speech” is that the heckler will be “driven” to violence and it will be the “fault” of the person who engaged in what they thought was “free speech”. Too much of it reminds me of the “her short skirt forced me to rape her” argument in defense of violent rape.
    It is a frightening path ahead…

    Sue (40062f)

  6. You ought to see the boys over at Volokh. What’s the problem besides chauvinistic jingoism.

    Richard Aubrey (5b5dfa)

  7. First of all, the use of the American flag in that context was offensive, and was intended to be offensive.

    Now a good part of the reason was that the students of Mexican background had themselves done something offensive (but very very tolerated by the school)

    They had promoted some kind of celebration that excluded the “American” students and treated themselves as superior or having superior rights over the American students. So these more American students wanted to say that they were the superior ones. This is of course, not good. It only ratified this kind of thinking, and it was much more blatant than the Mexicans had been. Because the Mexicans didnot want to replace the UnitedStates.

    Now one more thing: The defeat of Maximilian was a great tragedy for Mexico. (This actually was not that – it was an early victory by the Mexican forces.)

    Someone has got to be honest about this whole thing, and really, it was not a good thing that Benito Juarez, in the end, wound up on top.

    By the way there is an argument that had the French won in 1862 (they only did in 1863-64, before losing again in 1867) they would sided with the Confederacy (later the Confederacy was weaker)

    But anyway, there were forces pushing Napoleon III and those he sponsored toward decent and respected government – and democracy – particuarly its illegitimacy – but there were no forces pushing Benito Juarez and Porfirio Diaz toward decent and respected goovernment. There was a reason Cinco del Mayo was made a big holiday and it wasn’t because Mexico was on the right course after that.

    Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4)

  8. Now about Lincoln in that 1858 debate: His history as to why people celebrated the 4th of July is more a reconstruction and rationalization than reality, but of course what the Dred Scott court said was worse yet.

    I discussed slavery and the Declaration of Independence on 10/25/2011 @ 11:35 am Patterico time in comment number 50 to the October 24 Patterico post Reducing Politically Correct Ad Hominems to Absurdity dated Oct 24, 2011 6:57 pm.

    Jefferson wanted to blame George III, or at least England in general, for slavery. That also was untrue, since it predated him, and besides it implicitly portrayed American civilization as being helpless against the temptation, so the whole paragraph was stricken out. His editors, did leave in what he said about the Indians blaming him for unleashing “the merciless Indian savages” against them (although it did not attribute mercilessness to anything inherent in Indians but just said it was their rule of warfare)

    Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4)

  9. Americans are defined by a common belief, as codified in the Declaration and Constitution;
    except for those evil, vile, thugs, knows as Conservatives (aka Whites), who are just Racist Trash, and can be discriminated against, ignored, penalized, ostracized, etc, at will – particularly if they happen to express a belief in a Benevolent Supreme Being.

    I think, AW, that pretty much sums it up.

    If we do not repudiate the “salad bowl”, and return to the concept of the “melting pot”, it will be a very nasty conflict mirroring what went on 150-years ago.
    When neighbor is set upon neighbor, anarchy results and only Darwin wins.

    AD-RtR/OS! (556f44)

  10. Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 11/11/2011 @ 10:40 am

    I have always found it to be quite confusing that these students of Mexican/Mexican-American descent, would be offended by the presence of the American Flag, the flag of the country that they have found sanctuary in.
    How, per chance, would they have reacted to the presence of a French Tri-color on Cinco-de-Mayo?

    And EduCrats wonder why they are held in such low repute.

    AD-RtR/OS! (556f44)

  11. They should put it in writing in the student handbook:
    Students shall not wear any clothing — this includes hats, scarves, pins, jackets, shirts, pants, socks — containing a representation of the American flag to school on May 5th.

    Additionally, any pens, pencils, notebooks, binders, backpacks, purses or gym bags containing an American flag image must remain stored in student lockers for the duration of that school day.

    If your wallet contains a flag image it must remain in your pants or purse.

    Students with any representation of the American flag on their vehicles — bumper or window stickers, specialized license plates, custom paint job, etc — will not be allowed to park on campus.

    Anyone found to have “Proud To Be An American” (aka “God Bless the USA”) on their MP3 player will have the device confiscated.

    Ditto for “We’re An American Band” and “American Woman”.

    You are accused of heresy on three counts — heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action — *four* counts.

    “Born in the USA”? Don’t even think about it!

    Planning on speaking ‘English’ on May 5th? We advise against it.

    To avoid confusion, only the flag of The State state flag will be flown on that day.

    American Government classes will be showing “Viva Zapata!” and “The Alamo”. Cheering will be encouraged.

    No patriotic ringtones!

    Cafeteria menu on May 5th: (take a wild guess)

    Icy (8aec60)

  12. Define chauvinistic jingoism?

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  13. Mr. Worthing.

    regarding your footnote criticizing the use of the generic “man” for somehow denigrating the status of women. Why use “person” instead? After all, “person” includes the word “son”, which everyone knows is a male child. This perpetuates the denigration of women your assiduously seek to avoid.

    Steve Atchison (fd7cd4)

  14. Well, just don’t let those Mexican and Mexican-American kids wear T-shirts with an image of the Virgen de Guadalupe on St. Patrick’s Day and everything should be OK. Oh, and the Irish-American kids better not be wearing a shamrock (or a Notre Dame shirt) on Columbus Day. And no kinte cloth on St. Crispin’s Day or the Queen’s Birthday. Oh, and during Ramadan the kids had better not be wearing. . .

    And on and on and on.

    JVW (4d72aa)

  15. Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 11/11/2011 @ 10:52 am

    How, per chance, would they have reacted to the presence of a French Tri-color on Cinco-de-Mayo?

    They wouldn’t have understood what it was doing there.

    By the way, what the British and French and Spanish imposed upon Mexico is nothing compared to what they imposed upon Greece. Actually things were different then. The scale of government was different then. The taxes that the foreign countries imposed were tariffs, and they impounded the money but, if I am right, they didn’t otherwise try to control government spending and government policy like they are truing to do in Greece and Italy.

    According to the Wikipedia article, the Mexican government settled with Britain and Spain, but Napoleon III wanted an empire.

    Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4)

  16. They wouldn’t have understood what it was doing there.

    A damning indictment, that!

    Or, as a famous Momma said:
    Stupid is as Stupid does!

    AD-RtR/OS! (556f44)

  17. doh
    Visit Volokh and see. Oh, yeah. And when the hispanic kid said they were going to fuck up the white boys, it wasn’t racist because the convention is that only whites are racist.
    I suppose we could get tired running counterfactuals that everybody would understand but nobody on the educrats’ side would think relevant, but suppose some white kids told the admin they were going to f— up some Mexicans.

    [Don’t say the f word (even when quoting me), you will get stuck in the filters. I edited it out. –Aaron]

    Richard Aubrey (5b5dfa)

  18. Stashiu, my comment got ate!

    Icy (8aec60)

  19. Steve

    so you would suggest what word instead of “person?” Peroffspring?

    The problem is that while “men” can mean “women” in the law, we know that in 1776 it did not in the Declaration. Its not the sexist language i object to but the sexist meaning.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  20. Icy

    it was caught in the spam filter. i can’t retrain the filter, so you might let stash and/or patrick know about that.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  21. next year the kids should wear Alamo t-shirts…

    just to see if the teachers and the illegal aliens in the student body get the joke.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  22. red

    so you are wondering if our educational system will come through?

    i wouldn’t bet on it…

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  23. The Kman thing made me laugh, Aaron. Because he is a complete hypocrite.

    After all, he opposes any attempt by another nation to promote shari’a law, right? Because that isn’t the point of government.

    And he opposes any “islamic awareness” things in the schools here, right? Because that isn’t the point of government.

    No, these are Daddy-hating self-loathing trustifarians. They hate the successes that make them feel like the losers they really are…when they ought to be grateful.

    Also: he stalks you something fierce.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  24. Shit! Another long essay.. What’s your problem, Aaron?!

    The Emperor (c5cd61)

  25. “So we should not read the decision and indict the judge. We should indict ourselves for letting it get to this point.”
    This is what is wrong with this country. We should impeach this judge for failure to have any idea what the US Constitution is. And we should demand that the racists who exercised their heckler’s veto be prosecuted for assault. They did indeed threaten violence against the t-shirt wearers.

    Ken Hahn (f65a61)

  26. Ken

    but a district judge really doesn’t have much power. he can’t overturn the S.C. The best he can do is explain why he dislikes the tinker decision on this point, but he is still bound to follow it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  27. AW: it is one of my maxims that one can not fix stupid, but only mock it mercilessly.

    i would expect no one to get the joke, until late in the day or when it was pointed out to them, at which time they would have a snit fit.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  28. A District Court judge can dismiss a suit such as this – let the Circuit remand it back to him for trial if they are that stupid to do so.
    But, when he writes a decision such as he did, he deserves removal from the bench, because the “watchers” have become the corroding influence upon the body politik specifically, and the society generally.

    AD-RtR/OS! (556f44)

  29. First of all, the use of the American flag in that context was offensive, and was intended to be offensive.
    Sammy

    The First Amendment was created to protect offensive speech. If offensive speech is not protected, then no speech can be protected! After all, anyone can find any speech offensive for whatever reason they want to.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  30. Emperor your just another anal fissure.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  31. @duhbiden, moron!

    The Emperor (3db71b)

  32. I’m not upset about the judicial decision. I think the school should have wide latitude. I am disappointed about the school’s decision of how to handle the situation.

    David in Cal (a37153)

  33. TO: All
    RE: Heh

    Is this anything like the way PJM runs it’s blog? ‘Killing’ people for honestly expressing their opinions in a non-violent, non-abusive manner?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Pots. Kettles. You know the rest…..]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  34. Another long essay.. What’s your problem, Aaron?!
    Comment by The Emperor — 11/11/2011 @ 12:30 pm

    — Uh, he writes for READERS?

    Icy (8aec60)

  35. TheEmperor-Moron.

    That is like perrykrishnas who are Arrogant and smug projecting their nastiness on to cain.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  36. Chuck do you write at Puffho…………..If so ESAD hypocrite.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  37. TO: DohBiden
    RE: Nope….

