• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

Letters to the Editor for Dec. 12 - The Galveston County Daily News : Letters To Editor

November 1, 2014

Letters to the Editor for Dec. 12

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

49 comments:

    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • carlosrponce posted at 8:19 am on Sat, Dec 14, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    Sverige, you have an American Actor, a British singer and a Cuban-born, Buenos Aires-based journalist (all Socialist) to say the Falkland Islands belongs to Argentina but not no one from the Falklands. Find me one Falklander, quote him or her then your argument will have some validity. Otherwise, don't cry for me Argentina!

     
  • bvresident posted at 7:43 am on Sat, Dec 14, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1335

    mytoby, where did you go to school? Your grammar is atrocious.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 5:58 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    Add to my post: The inhabitants of the Falklands have a different language than the Argentinians and have no desire to become part of the United States either nor Argentina.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 5:56 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    I still believe that the people who live in the Falklands should decide their fate - and they have. They voted to remain British.
    Argentina 1,068,301.76 square miles.
    Great Britain 90, 504 square miles
    Falkland Islands 4, 700 square miles, Official Language is English

    Asides from their pride and proximity Argentina has NO legal claim to the Islands.
    The Falklands are 300 miles from Argentina. Cuba is only 90 miles from the United States. Does that mean that we should claim Cuba if some Americans want it? We have a different language and the Cubans have no desire to become part of the United States. The inhabitants of the Falklands have a different language than the Argentinians and have no desire to become part of the United States.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 5:27 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 3:46 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013:

    TRUE -

    “Here in Argentina, the Falklands issue is a matter of national pride. Most people here want the islands back; there have been referendums that confirmed many times that desire. And the government certainly takes advantage of that,” Natasha Niebieskikwia, a Cuban-born, Buenos Aires-based journalist who writes for Clarin, Argentina’s leading newspaper, told FORBES by phone.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:49 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    The Falkland Islanders have voted to remain BRITISH. The thoughts of Sean Penn, an American actor and Morrissey, a singer, should not override their vote.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:34 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    So Spicoli is your role model. Makes sense.
    Check out
    http://www.falklands.gov.fk/results-of-the-referendum-on-the-political-status-of-the-falkland-islands/
    Results of the referendum on the Political Status of the Falkland Islands

    On Monday 11th March 2013, Keith Padgett, Chief Referendum Officer gave notice that the result of the referendum on the Political Status of the Falkland Islands are as follows:
    The number of ballot papers issued was 1,522
    The number of votes cast at the referendum was 1,518
    The total number of rejected ballot papers was 1
    The total number of votes validly cast at the referendum was 1,517
    The percentage of turnout at the referendum was 92%
    The number of “Yes” votes cast was 1,513 (99.8%)
    The number of “No” votes cast was 3 (0.2%)
    1 vote was unaccounted for
    The international observation mission’s preliminary findings were released after the official announcement of the vote result. Full statement is available to download in English and in Spanish here.

    “It is our finding that the Falkland Islands referendum process was free and fair, reflecting the democratic will of the voters of the Falkland Islands,” said Brad Smith, the Head of the International Observation Mission. “The international observation mission has concluded that the voting process was executed in accordance with international standards and local laws. The process was technically sound, with a systematic adherence to established voting procedures.”

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 3:46 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    sverige, time to do some research: Modern Falkland Islanders continue to reject the Argentine sovereignty claim. In 2010, Falklands correspondent Tom Leonard of The Daily Telegraph, wrote that "The 3,000-strong community is already proudly British . On March 10 and 11,2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum over its political status, and voters favoured (99.8%) remaining under British rule.

    "[T]he inhabitants of the Falklands were and are more in affinity to their neighboring Argentina." FALSE

     
  • sverige1 posted at 2:27 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    Just remember, Mr. carlosrponce -

    PSALM 146:

    "The LORD gives righteousness and justice to all who are oppressed".