    Chuck do you write at Puffho…………..If so ESAD hypocrite. — DohBiden

    I just see a correlation between what this federal judge ‘decided’ about Freedom of Speech and how PJM runs it’s operation.

    I called Charlie ‘Colorado’ Martin out on an item about Fukushima. Mentioned that my wife knew him from Denver Mensa and was not ‘impressed’. [NOTE: She succeeded him as editor for the monthly newsletter.]

    Next thing I knew I was (1) ‘killed’ and (2) he was bragging about it.

    So, hence my comment about how some blog operations are similar to the way this Unified School District runs things.

    Hope that helps.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    P.S. Google me see what I say. See if it’s ‘offensive’, as in wearing an American flag on some Mexican holiday…..

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  38. TO: DohBiden
    RE: Nope….

    Chuck do you write at Puffho…………..If so ESAD hypocrite. — DohBiden

    I just see a correlation between what this federal judge ‘decided’ about Freedom of Speech and how PJM runs it’s operation.

    I called Charlie ‘Colorado’ Martin out on an item about Fukushima. Mentioned that my wife knew him from Denver Mensa and was not ‘impressed’. [NOTE: She succeeded him as editor for the monthly newsletter.]

    Next thing I knew I was (1) ‘killed’ and (2) he was bragging about it.

    So, hence my comment about how some blog operations are similar to the way this Unified School District runs things.

    Hope that helps.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    P.S. Google me see what I say. See if it’s ‘offensive’, as in wearing an American flag on some Mexican holiday…..

    P.P.S. Or even on PP, here…..

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  39. TO: DohBiden
    RE: Write for HuffPo?

    Would you expect a conservative, christian with 27 years of service in the US Army: enlisted 1970, retired 1997, LTC, Airborne, Ranger, Infantry, to be posting on HuffPo?

    Maybe you should google me.

    Hope that helps….

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out….one way or another…..]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  40. P.S. Happy Veteran’s Day, buckie…..

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  41. Oh sorry then by the way your right about Rick Perry media.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  42. TO: DohBiden
    RE: Rick Perry Media?

    I don’t believe I mentioned the governor of Texas anywhere in my comments here. Nor anywhere else of late.

    RE: PJM

    My concern vis-a-vis this topical thread is that there are ‘conservative’ blogs that have been doing the sort of thing that this thread is complaining about: suppression of honestly held beliefs based on a variant of the all-too-popular concept of ‘political correctness’.

    Honestly held, supportable and cogent arguments will get you ‘killed’ on them just as easily as on any so-called ‘liberal’ blog.

    The point here being that suppression of honest debate is anathema to a free society. And I don’t care if it’s handed down by someone in black or someone wearing pajamas. Either way, we’re all gonna ‘hurt’ in the long run.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [God is alive….and Airborne-Ranger qualified. — Chaplain at the Airborne Chapel, Benning School for Boys]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  43. TO: Stashiu
    RE: Fished from ‘Spam Filter’?

    Heh….

    ….wouldn’t be Akismet?

    Someone, I suspect someone from PJM who didn’t like what I had to say, put me on their ‘spammer’ list. Despite the fact I did nothing more there than I’ve done here. [NOTE: Another example of the suppression of expression we’re dealing with in this thread. So please note that it’s not just the federal courts vis-a-vis some school district, at ‘play’ on this ‘playground’.]

    But thanks for the consideration and extra effort.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Freedom of information and the access to it is essential to a free society. The lack of such access is but a prelude to a farce or a tragedy. Perhaps even both. — President James Madison]]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  44. Chuck – What does Aaron’s post have to do with your 11 month old grudge with Charlie Martin on PJM? Not seeing the connection.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  45. Comment by Chuck Pelto — 11/11/2011 @ 4:52 pm

    Yep, Akismet it is. No worries and thanks for your service.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  46. You realize that the Federal Courts and Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist. are setting themselves up for a major problem via Student “Public Displays of Patriotism” via flash mob style mass disobedience.

    Or, for instance, major talk radio figures fomenting such a “Public Display of Patriotism” protests in the L.A., Houston or other places with high Hispanic student populations and public recognition of Cinco De Mayo.

    They would be better off scheduling an school in-service day on Cinco de Mayo than going to the Federal Courts to ban the American flag.

    Trent J. Telenko (2dcb6c)

  47. You’ve been linked over at my site, where I note that this would not have happen if these kids had been considered to be members of government-protected races and classes. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/323589.php

    Rhymes With Right (c48edd)

  48. The American flag is not an inherently offensive symbol. If there’s a flag pole with the stars and stripes in front of the school, nothing more needs to be said.

    If the students raised the American flag to defy a group white supremacists on campus, they would be praised for their bravery. But replace the skinheads with Latino punks who feel like suppressing the first amendment to promote their flag and culture, and then standard changes.

    This ruling will enable schools to merely appease the wannabe gangsters and trouble makers by removing speech of images that “provoke” them. There’s no incentive for establishing a safe learning environment that protects unpopular speech and exchange of ideas.

    When I was in high school kids jumped each other for wearing shirts representing rival sports teams. Black students taunted Latinos when Selena died. I don’t know what the courts are thinking.

    lee (cae7a3)

  49. Chuck:

    School districts are government, and therefore are covered by the Constitution. Speech suppression — especially of pro-American speech in favor of speech glorifying a foreign country — is therefore not an acceptable option. This judge made a grievous error.

    Privately-owned blogs are not government, and therefore the protections of the First Amendment do not apply. They may freely delete you simply because they find you to be an arrogant and obnoxious blowhard without any form of due process whatsoever without doing violence to your rights. Your continued whining about the matter shows that the sites in question undoubtedly got their decisions just right.

    Rhymes With Right (c48edd)

  50. I know Chuck but they do not tolerate it if you disagree with Rick Perry.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  51. Barack Obama is the first Biracial president.

    If he were a black liberal he would have been voted in.

    If he were a White liberal he would have been voted in.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  52. Ban Christianity, pigs and freedom because the radical Muslims might riot! (That’s how Britain got into the neutered state it’s in… so, we should be next?)

    Anonymous (bb3007)

  53. Ban religion

    Ban Private Property rights

    Because communists might be offended.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  54. The only remaining consolation I have is to think that those teachers will get no pension when California goes belly up. THey think Obama will bail them out but, unless we are very unlucky, they are dreaming.

    I have nother against teachers. My first wife was a teacher. A few years ago she went back to teaching for about six months and she says that she would home school the kids now.

    Mike K (9ebddd)

  55. The Empty Roar

    > Another long essay.. What’s your problem, Aaron?!

    My problem is that pixels are cheap and i had alot to say.

    i warned you at the beginning of it.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  56. Listen up, mate. I never let this happen to us. I’ve been fighting this crap for years now. And I damn well certainly will indict the judge and the school for this. Because they are the ones who handed down this decision.

    Not me. I am not responsible for this. They are. And you can keep your “oh, we’re all so guilty for this” baloney. Because it is baloney. We are not all guilty for this. I for one am not among those who deserve blame for this outrage.

    Paul A'Barge (b0bfce)

  57. _____________________________________________

    a sign that something has gone seriously wrong, here

    I think the case, per below, is an even more astonishing example of how truly defective the socio-political dynamics of the US have become in the 21st century. The twisting and turning of those dynamics have been greatly advanced by a judiciary — and public sector in general — chock full of liberals.

    A public school in blue-state California (aka as America’s answer to Greece/Mexico/Venezuela/Argentina/Spain), full of underaged people who are under the authority of adults (but who also are predominantly of the left), is one thing. But a scenario involving a setting within the US military, in which the rule makers and those following the rules are all past the age of consent, is a whole different matter.

    Welcome to the age of insanity, to the era of “Goddamn America.”

    Time.com, November 2009:

    Nidal Malik Hasan struck some of his classmates as a “ticking time bomb” whose strange personality telegraphed trouble long before he allegedly killed 13 people at Fort Hood. While Hasan usually displayed a quiet and lonely demeanor that “made me feel sorry for him,” says a fellow student who is enrolled for an advanced degree at the Pentagon’s medical school, such sympathy was tempered by the alleged killer’s repeated assertions in class that Muslims were being persecuted by the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    These students, speaking privately because they have been ordered not to speak publicly, say they’re angry that what they view as political correctness led their superiors to ignore the warning signs witnessed by students and faculty at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md.

    “We asked him pointedly, ‘Nidal, do you consider Shari’a law to transcend the Constitution of the United States?’ And he said, ‘Yes,’ ” a classmate told TIME on Monday. “We asked him if homicidal bombers were rewarded for their acts with 72 virgins in heaven and he responded, ‘I’ve done the research — yes.’ Those are comments he made in front of the class.” But such statements apparently didn’t trigger an inquiry. “I was astounded and went to multiple faculty and asked why he was even in the Army,” the officer said. “Political correctness squelched any opportunity to confront him.”

    Mark (411533)

  58. Dariano, not Darino.

    bbbeard (7c7b60)

  59. You can’t deport them all…

    Bzzt! Wrong.

    To quote President Obama, “Si se puede!”

    Micha Elyi (57bab2)

  60. bbbeard

    ah frak.

    Thanks for the correction.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  61. I would recommend a TShirt from the San Jacinto Monument rather than the Alamo. The Alamo may be more recognizable to the general public but the Battle of San Jacinto, launched during Santa Ana’s numerically superior forces siesta (nap time) was a tremendous humiliating defeat for Mexico. In addition, Santa Ana was found trying to flee while disguised in peasant clothing. Texas won its indepence from Mexico to become the Nation of Texas in 1836 and did not join the USA until 1945.

    Via la Tejas!

    Texas Mom 2012 (cee89f)

  62. The logic of the Dariano decision is flawed. Their reasoning has the isolated event taking precedence over the status quo.

    The foreseeable disruption under Tinker is Cinco de Mayo, not wearing the American Flag. American citizens in the United States of America displaying the flag of their nation on their clothing is the norm — it is what should be expected and encouraged on a daily basis.

    The fact that students on Cinco De Mayo may take offense and cause the disruption is a function of Cinco De Mayo, not the status quo.

    If you are to ban anything — and I am not encouraging banning Cinco De Mayo celebrations ( unless they cause a disruption) — then the conclusion as to what to ban is obvious.

    Todd MacLeod (0b8dca)

  63. TO: Rhymes with Right
    RE: School Districts

    School districts are government, and therefore are covered by the Constitution. Speech suppression — especially of pro-American speech in favor of speech glorifying a foreign country — is therefore not an acceptable option. This judge made a grievous error. — Rhymes with Right

    I agree.

    I sit on a city-county government oversight/community activism commission for my city-county government.

    In, my capacity therein, I’ve been complaining about the vaunted American public education system for the last year+. Especially since last Fall, e.g., 2010, the two institutions of ‘higher learning’—one state university branch, one community college—BOTH reported that 38% of the new enrollees required remedial English before they could participate in their offered curriculum.

    NOW we have THIS! And even more dangerous ‘indicators’ of what the vaunted American public education system has brought US to.

    And I’ll note that last Thursday’s monthly meeting, NEITHER of the local school district reps—D60 and D70—were present. And I have to wonder if they were dodging the ‘bullets’ I could have directed at them over this latest.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out….and some people are NOT going to like it.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  64. TO: DohBiden
    RE: Perry Tribalism

    I know Chuck but they do not tolerate it if you disagree with Rick Perry.
    Nothing surprising there. Those people may as well be Joe Paterno/Penn State fans.

    But intelligent people can rise above their ‘natural’ predilections.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The REAL challenge is not to be better than other people. It’s to be better than yourself.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  65. Dang! I HATE IT….

    ….when the html doesn’t work….as I’d like it.

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  66. Comment by Texas Mom 2012 — 11/12/2011 @ 3:06 am

    1945!

    Now I know why things are so different there.

    AD-RtR/OS! (22b718)

  67. TO: daleyrocks
    RE: Grudges

    I don’t hold ‘grudges’. It’s against my religious convictions.

    Rather, it’s an alert that not only so-called ‘liberals’ have issues with freedom of speech. Something to do with a need for honest debate in order to achieve true understanding of an issue, be it wearing an article of clothing or making a truthful comment on a blog.

    Hope that helps….

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [For more information, please re-read this comment.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  68. P.S. ‘violence’ comes in more forms than the mere physical. And it all begins with denying someone else the same rights/privileges you enjoy yourself.

    Something to do with ones personal observation of what they do verses what you do. If there is a ‘difference’, then you have ‘hypocrisy’.

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  69. Chuck your right.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  70. P.P.S. In my honestly held and supportable opinion, this federal judge has done ‘violence’ against any American who wants to profess their support of the rest of US on ANY day.

    And they should be impeached…..

    ….if only our Congress had the gonads necessary to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Especially the Bill of Rights.

    This ruling is a whack at the First Amendment.

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  71. I thought authoritarian was a right wing thing?………..Oh wait no it is not.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  72. TO: All
    RE: Speaking of….

    ….the vaunted American public ‘education’ system….

    ….I’m NOT ‘impressed’.

    I sit on a city-county appointed commission that performs ‘oversight’ and, to a degree ‘activism’. I’ve been on it for several years.

    Last Fall, i.e., 2010, I heard the reps for higher learning—one state university, one community college—on the commission report that 38% of their new enrollees lacked the necessary command of the English language to participate in their curriculum. They needed remedial education before they could progress.

    This last Thursday’s meeting, neither of the reps for K-12—D60, D70—attended the meeting.

    I have to wonder if they’re getting a bit ‘gun shy’, based on the latest revelations about:

    [1] This ruling about suppressing demonstrations of support for US.
    [2] The recent report that the NEA had a porn star reading to first graders.

    It would have been ‘interesting’ to hear the reps from the local K-12 trying to ‘tap dance’ around those two items.

    Heck! It was ‘intersting’ watching them cast the ‘blame’ on everyone ELSE for their failure to teach their students to understand English well enough to go on to college level education.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    P.S. For the English, the reps from D60 AND D70 blamed the families…..and they could be right….if you look at it from a REAL christian perspective…..

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  73. Your not impressed about our education system………………good for you for using your brain.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  74. Everyone should acknowledge Pelto’s super duper great awesomeness.

    JD (1d2d67)

  75. TO: DohBiden, et al.
    RE: Authoritarianism….

    ….doesn’t matter what side it comes from. It’s all about ‘power’ and the exercise of it to suppress the honestly held opinions that disagree with their own ideas for the use of power.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Whereas ‘Good’ can abide the existence of ‘Evil’, ‘Evil’ cannot abide the existence of ‘Good’. Because ‘Good’ will always be pointing out the problems of ‘Evil’. Therefore, ‘Evil’ must always destroy ‘Good’, in order to survive.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  76. TO: JD
    RE: Heh

    Cut the C—!

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    P.S. GIve US your REAL thoughts….

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  77. Newt also calls people heartless on more than one occasion.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  78. TO: DohBiden
    RE: Newt Calls People ‘Heartless’

    Sounds like ‘projection’ to me.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out….]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  79. Keep on calling Palin an idiot while you defend Obama.

    Keep on calling Clinton while calling Cain a serial harasser.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  80. that is for the illiberals.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  81. Did Lincoln really say “electric cord”?!

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  82. Exactly the left are liars according to them pro-lifers want 10 year olds to pregnant. I oppose abortion but that would be an exception for me…………..go ahead call me vile.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  83. to be pregnant*

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  84. Define chauvinistic jingoism

    Patriotism.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  85. The problem is that while “men” can mean “women” in the law, we know that in 1776 it did not in the Declaration.

    It certainly did!

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  86. First of all, the use of the American flag in that context was offensive, and was intended to be offensive.

    Bull. You are right that it was intended to say that the USA is better than Mexico; you are wrong to say that that is offensive. It’s patriotic. It’s the school’s job to teach students that the USA is better than other countries. The school has no right to treat all countries equally, because it too has a duty of patriotism.

    So I would say that under Tinker the school would have been within its rights to ban the Mexican flag if the circumstances would make its display disruptive; but it does not have the right to do so to the USA flag.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  87. Re: “the Mexican kids are American too”.

    1. At least some, and quite possibly a lot of the Mexican students who were upset by the American flag are not Americans even in the 14th amendment sense.

    2. Those who are American citizens have still shown themselves by their actions to be hostile to America, and thus no more American than was that jihadi whom we killed in Yemen. If they were loyal Americans then they whould have welcomed the display of the USA flag as well as the Mexican one.

    So I don’t mind offending them, and the school should not have minded offending them; on the contrary, it should have seen its job as teaching them to respect America, either as their birthplace or their host.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  88. The problem is that while “men” can mean “women” in the law, we know that in 1776 it did not in the Declaration.
    — Aaron Worthing

    It certainly did!
    Comment by Milhouse — 11/12/2011 @ 11:00 pm

    — Gotta go with Milhouse on this one. Aaron seems to be reaching for some clear indication that “men” in the Declaration was intended to be an indicator of gender rather than a signifier of “mankind” (albeit, possibly their conception of ‘civilized’ mankind) in general. Don’t see it.

    Icy (178cb3)

  89. 1. I know of no special exception from consequence to “free speech”. I need to see an agreed set of ground rules on what denotes “honest” and “debate”.
    2. I too think the “flag”display was offensive.

    “…The flag should never be used for purposes of advertising; nor should it be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. To make a patriotic display, consider red, white and blue bunting. Flag patches should not be part of an athletic uniform, but may be worn on the uniforms of military personnel, firemen, Scouts, and members of patriotic or other national organizations….”

    Do I have to use bold, CAPS, italics, “air-quotes”,(parenthetically co-opt), or defer to wiki-pedia, for the definition, intent,or significance, of any of these words or phrases?

    CaptDMO (80eca7)

  90. No, Capt. Your silliness is clear for all to see.

    Icy (bba215)

  91. SF> First of all, the use of the American flag in in that context was offensive, and was intended to be offensive.

    Comment by peedoffamerican — 11/11/2011 @ 2:49 p

    Sammy

    The First Amendment was created to protect offensive speech.

    Actually it was mostly intended to protect freedom of religion

    Thomas Jefferson was quite surprised to see, as he interpreted it, that in France the same things that used to happen with regard to religious opinion, were happening with political opinion.

    As it is, the suppression of religious opinions just about completely stopped at about the time of the adoption of the First amendment and it’s mainly affected attempts at stopping political speech.

    But this is besides the point.

    If offensive speech is not protected, then no speech can be protected! After all, anyone can find any speech offensive for whatever reason they want to.

    There are two special circumstances here. One, this is taking place in a school, where more restrictive rules can be applied.

    Secondly, the Supreme Court ruled rather recently, thanks to Clarence Thomas by the way, that symbols (like burning crosses) can sometimes be threats.

    Well, the school didn’t say it was a threat but it did say it was disruptive. Now, this only applied on that day. They didn’t try to prohibit the wearing if an American flag in general. But that day, the purpose of it maybe was to start fights. These were not students who wore it every day. So the school was perfectly within its rights in banning it just for that day

    On another day it wouldn’t have the same meaning.

    That day, it was like a gang color. It doesn’t matter that it was the American flag. The Statue of Liberty could have been used for that purpose, or the Liberty Bell (symbols more venerated by liberals) Anything. A T-shirt imprinted with the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg address or the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The meaning of any of these things can be transformed in the right circumstances. And the school would be justified in banning it.

    Especially if none of these students had worn it before.

    The thing is to hold any restrictions on its display to only when these changed circumstances apply. For a more permanent ban they would have to think more carefully and should need to prove that each and every day it was something like “fighting words”

    Some schoops have resorted to dress codes to avoid gang colors and they shouldn’t do that. That’s a crutch, and you have to avoid this kind of problem in a more fundamental way.