    Furthermore - I would venture to say the inhabitants of the Falklands were and are more in affinity to their neighboring Argentina. Either way, the Falklanders have the right to their own self-government.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:57 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    Falklands belong to the Argentines. See article:

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/02/falkland-islands-belong-argentina-morrissey

    I am with the camp of Sean Penn who spoke of the "ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology" on the part of the British.

     
  • gecroix posted at 1:26 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    We've seen the value at the highest levels of taking no responsibility for your own inadequacies. Blaming Somebody Else is now the pathway to success, and lifetime support by taxpayers, from top to bottom.
    There's a reason a whole Capital Hill of incompetents can stay in office and then retire on our dimes for little more than playing cards and games with their bases.
    I'm not sure if something can be both pathetic and CS at the same time, but a good run at trying it is being made.
    This whole victimist notion has certainly been reinforced by policies promoting dependency and demanding equality of outcome without equality of effort or opportunity, or both.
    Probably best to just treat it like one would treat a troll - consider the source and just move on.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 1:24 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    Your words spoke volumes. You cast the British under Margaret Thatcher as the Big, bad evil empire taking away the Falklands from that little country Argentina. Great Britain did not take over the land. They settled on uninhabited islands in the 18th century, no indigenous people there.There is no real dispute, it's British. Do you remember what the Argentinian Marines (Your Scrap Metal Collectors) said when they hoisted the Argentinian Flag over South Georgia? They said "Viva la Patria!" or "Long live the Fatherland!"

    You said The British then Flexed their muscles in response. Did America just flex their muscles when they responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? S-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g may be good for the back but not for facts.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:12 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 7:26 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013:

    Well, I perhaps might have a little better memory. The aforementioned poster to whom you refer has written quite a few "doozies" in regard to race and other issues. Other posters have taken notice in response, and a time or two the STAFF has had to have such original comments removed.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:01 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    Below...is response to carlosrponce posted at 9:21 am on Fri, Dec 13, 2013....

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:00 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    Response to

    "Looks like sverige is in favor of military dictatorships holding power by invading other countries' territories. Gee, I never knew......"

    Poncie!! How on earth can you glean that I deem support for dictatorships, from my observations on the F. War? Historical evidence claims that both countries (England and Argentina) have had a long-term dispute over that group of islands' sovereignty. Period. It's immaterial of Argentina's governmental component at the time. Sure, there was Argentine military dictatorship admist the time frame. That doesn't give the green light for another country like Britain (imperialist at that) to push its weight and seek opportunity to invade.

    With that line of thinking, I suppose the US of A should take over some of these other countries who haven't gotten their act together in regard to human rights, electoral processes, and/or proper transfers of power. Now, who's being ethnocentric now?

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 12:51 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    If you look at the ancestry of ANYONE you will find ancestors who were oppressors and the oppressed. In my family tree my Spanish ancestors enslaved my Mexican Indian ancestors , killing them and making them mine for gold. My Spanish ancestors were conquered and subjugated by the Moors. My Mesoamerican genes get along with my European Spanish and Moorish genes. Playing the perpetual victim is bad form.

     
  • gecroix posted at 12:12 pm on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    As near as I can discover, or guess, some of my ancestors were forced by the Romans to build roads in the Brittish isles against their will, and beaten and killed if they didn't or worked to death if they did. More recently, my kid was refused a scholarship because she did not choose to base her application for it on her rightful claim of her 'minority' status
    I'm still ticked at the Italians, and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo...[wink]
    Remaining a pereptual victim is a choice, not an obligation.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 11:24 am on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    Yes, Margaret Thatcher is not in the same league as Nelson Mandela:
    “If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace.” Mandela
    from newsweek.com
    “If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care for human beings.” Mandela
    from cbsnews.com
    “From its earliest days, the Cuban Revolution has also been a source of
    inspiration to all freedom-loving people. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of the vicious imperialist-orquestrated campaign to destroy the impressive gain made in the Cuban Revolution. … Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro.” Nelson Mandela
    from lanic.utexas.edu

     
  • mytoby3113 posted at 11:11 am on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 422