    – the only problem is they need to be even handed – it is a dangerous place to be to treat the Mexicans with kid gloves simply because (I assume) they are the majority in that school)

    I also think there’s a big difference if the display of a symbol is intend to be hostile, or if the problem is on the other side, where something innocuous activates hate. Th school should NOT decide this on the basis of who has the local majority. The court was wrong to rule in such a way. And if a school did do things on the basis, banning not what was intended to be hostile (which can be done by the majority) but instead something innocuous that revealed affiliation simply on the basis that if they did things that way it would be easier to police, then the school itself would be guilty of discrimination.

    Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4)

  92. TO: Icy, et al.
    RE: CaptDMO

    Indeed. This character is—as Spock Prime described Nemo—’seriously disturbed’, to make the statements he did a 0718 hrs, 111311.

    The distaff and I have judged high school debate in Colorado for YEARS. I specialize in Cross-X. If CaptDMO—and I seriously doubt their veracity as to appellation of ‘captain’, unless he owns a day-sailor—wants ground rules for debate, he should contact his local high school forensics program.

    As for ‘honest’, if they can’t recognized the ‘truth’ of a matter or a communication, they’re hopeless in the first place. HECK! As a young sergeant, I could tell how to determine what was ‘honest’. And this character claims to be a ‘captain’? Of what? A Mickey Mouse Fan Club? In Fantasy Land?

    And they go on to claim that ‘flag display’ is “offensive”?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    […to uphold and defend the Constitition of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic…. — oath of office for ALL commissioned officers in the US Armed Forces]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  93. P.S. Maybe CaptDMO is an officer for the Mexican government….

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  94. Comment by Mark — 11/11/2011 @ 7:39 pm

    We asked him pointedly, ‘Nidal, do you consider Shari’a law to transcend the Constitution of the United States?’ And he said, ‘Yes,’ ” a classmate told TIME on Monday. “We asked him if homicidal bombers were rewarded for their acts with 72 virgins in heaven and he responded, ‘I’ve done the research — yes.’ Those are comments he made in front of the class.” But such statements apparently didn’t trigger an inquiry. “I was astounded and went to multiple faculty and asked why he was even in the Army,” the officer said. “Political correctness squelched any opportunity to confront him.

    The political correctness had to do with the First amendment.

    Now they decided – you know we had a delicate problem like this before. We’ve got to deal with this like we used to deal with soldiers who might possibly have decided to become Communists.

    Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4)

  95. the Supreme Court ruled rather recently, thanks to Clarence Thomas by the way, that symbols (like burning crosses) can sometimes be threats.

    Yes, of course they can be.

    Well, the school didn’t say it was a threat but it did say it was disruptive. Now, this only applied on that day […] So the school was perfectly within its rights in banning it just for that day

    But that’s just the point. The American flag is not disruptive, and cannot be disruptive, unless there are people present who object to it, and there should be no such people in an American school that’s doing its job of raising a generation of productive and patriotic Americans.

    the only problem is they need to be even handed

    And that seems to be the crux of the problem, and of our disagreement: they don’t. An American school need not and should not be even-handed between the American flag and the Mexican flag. A Swiss school may and should, but an American school is on one side, and owes its side loyalty.

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  96. “I don’t hold ‘grudges’. It’s against my religious convictions.”

    Chuck Pelto – Do you want to call it a resentment instead, because clearly it’s still bothering you for you to bring it up on an unrelated blog 11 months later. Do you want to talk about not being able to raise you well reasoned and supportable arguments on Amy Alkon’s blog as well? How many blogs have you been banned at Chuck?

    If you get invited to a dinner party at somebody’s house and you take a sh*t on their living room rug is it wrong for you to be upset at them for not inviting you back, even if you claim you dump was an example of freedom of expression?

    See what I did there?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  97. Sammy Finkelman, come on down! You are the next contestant on The Fisk is Right:

    First of all, the use of the American flag in that context was offensive, and was intended to be offensive.
    — How many things are potentially wrong with such a straightforward, declarative sentence? Let us count the ways:
    1) Showing pride in ones country by the wearing of its flag is NOT in and of itself offensive, not unless it is accompanied by taunting rhetoric (eg. USA rules, Mexico drools!)
    2) If you are agreeing with those that did take offense, that the mere wearing of the red, white & blue on “their special day” was an offensive action, then you, as well as the offended Hispanic students, are the ones in need of a lesson in liberty and (yes) free speech . . . and maybe some spine stiffening. 
    3) One divines intent from observing the actions of the actors; to draw the conclusion that the actors in this case — the non-Hispanic students choosing to wear American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo — intended to offend Hispanic students by their actions is, to say the least, a pessimistic conclusion. No matter how much you might claim to know, you DO NOT know what was in their hearts. 
    4) To imply that the imagery was so provocative that Hispanic students would naturally be offended by it shows a shockingly narrow view of Hispanics on your part. Here in the desert southwest, the Hispanics I know that travel back & forth to visit family are grateful for the opportunities afforded them in this country. 

    Now a good part of the reason was that the students of Mexican background had themselves done something offensive (but very very tolerated by the school)
    — I’m guessing that this is a reference to “A makeshift American flag was put on one of the trees on campus. A group of Caucasian students began clapping and chanting “USA” as this flag went up. This was in response to a group of Mexican students walking around with the Mexican flag.” 
    1) Hopefully you caught where Aaron wrote “this portion of the opinion,” noting that the above and the wearing of flag T-shirts were separate incidents.
    2) Mexican kids walking around with the Mexican flag is offensive? It doesn’t offend me. Am I just off the beaten path on this one? OR, is something deemed offensive these days if just ONE person claims offense?
    You seem to be arguing that the kids were RIGHT to get mad at each other, but we just can’t have that because they will inevitably resort to debating the issue with rocks and fists and knives and guns. Again, YOUR pessimism is kinda, well . . . depressing.

    Icy (bba215)

  98. I was thinking “DMO” stood for “Democratic Mouthbreather Operative”.

    We will never know, of course, because the Capt has driven on by.

    Icy (bba215)

  99. TO: daleyrocks
    RE: Hmmmm

    Looks to me like you have issues understanding plain English.

    Either that or you suffer from the sort of ‘tribalism’ Bill Whittle describes at PJM.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Better luck next time….]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  100. Sammy Finkelman:
    They had promoted some kind of celebration that excluded the “American” students and treated themselves as superior or having superior rights over the American students.
    — There was an event on campus where non-Hispanic students were told, “You cannot participate in Cinco de Mayo celebrations”? Really? What was it?

    So these more American students wanted to say that they were the superior ones.
    Philippians 2:3-8 English Standard Version (ESV) 3 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
    The lesson is there, ready for those, adolescent, hormones raging, self-absorbed, quick-to-anger minds to absorb. Two questions: 1) Who is prepared to teach them the lesson? and, 2) When will they be ready to listen?

    This is of course, not good. It only ratified this kind of thinking, and it was much more blatant than the Mexicans had been. Because the Mexicans didnot want to replace the UnitedStates.
    — Racial pride trumps national pride? Textbook learning is more effective than real-world interactive experience? Perhaps there should be a reading of the (expanded) rules & regulations section of the student handbook during home-room each day; this in conjunction with the posting of a sign on the outside of the administration building, like the one at the nursing home on The Simpsons: ‘Thank you for not discussing the outside world’

    Icy (bba215)

  101. TO: Icy
    RE: CaptDMO

    You would make an excellent Acronym Control Officer.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    ACE
    IOAC Class 1-80
    Benning School for Boys

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  102. Dang!!! I HATE this automated spell-checking system. That was supposed to be ACO [Acronym Control OFFICER[, in the signature…..

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  103. “Looks to me like you have issues understanding plain English.”

    Chuck Pelto – That must be it, big guy since you dodged my original question and follow up.

    This blog banned two white supremacists a couple of months back who were injecting what they believed were well-reasoned and supportable arguments about the superiority of white race into every thread.

    It seems you have a problem understanding the concept of private property rights, an American tradition, and freedom of speech in public settings, the subject of the post.

    Bring a better game next time Chuckles.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  104. “…the school didn’t say it was a threat but it did say it was disruptive…”

    Then, I would be right in assuming that they, at the commencement of business on the day in question,
    ran the Mexican Flag up the flagpole instead of the Star-Spangled Banner;
    because, they didn’t want to be offensive and disruptive.

    AD-RtR/OS! (ce0593)

  105. Sammy Finkelman:
    Actually it [the First Amendment] was mostly intended to protect freedom of religion
    — Accepting your premise at face value: that religious persecution was the main concern of those that drafted the Bill of Rights . . . so what? peedoffamerican is correct; the First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to to express ideas that might be offensive to the sensibilities of others. Said “others” have the freedom to engage in rejoinder or debate, or to refrain from listening altogether, OR (and this is the big one) to look within themselves and explore the reasons why they feel offended, and maybe — just maybe — achieve some level of wisdom, realizing that they were narrow-minded and had no grounds or moral standing for offense in the first place. 

    But this is besides the point.
    — No kidding. 

    There are two special circumstances here. One, this is taking place in a school, where more restrictive rules can be applied.
    — “can be” and “should be” are two very different things. Obviously (and you do tend to state the obvious) schools are a structured environment where certain behaviors must be contained and/or restricted in order to provide a situation that is both safe (yes, safe) and conducive to learning. However, just like out in the real world, the devil is in the details: How many restrictions are REALLY necessary in order to keep the public at-large reasonably safe?
    How many things do we need to tell our kids they cannot do in order to allow them to become all they can be?

    Secondly, the Supreme Court ruled rather recently, thanks to Clarence Thomas by the way, that symbols (like burning crosses) can sometimes be threats.
    — Okay, here is how you tell the difference:
    Burning cross = threat to freedom-loving people
    American flag T-shirt = threat to those that do not love freedom. 

    Well, the school didn’t say it was a threat but it did say it was disruptive. Now, this only applied on that day. They didn’t try to prohibit the wearing if an American flag in general. But that day, the purpose of it maybe was to start fights. These were not students who wore it every day. So the school was perfectly within its rights in banning it just for that day.
    — For the sake of brevity (I know; too late, right?) let’s do one answer per sentence on this one:
    1) Disruptive disagreements between students occur on every school campus every day; the solution is to promote better understanding between diverse groups, not to just stand there and say, “cut it out because I said so”.
    2) Some would say that one day of oppression is one day too many. 
    3) Feel free to patriotic on every other school day, except one; right? Sound silly now?
    4) Again with the ‘intention’. Yes, I’m sure that the main thought in the heads of those kids was, “I’m gonna go to school today and maybe get beaten up or worse!”
    5) How do you know how often those kids wore flag apparel? And how do you deduce from them choosing to wear it on Cinco de Mayo, even if that was the only day during the entire school year when they did wear it, WHAT their “intention” was in wearing it?
    6) Again, being “within their rights” does not mean it was the right thing to do; and the ‘evidence’ you’ve supplied provides absolutely NO smoking-gun type of justification for the school’s knee-jerk, politically correct overreaction.

    Icy (bba215)

  106. Yes I agree the white supremacists deserved to be banned but how do you explain others who believe in equality being banned?

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  107. Sammy Finkelman:
    That day, it was like a gang color. It doesn’t matter that it was the American flag. The Statue of Liberty could have been used for that purpose, or the Liberty Bell (symbols more venerated by liberals) Anything. A T-shirt imprinted with the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg address or the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The meaning of any of these things can be transformed in the right circumstances. And the school would be justified in banning it.
    — Each numbered response corresponds to your sentences, in order:
    1) The flag of the USA, within the boundaries of the USA, “was like a gang color”. Wow. So, are you saying that those wearing the flag were saying “you’re not one of us”? Or, do you think that the relatively small number of Mexican-Americans that were upset enough to threaten violence were saying “we’re not one of you”?
    2) I know, the symbol matters not, only the PERCEIVED “intent” of the person wearing it. 
    3) The Statue of Liberty and the Liberty Bell are “more venerated by liberals”? Says who?
    4) Even the Emancipation Proclamation could be seen as a dismissal of a minority group’s cultural and ethnic identity, eh? Well then, there goes American Government class, right out the window!
    5) After all, what IS “meaning” anyway? Sometimes it all seems so . . . meaningless.
    6) So, if any one can twist the meaning of any thing to be considered offensive, then the school can choose to ban it. Slippery, meet your slope. 

    Especially if none of these students had worn it before.
    — Conclusion, meet your jumper-to. Pity the poor fool that just happened to wear something patriotic that day without realizing his intent! 

    The thing is to hold any restrictions on its display to only when these changed circumstances apply.
    — Because if you don’t, THEN you’re traveling down the slippery slope. I see; got it. Right now we’re just dangling our feet off the chair-lift, saying, “Gee, it sure looks scary . . .”

    For a more permanent ban they would have to think more carefully and should need to prove that each and every day it was something like “fighting words”
    — Gee, Sammy, I sure hope that it will never come down to anything so serious as a permanent ban on expressing patriotism! I mean, gosh! When Herr Obama spoke at the Reichstag McKale Memorial Center und called for the new civility I hadt noo idea that he meant “new civility OR ELSE!!!” Oy!

    Some schoops have resorted to dress codes to avoid gang colors and they shouldn’t do that. That’s a crutch, and you have to avoid this kind of problem in a more fundamental way.
    — By fundamentally banning any and all expressions of patriotism and loyalty, and community . . . and team spirit . . . and

    the only problem is they need to be even handed – it is a dangerous place to be to treat the Mexicans with kid gloves simply because (I assume) they are the majority in that school)
    — Tell the truth now: you all knew that the liberal race-baiting card was gonna come out eventually, didn’t you?

    I also think there’s a big difference if the display of a symbol is intend to be hostile, or if the problem is on the other side, where something innocuous activates hate.
    — Such as, oh I don’t know . . . say, someone displaying the flag of the country of which you, yourself, are a citizen? Ah! Ah! Aaaaahhhhh!!!!!
    [Sam — Kinison, not you, Sammy F. — we miss ya!]

    Th school should NOT decide this on the basis of who has the local majority.
    — Which is why you made sure to note whom you believe has the “local majority” in this case. Because it’s irrelevant. 
    Which is why you mentioned it. 

    And if a school did do things on the basis, banning not what was intended to be hostile (which can be done by the majority) but instead something innocuous that revealed affiliation simply on the basis that if they did things that way it would be easier to police, then the school itself would be guilty of discrimination.
    — IOW, the school is guilty. Your own words reveal that you suspect this to be the case. After all, how could you EVER be sure that the T-shirt wearers intended to cause a violent confrontation? Answer is: you don’t; this is why you keep throwing out the net of “intent,” hoping to catch a few converts to your way of (wishful) thinking.

    Icy (bba215)

  108. “Yes I agree the white supremacists deserved to be banned but how do you explain others who believe in equality being banned?”

    DohBiden – Give me examples on this blog.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  109. Sorry.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  110. I was wrong and I admit it.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  111. According to the left Alvaro Uribe did nothing good for Columbia because he didn’t Raise taxes on the Rich.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  112. TO: daleyrocks
    RE: [OT] Try….

    ….to avoid being a twit.

    If you want to engage me directly, visit my web-site. Othewise, I’d recomment you stay on-topic.

    All the explanation you need regarding my earlier comments on this thread has already been provided. If you don’t understand it, that is hardly my problem.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [I am not here to educate people who refulse to learn.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  113. P.S. I’m HARDLY a ‘white supremicist’.

    Although I’m ‘white’, as in 100% Viking descent, my brother-in-law is an Iranian expat. My eldest daughter is seeing balck Marine. Both of them are great guys.

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  114. Haven’t you all conceded Chuckles’ super awesomeness yet?!

    JD (84c177)

  115. TO: JD
    RE: Heh

    You sound ‘jealous’. Get over it. It looks ugly on you.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Jealousy is the impolite admission of ones own failings.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  116. P.S. Here’s a recommended cure for ‘jealousy':

    [1] Get a Life.
    [2] As Livi said millennia ago….

    The study of history is the cure for a sick mind.

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  117. I could only dream of being as super duper awesome as you, Chuck. For now, basking in the reflected glow of your uber awesomeness will have to suffice. I will work on keeping my jealousy under wraps.

    JD (84c177)

  118. TO: JD
    RE: [OT] Heh

    I will work on keeping my jealousy under wraps.</i. — JD

    Keep at it. Looks like you've got a LONG way to go.

    However, I can offer another 'step' in your long path to recovery.

    Visit your local Army recruiter. Volunteer to go Airborne-Ranger.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [You haven't lived, until you've almost died.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  119. To: chuckles
    Re: bite me

    Already served. Bite me.

    Warm and fuzzy regards

    JD

    JD (84c177)

  120. TO: JD
    RE: [OT] Awwww….

    ….you ‘served’? As WHAT? Where? When? And how long?

    You strike me as someone who got washed out, based on your comportment here.

    That would go far in explaining the apparent ‘jealous’ aspects of your communications here. Something akin to Aesop’s tale of the Fox and the Grapes.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [If you had a life in the first place, you’ll never have a mid-life crisis.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  121. USAF. Arabic cryptologic linguist. F@ck you.

    JD (318f81)

  122. C’mon JD. I smell a certain degree of, um, creativeness. Don’t you? Besides…

    “…I am not here to educate people who refulse to learn..”

    That’s right up there with “I work here is done.”

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  123. Chuck, back off, JD’s one of the Good Guys –
    even if he was a linguist (Heh!).

    AD-RtR/OS! (885414)

  124. And the fellow is all Mensan. Doesn’t that say it all? LOL.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  125. Chuckie’s Mensa membership means he rulz the intertubz!

    We are not worthy.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  126. “If you want to engage me directly, visit my web-site. Othewise, I’d recomment you stay on-topic.”

    Chuck – Thanks for the advice. Since the comment of yours I responded to was off topic to the subject of this post, I find your continued evasions comical.

    Most people here thank you for your military service but don’t give a crap about extensive dissertations about experience and background to establish credibility. They let the content of comments establish credibility.

    You have dismally failed by that standard. I visited your blog and saw you whining about Charlie Martin and Amy Alkon yet you would not respond to the question of how many blogs you have been banned on. You eventually agreed above that private blogs are different with respect to freedom of speech that public institutions. Congratulations! That still does not explain why you felt it necessary to bring up your eleven month old grudge with Charlie Martin in the first place in a post about a court decision about freedom of speech in a public institution.

    You are just not very good at this, in spite of your debate coaching and self-described well-reasoned and supportable arguments.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  127. Chuckie – Can you tell us a little something about toaster ovens?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  128. TO: AD-RtR/OS!
    RE: [OT] JD….

    ….a ‘good guy’?

    Heh. Where I come from vets don’t start barroom brawls with other vets. Especially wing-wipers vs. paratroopers.

    But if you wish to join what JD wants as a barroom brawl, you’re welcome….

    ….follow the link.

    Enough of the off-topic jealousy of some linguist who seems to have wanted to do more….

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [It’s like a battle of wits with an unarmed man.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  129. Chuck oinly f@#ks OWSers.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  130. TO: DohBiden
    RE: The Occupiers

    Maybe come Thursday. But it would distract from visiting my youngest. And shopping in Denver.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Illegitimi non carborundum]

    P.S. Life is too short for such riff-raff do dominate it.

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  131. TO: DJ, daleyrocks, et al.
    RE: [OT] Bring It!

    The Bar Is ‘OPEN’!

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Don’t give me any smart-alec attitude. I already have one!]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  132. Chuck, I – as much as anybody – appreciate what it takes to deliberately jump out of a perfectly good airplane; but,
    You Sir, are competely out of line!

    You obviously have extensive experience in writing checks that your ass can/cannot cash;
    but I would remind you that there is always, always, someone you shouldn’t piss off.
    (as I used to remind others in my motor-sports days:
    There are fast cars, and there are fast drivers; ocassionaly the two would converge – that’s when you were going to have a tough day!)

    Now, I don’t claim to be that person, just reminding you that those people exist – and they don’t like to be bothered with picayune crap such as this.

    I’d say it’s been nice, but I’d be lying.

    AD-RtR/OS! (885414)

  133. only*

    HC supports collective barganing rights for unions…………..see ya old hermano.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  134. P.S. I’m HARDLY a ‘white supremicist’.

    Although I’m ‘white’, as in 100% Viking descent, my brother-in-law is an Iranian expat. My eldest daughter is seeing balck Marine. Both of them are great guys.

    Comment by Chuck Pelto — 11/14/2011 @ 5:25 am

    LOL. Some of my best friends are balck.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  135. LOL.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  136. TO: carlitos
    RE: Fat Fingers R US

    LOL. Some of my best friends are balck. — carlitos

    Is that the BEST you can do?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [I feel like I’m being attacked by ducks.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  137. When not one, not two, not even three non-traditional formatting quirks are employed to gain attention, the message sort of gets lost, Chuck. You’re trying too hard.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  138. “Heh. Where I come from vets don’t start barroom brawls with other vets.”

    Chuckie – Why did you do it then? You were the first to demean or question another vet’s service on the thread if you look back, dickhead.

    You are really not very good at this.

    How many blogs have you been banned from?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  139. Comment by daleyrocks — 11/14/2011 @ 3:44 pm

    Not as many as he will be.

    AD-RtR/OS! (885414)

  140. “When not one, not two, not even three non-traditional formatting quirks are employed to gain attention, the message sort of gets lost, Chuck.”

    carlitos – Those are not attention getting devices, those are displays of CHUCKIE’S AWESOME MENSA PIOWERS .

    Get with the program, will ya.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  141. Powers, damn that Chuckie is awesome.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  142. It’s appalling that a judge in the US would be so intellectually and morally twisted that he could rule the US Flag is subject to suppression because it might offend. Whose country is this anyway? And “offensive” speech is precisely what the First Amendement protects. Worse, that US students-not just unshaved rioters from a marxist front group-would find the flag “offensive” is the fruit of a relentless assault by teachers and textbook committees on the US as “just as bad” as everyone else. Get involved: get involved! Stop it! (Mr. Pelto: having been banned from PJM for your long, off-point and just plain weird comments, take the hint).

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (329cc1)

  143. TO: All
    RE: I Find It ‘Interesting’….

    ….that people who want to conduct a ‘brawl’ don’t have the consideration, let alone the courage, to take the brawl to a place where it won’t eat up bandwidth in an off-topic manner.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Hatred is the cowards answer to being intimidated.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  144. Richard Craniums of the World, you have found your destiny.

    AD-RtR/OS! (885414)

  145. I clicked Chuck’s link. Seems that he does this fairly often, as an attempt to boost traffic to his blog. Pretty weak.

    Chuck just added another quirk, misusing single quotations. And the covert aggressive stuff is impressive. Kudos.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  146. TO: Fenton Mudd
    RE: Indeed

    But….

    ….it’s more than ‘appalling’. Rather it is an indication that the last part of the balance-of-power government—Executive, Legislative and Judicial—established so long ago has finally failed US.

    The judicial branch of our government was established to act as a ‘governor’ on the other two branches. However, over the last 50 years, we—who’ve lived a tad longer than some others around here—have seen the judicial ‘activism’ ripping the Constitution of the United States to shreds. [NOTE: If you care to know some specifics about the effects of the Supremes, visit ‘me’. If you don’t care….enjoy…..]

    This instance is important. But it is only another serious ‘whack’ at the Bill of Rights. And if the judiciary is attacking it, as much as the Executive and Legislative branches are…..

    ….we are, indeed, at the end of this ‘experiment’ in governance.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [May you live in interesting times. — Ancient Chinese Curse]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  147. We don’t “hate” you Chuck, we just want you to go away!

    AD-RtR/OS! (885414)

  148. TO: carlitos
    RE: Try….

    …not to be such a fool. I don’t need ‘traffic’. But I do offer a ‘playground’ for fools…if you will. Or even if you won’t.

    And I suspect you won’t….

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Hatred is the cowards response to a challenge….]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  149. P.S. You’ll notice that the ‘cowards’ never seem to take up the challenge offered by my site….

    WHY is that?

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  150. Because it’s boring?

    AD-RtR/OS! (885414)

  151. Shouldn’t this trollery culminate in one of those dramatic non-exits? Could Chuck google “I work here is done?”

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  152. TO: All
    RE: The Truth WIll Out

    We don’t “hate” you Chuck, we just want you to go away! — AD-RtR/OS!

    Isn’t that a variation on what this thread is all about?

    This federal judge doesn’t ‘hate’ America. He just doesn’t want it ‘expressed’. He rules that people who love America should ‘go away’.

    Thanks to AD-RtR/OS! for FINALLY bringing my earlier comments into their proper focus. And also for properly identifying JD…since he is, in his opinion one of the ‘good guys’….as part of the problem.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out….but sometimes it takes a little time for it to manifest itself in its true form…..]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  153. “I don’t need ‘traffic’.”

    Chuckie – If you don’t need traffic, why do you keep begging people to go to your site. It is rude to troll for traffic on another person’s site. Just plain bad manners.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  154. ‘cowards’

    Protip:
    You don’t need single quotation marks to quote yourself using a word that you introduced into the conversation.

    Ellipses have three periods and are used for a reason, not just to end meandering thoughts.

    Chuck, your site is not a challenge, except as evidence that someone affiliated with Mensa is stupid enough to believe that Revelation #9 is about a US attack helicopter built 2000 years later.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  155. Because our jealousy does not allow us to address your mendoucheous asshattery directly at your site? Because your awesome awesomeness intimidates us? Because you are a low-rent twatwaffle that does not deserve the traffic?

    JD (318f81)

  156. “Isn’t that a variation on what this thread is all about?

    This federal judge doesn’t ‘hate’ America. He just doesn’t want it ‘expressed’. He rules that people who love America should ‘go away’.”

    Chuckie – Are you sure you belong in Mensa?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  157. “stupid enough to believe that Revelation #9 is about a US attack helicopter built 2000 years later.”

    carlitos – Damn, I knew I was missing something!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  158. Chuck comes here and makes off topic comments, brags about his Mensa membership, debate coach history, city council membership and generally beclowns himself while insulting other commenters and calls them cowards because they don’t want to visit his blog for more of his act?

    Right, I am so on top of that!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  159. TO: All
    RE: Heh

    Why is it that you want to talk about all this off-topic stuff HERE?

    Afraid? Or what?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [One has not learned the lesson of life unless one learns to, each day, face a new fear.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  160. daleyrocks, add to the list of Chuck’s sins his penchant for meaningless platitudes which he no doubt sees as revered wisdom.

    JVW (4d72aa)

  161. TO: JVW
    RE: “Meaningless’?

    As in….

    Hatred is the cowards answer to intimidation.

    You just fulfilled the meaning of that ‘meaningless platitude’.

    Thanks,

    Chuck(le)
    [Hypocrites are too easy to shoot when they are swimming in the narrow barrels of their own mind.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  162. TO: All
    RE: Heh

    Still….

    …none of these ‘brave warriors’ are willing to take the ‘fight’ into the den of their ‘enemy’. I.e., no comments at the proffered thread.

    How very ‘odd’.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Hatred is the cowards answer to courage.[

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  163. TO: daleyrocks
    RE: Another OT Question

    Mensa membership….

    …ask me that on the proffered thread.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Show me your mensa membership ID and I’ll call you ‘Bro’.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  164. Hatred is the cowards answer to intimidation.

    You just fulfilled the meaning of that ‘meaningless platitude’.

    You should learn the difference between hatred and derision, Chuck.

    JVW (4d72aa)

  165. Chuck

    1st no one wants to expose their personal information to a bunch of mash up pseudo’s on your site.

    2nd your creepy Memo/military/flagwrapped/litmus is an old tired tactic

    3rd these guys never, I mean never, pass up a chance to slap around fools, braggerts, basement junkies on the net – they havw an uncanny way of dectecting those slightly vomit and urine stained aromas from internet weirdos that appear from time to time

    be forewarned

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  166. TO: JVW
    RE: Heh

    After 60+ years on this ball-o-dirt, I KNOW the difference. And the correlation.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    P.S. Thanks for providing more evidence to support my ‘meaningless platitude’…..

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  167. [Hatred is the cowards answer to courage

    That should read “cowards” or maybe “cowards.'” Are you sure about the Mensa thing?

    ‘fight’ into the den of their ‘enemy’. I.e., no comments at the proffered thread.

    And in the USA, we put punctuation inside the quotation marks.

    Kudos on correct usage of i.e., though. Not a lot of people get that one.

    Schoolyard taunts couched in pseudo-intellectual babble are just as effective as the other kind.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  168. Hmm. Blog inverted my single quotes for me. Interesting. I always learn stuff here.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  169. ZOMFGWTFBBQ. You cowards quiver in the face of greatness as great as Teh Pelto. I heart self-unaware douchenozzles 😉

    JD (84c177)

  170. Chuckie – You have a dizzying intellect. Do you have a newsletter to which I can subscribe?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  171. TO: ErickPWJohnson
    RE: Heh

    Thanks for confirming my understanding of the ‘cowardly’ nature of these people.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out……]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  172. P.S. Additionally….

    …they can pretty well post ANONYMOUSLY at MY site. I don’t really care if they ‘lie’ about e-mails and such.

    As opposed to—I suspect—THIS site.

    I’m just interested in honest discussion. But I get hte distcint impression that some people around here aren’t really interested in such.

    What’s your opinion on that?

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  173. TO: daleyrocks
    RE: Newsletter?

    I used to be the editor for the Denver Mensa monthly magazine. haven’t been for almost a decade, since I moved away.

    What’s your point? Or are you just TRYING DESPERATELY to keep your ‘hand’ in?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Am I getting ‘smart’ with you? How would you know?]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  174. A wormhole just opened up that will destroy the natural balance of the space-time continuum. In intended irony to such a degree must certainly be hazardous.

    JD (84c177)

  175. I would enjoy seeing nishi and this fellow in a steel cage match. Intellect against intellect, punctuation marks blazing!

    This whole business reminds me of this video:

    http://youtu.be/LrllCZw8jiM

    Lighten up, Chuck(le)….

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  176. Chuckie – Your lack of situational awareness is betraying you big time.

    A savvy commenter would assess the environment and players before making such an ass of themselves.

    Projection is not just something they do in movie theaters, you are doing it in each of your comments and it’s hilarious to watch.

    Early onset of alzheimers?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  177. Did Chuckie say he was a member of MEMSA, or DENSA?

    AD-RtR/OS! (885414)

  178. I’m sure it is OK daley, he probably has a paid-up membership in his local unit of IATSE.

    AD-RtR/OS! (885414)

  179. Simon – It’s fun to have a new chew toy. Charles Emerson Pelto III.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  180. As opposed to—I suspect—THIS site.

    That’s called projection. I hope Chuck is also learning something.

    Frequency of ALLCAPS is increasing, so the end may be nigh.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  181. Carlitos – did he declare victory yet?

    JD (318f81)

  182. I can just picture Chuck staring in the mirror at his Ranger tab blowing kisses at himself. Do you really think that it’s all that smart to pay money to a group of people who print you off a piece of paper that says, “Congratulations, you’re officially smart?”
    Yeah yeah, you served. Congratulations. You’re still a colossal bore.

    Jack Klompus (07a5ab)

  183. I made the suggestion, but no word.

    To: Patterico Commentariat
    Re: Dramatic Exit

    I work here is done.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Am I really leaving? How would you know?]

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  184. Chuckie is a member of HUOAA-Head up Obama admin’s ass.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  185. Mensa’s in Denver, and as a bonus, named Chuck

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  186. Chuckie proves the maxim – Alleged IQ ain’t no substitute for judgement.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  187. “Do you really think that it’s all that smart to pay money to a group of people who print you off a piece of paper that says, “Congratulations, you’re officially smart?””

    Jack Klompus – It’s sort of like paying the Who’s Who people for an entry, “Congratulations, you’re officially important.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  188. Daleyrocks – he dedicated a post to us. How sweet. As a super awesome Mensan, it is odd how he cannot distinguish the not very subtle difference between jealousy and mockery/scorn.

    JD (318f81)

  189. I don’t know, JD. It seems he offering you and daley the chance to exercise your demons. There isn’t anything more disturbing than an out of shape demon.

    I hope he meant “exorcize,” but who knows? I’m not all Mensa-ed out.

    Simon Jester (c6e3b5)

  190. Pelto’s first post in this thread:
    TO: All
    RE: Heh
    Is this anything like the way PJM runs it’s blog? ‘Killing’ people for honestly expressing their opinions in a non-violent, non-abusive manner?
    Regards,
    Chuck(le)
    [Pots. Kettles. You know the rest…..]
    Comment by Chuck Pelto — 11/11/2011 @ 3:57 pm

    And then, later:
    Why is it that you want to talk about all this off-topic stuff HERE?
    — The pot has met its kettle.

    Icy (c571cf)

  191. I used to be a Mensan. I first applied just to see whether I could get in. So long as I qualified for a student membership I kept paying it, because the newsletter alone was worth that much to me. Once I joined the workforce and had to pay a full membership I decided I was too smart to pay that much for that little, so I quit.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  192. it’s!

    I went to one Mensa gathering, and to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I would never join a club that would have someone like me as a member. It wasn’t my thing.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  193. “it is odd how he cannot distinguish the not very subtle difference between jealousy and mockery/scorn.”

    JD – Why is he jealous of us?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  194. Come back, Sammy, come back!

    Your dirty little Prince wanna grind, grind, GRIND!!! GRIND!!!

    Icy (c571cf)

  195. “I don’t know, JD. It seems he offering you and daley the chance to exercise your demons.”

    Simon – Looking at Chuckie’s comments, I think he’s the one who has demons. If he has a propensity to get banned from multiple conservative blogs, more than even money says he’s just a douchenozzle.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  196. “– The pot has met its kettle.”

    Icy – That was there from his first clueless comment. Downhill from there.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  197. And far too much of the time, the excuse given for denying a person’s “free speech” is that the heckler will be “driven” to violence and it will be the “fault” of the person who engaged in what they thought was “free speech”. Too much of it reminds me of the “her short skirt forced me to rape her” argument in defense of violent rape.

    The two ideas are shared by pretty much the same bunch of people.

    but a district judge really doesn’t have much power. he can’t overturn the S.C. The best he can do is explain why he dislikes the tinker decision on this point, but he is still bound to follow it.

    This is true. See the recent Lui v. Holder decision, No: 2:11-CV-01267-SVW (C.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2011), where Judge Stephen V. Wilson plainly held that Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982) controlled the result.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  198. TO: All My ‘Friends’ Here
    RE: [OT] Haven’t….

    ….forgotten you. Just had my head into learning a new programming environment, i.e., better thinks to do. I’ll be debugging the first effort at it over the next couple of days.

    In the meantime, you can play amongst yourselves, OR you can ‘man-up’ and stop wasting bandwidth on this thread and try to beat on me at my place. That ‘special place’ I created for you.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  199. TO: carlito
    RE: Heh

    What was I saying earlier about ‘sour grapes’….

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    P.S. You’re no ‘Groucho Marx’….

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  200. TO: Milhouse
    RE: [OT] Heh

    Once I joined the workforce and had to pay a full membership I decided I was too smart to pay that much for that little, so I quit. — Milhouse

    Must have been a rather small group. The Denver chapter is considerably more active. It’s hard NOT to find a SIG that would capture some intelligent person’s interest….for what….$50 a year? Or are you that poor?

    Denver’s group has argued constitutional law with professors of such from Denver University. We’ve had big time anti-war types of the Nam era who hobnobbed with paras and CINCPAC officers of the same era. We’ve celebrated the holiday season at the Denver Museum of Natural History—Get Out of Your Skins and Rattle Your Bones, was the theme. We’ve had a group that had the ‘honor’ of being thrown out of the worst bars in town.

    You have my sympathy…..

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Hold it Scotty. I just discovered Mensa.]

    P.S. Brain-fried. I’ve been at this new code since 3 am. That’s about 12 hours ago. I needed a ‘refresher’….so to speak. A change of ‘pace’. Something ‘easy’, as in shooting fish in a barrel…..

    Thanks for the lift….

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  201. “Get back, I can’t stand myself!”
    — James Brown

    Icy (aba449)

  202. Oh good Allah, for the love of all that is holy …

    JD (0c4797)

  203. Comment by Chuck Pelto — 11/16/2011 @ 1:57 pm

    Yeah, I can see why you get banned.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  204. Chuck likes to talk about himself, a lot.

    He has his own blog for that.

    Why subject people to his mental diarrhea elsewhere?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  205. Projection.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  206. Yeah daleyrocks we can be subjected to your mental romneybot diarrhea which is better or something.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  207. Why is it that self-unaware mendoucheous twatwaffles are always unjustifiably arrogant, tediously pedantic, and just generally insulting?

    That you are poor crap chuckles tossed at milhouse was completely classless. Typical of peltoe.

    JD (0c4797)

  208. “Yeah daleyrocks we can be subjected to your mental romneybot diarrhea which is better or something.”

    DohBiden – Who left your cell unlocked today? I’ve called the orderlies to remedy the situation.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  209. It doesn’t even make sense. How could not joining Mensa by choice be “sour grapes?”

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  210. Aaron: And I went over it again, made corrections and generally spiffed it up.

    It still needs to be spiffed up, or maybe slightly rewritten. I made a significant mistake here in the chronology because of the way it was written. I actually only realized this as I was writing this.

    I had to go through this at home till I noticed this..

    Re: Icy’s comments:

    I will try to write something now quickly and maybe go back to anything left hanging later. You tell me if and what is hanging. I’m going back a little to the beginning.

    1) Showing pride in ones country by the wearing of its flag is NOT in and of itself offensive, not unless it is accompanied by taunting rhetoric (eg. USA rules, `Mexico drools!)

    That’s right. But it also might be a reasonable conclusion that this was intention in wearing the flag the flag, since this chanting USA had already been done. Except maybe it’s not clear what happened.

    Now this all depends on what actually happened. I’d really want to check some first or second hand accounts – a variety of them if possible – doesn’t matter if so if they are biased – to see what was really going on.

    Court opinons can drain the whole flavor out of things and even give a misleading impression. Yes, they say, they can only go by the record, but the opinion about what happened or what not unjust or unfair depends upon all these things. We’re guessing what really went on at that school.

    1) Hopefully you caught where Aaron wrote “this portion of the opinion,” noting that the above and the wearing of flag T-shirts were separate incidents.

    Yes, I did. That was the whole point of it. He used the word So

    My my impression was that they occured on different days. And that the wearing of the flag was a continuation of the previous day’s conflict. Because that’s the way Aaron wrote it.

    Reading more carefully, he seems to say all incidents happened on May 5th. I missed the May 5th date – because it kind of doesn’t make sense. The school is given no motive for doing this.

    Reading still more carefully, I see that the incident with the wearing of the flag happened not the next day , but the next year!!

    This makes the action of the school unreasonable, unless they had more information.

    This is the way Aaron wrote it:

    So three students decided to wear this symbol on a T-shirt to their school on May 5, 2010, and were told to turn their shirts inside out or go home.

    Did the school have advance notice? Did they tell people the day before not to wear a flag? What was the idea – and not just what reason they gave to the courts?

    Here is what the opinion said:

    On Cinco de Mayo in 2009, a verbal exchange and altercation arose between a group of predominantly white and a group of Mexican students.

    This altercation involved an exchange of profanities and threats were made. A makeshift American flag was put on one of the trees on campus. A group of Caucasian students began clapping and chanting “USA” as this flag went up. This was in response to a group of Mexican students walking around with the Mexican flag. One Mexican student shouted “fuck them white boys, fuck them white boys.”

    Vice Principal Rodriguez directed the minor to stop using such profanity.

    The minor responded by saying “But Rodriguez, they are racist. They are being racist. Fuck them white boys. Let’s fuck them up.” Vice-Principal
    Rodriguez removed the minor from the area.

    We don’t know from this who really started being hostile.

    I didn’t notice the two different years because I ignored the year as irrelevant to the situation and the two mentions of the years are widely separated.

    reasoned that the symbol was so offensive to some students that you could expect those students wearing it to be attacked,

    This is a very bad legal justification. Now if the worry was, that the students might have an intenton to irritate some people, and that was the only reason for wearing the flag, and furthermore the idea was to see if they would maybe draw an attack on themselves which if it happened, they would fight back, that’s something different. And the school has a right to prevent the whole thing.

    They would a have a right to do that even if they could protect the students. It has nothing to do with the ability to protect the students in the end.

    But they do need to be very careful not to give in to bullies.

    It seems to me though, that the school may very well have made a generlization they should not have – they didn’t even have all the same students in the school in 2009 and 2010. They should hope the whole incident was forgotten and not do anything to remind people of it.

    Why should they assume things will pick up from where they were a whole year before?? The policy was not ad hoc.

    Now if other things were going on, maybe, but then the school has a whole lot of bigger problems.

    Otherwise, it looks they were fighting the last war.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  211. it also might be a reasonable conclusion that this was [their] intention in wearing the flag, since this chanting “USA” had already been done.
    — And the point I have continually attempted to make with you is that the ‘intent’ of the wearers matters NOT. Only their actions matter. It’s sure beginning to sound like you’re one of those that celebrated the passage of hate-crimes legislation as something that was long overdue.

    Icy (4105dd)

  212. My impression was that they occured on different days. And that the wearing of the flag was a continuation of the previous day’s conflict.
    — Funny. My impression is that the only thing that ‘conflicts’ with the displaying of the flag is the refutation, by those that do not respect it, of the freedoms it represents. But then of course, YMMV.

    Icy (4105dd)

  213. 1) Showing pride in ones country by the wearing of its flag is NOT in and of itself offensive, not unless it is accompanied by taunting rhetoric (eg. USA rules, `Mexico drools!)

    SF: That’s right. But it also might be a reasonable conclusion that this was intention in wearing the flag the flag, since this chanting USA had already been done.

    Comment by Icy — 11/21/2011 @ 10:22 pm

    – And the point I have continually attempted to make with you is that the ‘intent’ of the wearers matters NOT. Only their actions matter.

    I think both matter, and both have to be bad, for a school to attempt to stop it. It has to be bad intent and bad in reality. But the court seems to have held that a decision by a school only has to be not totally unreasonable.

    I found an article from the Morgan Hill Times
    from that day:

    http://www.morganhilltimes.com/news/265402-five-lohs-students-sent-home-for-wearing-american-flag-t-shirts

    It seems like the school acted on a false premise, and then did what it did only to some students who were wearing flag related material.

    Five Morgan Hill students sent home for wearing American flag T-shirts

    May 5, 2010

    By Lindsay Weaver

    Four Live Oak High School students’ First Amendment rights were challenged Wednesday morning when they were asked to leave school because they donned American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. Officials at the school chose not to comment on the situation, but one student said an official called the T-shirts “incendiary.”

    “They said we were starting a fight, we were fuel to the fire,” said sophomore Matt Dariano….

    …..Dariano called his mother Diana, who spread the word to the other parents, who all arrived soon after to have a conference with Rodriguez and Principal Nick Boden. The group said they were not instigating anything and did what they always do at break – sit and talk and eat.

    So that’s the basis. Dariano agreed intent mattered, but disagreed about intent.

    The boys were told they must turn their T-shirts inside-out or be sent home – and that it would not be considered a suspension – but that Rodriguez did not want any fights to break out among Mexican-American students and those wearing American flags. Dariano said other students were wearing American flags but since they were a group of five “we were the easiest target to cause trouble” according to Rodriguez, he said.

    The boys told Rodriguez and Boden that turning their T-shirts inside-out was disrespectful, so their parents opted to take them home.

    Morgan Hill Unified School District issued a statement that defended that legally but not politically – that is it did not agree with what the Live Oak School did.

    On the other side:

    More than 100 students were spotted wearing red, white and green as they were leaving school. Some had the Mexican flag painted on their faces or on their arms.

    Nothing in Live Oak’s dress code policy addresses what transpired Wednesday, but it does state that “the school has the right to request that any student dressing inappropriately for school will change into other clothes, be sent home to change, and/or be subject to disciplinary action.”

    One Mexican-American student, freshman Laura Ponce, had a Mexican flag painted on her face and chest, peaking out of her low-cut shirt. She did it because, “it’s our day, the only day we can show our spirit.” A school administrator took away the Mexican flag she was carrying as she was waiting to go home. Ponce said: “not cool.”

    “There was a lot of drama going on today,” Ponce said. Some were saying “Mexico sucks” while Mexican-American students responded in their second language.

    “Some were yelling Spanish to us,” Maciel said, who is half-Hispanic. “I couldn’t understand it, but it sounded bad.”

    Some Mexican-American students said that their flags were taken away or asked to be put away, but none were sent home for wearing red, white and green. Since Boden would not comment, it’s uncertain if any other students were sent home for what they were wearing on Cinco de Mayo.

    Live Oak High School even hosted a group of professional baile folklorico dancers, who waved flags and played traditional music from Mexico.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  214. One comment to the May 5, 2010 article by Lindsay weaver on the Morgan Hill Times website:

    I am also a fellow student of Live Oak High School. And it seems by the comments left below by a few students is nothing but propaganda. I have a class with most of the students in this article.

    And I will let you fellow readers know, these students’ have expressed their patriotism through out the year. A couple display it by sewing on American flags to the back of their backpacks. Making sure it never touches the ground of course. Others show it by wearing the attire such as shown in the picture above. It has not been a problem all year until today.

    So for those commenting claiming they only wore that for today is wrong. Are they patriotic? Most definitely! And they have been all year.

    A lot seem to ask why wear that today and not an American holiday. Sadly they have not been able to show it in any American holiday such as Veterans day, Memorial day, Presidents day, and Independence day. Why? Because class is not in secession.

    Are they racist? Highly unlikely. Because these students are friends with all groups of ethnicities. Including Mexican. As the article states, they were not instigating anything. They were simply standing peacefully as they always do eating their brunch. Its not as if they were waving a flag in the middle of the quad shouting “U.S.A U.S.A!”

    Do some consider showing pride in your country in a harmless manner instigating? Apparently. This was pre planned, that’s more then obvious. But does that make it in any way wrong? We as citizens have the right to wear such things any day including today.

    I am supporting these kids not only because they’re my friends, but because they had the right to do what they did no more then [sic – should be: just as much as, or if “no more than” (and not then!) is important, the sentence needs to be rephrased] the Mexicans. And for them to get sent home doing what they love to do. [sic – again this sentence needs to be rewritten so as to mean they have no business being stopped] Showing love for their country they proudly represent, in my opinion is preposterous. [sic – There needs to be some rewriting here at the beginning of these sentences. He means interfering with that is preposterous] And if it happened to only be the Mexicans getting sent home for their attire you bet I would be on their side.

    As far as the steps taken by Mr. Rodriguez, I personally don’t know how I would handle the situation myself. And am still debating weather he took the right steps or not.

    But has anyone bothered to ask how they handled this last year?

    As an eye witness to this last year. They actually let the “Mexicans” (sorry if it sounds racist) wave the flag around campus. I specifically remember Mr. Rodriguez following the group. Weather it was for support, or simply to make sure nothing gets out of hand who knows. But he was sure enough he was letting the group wave their flag. And I also can account [sic – should be recount] that a group of “White” students, frustrated I guess you can say. Pulled out in American poster and waved it in the quad. Quickly yard duties confiscated the poster. And I am not sure what happened after that because the lunch bell rang.

    I apologize for getting off topic. And I apologize if my views don’t seem to be up to par or as important as the rest. Thank you fellow readers of this forum for your time and consideration. Please feel free to leave any replies to this comment. I would love to continue this debate in a civilized manner. And for the record I am Mexican.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  215. No wait, all one sentence needs there is better punctuation:

    And for them to get sent home doing what they love to do: Showing love for their country they proudly represent, in my opinion, is preposterous.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  216. It’s sure beginning to sound like you’re one of those that celebrated the passage of hate-crimes legislation as something that was long overdue.

    No I didn’t. I have never supported extra penalties for murdering a policeman either.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  217. I think both matter, and both have to be bad, for a school to attempt to stop it. It has to be bad intent and bad in reality. But the court seems to have held that a decision by a school only has to be not totally unreasonable.

    — And how do you judge “intent”, Sammy? By your ludicrous standard of ‘they should check to see if this was the only time those kids had ever worn those shirts’? Big Brother, the shirt police, poring over days & days worth of security camera footage?

    Then, how do you judge “bad in reality”? Should the Hispanic students take a vote to decide whether or not they were offended? Or is it the simple standard that you keep hinting at, which is that the mere fact that ANY Hispanic students were offended to the point of threatening violence is cause enough to ban the wearing of American flag shirts? 

    The court decision is okay, and the school was within its rights to do what it did. But just because it had the right does not mean that it did the right thing!

    Icy (61f618)

  218. No I didn’t. I have never supported extra penalties for murdering a policeman either.
    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 11/22/2011 @ 12:23 pm

    — What extra penalties are there for murdering a police officer?

    Icy (61f618)

  219. icy

    i believe that some states will only allow for the death penalty if there are a number of aggravating factors, including whether the victim was a cop. but i could be wrong, since i am not a criminal lawyer.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  220. And you are correct, Aaron. Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be deliberately obtuse; just wanted Sammy to think about his use of the term “extra penalties”. Part of my — by now, very long-winded — quest to make him aware of his liberal, égalité über alles, mindset when it comes to determining what is fair and reasonable.

    On the subject of this thread he seems to feel that if the students wearing American flag t-shirts INTENDED to offend the Hispanic students that saw them, then this in and of itself is enough of a reason to justify banning the shirts. To my mind he has yet to give an adequate (read: any) explanation for how the school is supposed to determine intent.

    He might as well call for a ban on cheerleaders calling out, “We got spirit, yes we do; we got spirit, how ’bout you?”
    After all, who the hell are they to question someone’s level of spirit!

    Icy (61f618)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8862 secs.