    IHOG, you are truly a massed up mean person. Don't let hatered of the BLACKS get the best of you. REMEMBER your family was also an IMMIGRANTS when they first came to USA. Have a nice day. [beam]

     
  • mytoby3113 posted at 10:52 am on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 422

    `I do not understand your kind of respect. I really don't care about your lowering the flag at half staff for president Obama, because I Am a person that knows my fore father could not vote, endeure hardship, BOMBING of kids because of men thiking and acting like the BLACKS were not people. So whats new.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 9:22 am on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3017

    Well, I guess we've established that Obama didn't create any precedents in either case. We've flown the flag at half-staff for the Pope and Mandela, while not for the deaths of strong European allies.

    Who knows, there might actually be some real sense in the inconsistency, or maybe it's purely random. Just maybe, it's not an attempt to promote a race or stick it in the face of an ally.

    As for the SC Sheriff, his decision is certainly legal--not a federal site--and he seems to be willing to own that decision. It may or may not be popular within his jurisdiction, and if it's unpopular, he'll probably feel it in his next election campaign.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 9:21 am on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    Talk about a s-t-r-e-t-c-h! The Falklands were uninhabited until a French presence in 1764 by French captain Louis Antoine de Bougainville then in1766 by British captain John MacBride. The British have governed there since 1832. The people are are a predominantly homogeneous society: the majority of its inhabitants descended from the Scottish and Welsh immigrants who settled the territory in 1833. They are British citizens. The Falklands War began on Friday April 2, 1982, when Argentine forces invaded and occupied the Islands. The "scrap metal collecters" were actually Argentinian Marines who raised an Argentine flag at South Georgia. The invasion was spearheaded by Military dictators General Leopaldo Galtieri, Basilio Lami Dozo and Admiral Jorge Anaya. Argentina's invasion was condemned by the United Nations which demanded the Argentinians withdraw and cease hostilities. The war was over in 74 days. Looks like sverige is in favor of military dictatorships holding power by invading other countries' territories. Gee, I never knew......

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:33 am on Fri, Dec 13, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 7:18 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013:

    Well, ponce...not everyone was on the bandwagon in regard to the Falkland Island issue. There are those who believe that the imperialistic British were flexing their muscles. There actually had been talk of perhaps a "leaseback" where the Argentenians could have some sort of self-governing sovereignty. But, nooooooo.

    Human rights violations occurred frequently, and by the early 80s, G. Britain had just elected Maggie Thatcher - and Britain's economy was in shambles. Many believe the British needed an excuse to flex those muscles and the British challenged a scrap metal collector who simply was trying to clear up an old whaling station in nearby South Georgia. The British "weren't notified" of this collection activity....and so there goes a short war.

    So, back to your stance. I don't think an overwhelming majority of world thinkers would give Thatcher the accolade of doing a "good deed" in regard to the Falkland War. So, let's not be "EUROcentric" and assume that everything "our people" have done in the mother country Europe is "right". For this and many reasons, Ms. Thatcher is NOT admired by many.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:26 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    drumb47, I have read and re-read IHOG's posts in this forum and find no racism. This is a tactic used by Liberal Progressives, when you seem to be losing a debate, cry RACISM. Bad form!

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:18 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    sverige, you seem to have taken a very ethnocentric approach in your last post. You don't have to be British, Part-British or white to admire this woman and her great accomplishments : first lady Prime Minister of Great Britain, successfully led Britain against Argentina in the Falklands War, improved the British economy, was instrumental in the downfall of the Soviet Union, etc.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:09 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    Well , ? IHOG -
    You never answered...are you part British? Your defense of Margaret Thatcher leads me to think you are. Or, is it that your approval of Thatcher is partly because she's from a "white" country and put mentally ill folks and the poor (many of them minority) out to pasture? And, since she was white and from Britain, basically by default you approved anything she did..simply because??

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:02 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    There's never a dull moment when reading one of IHOG's posts. I like to think of him as being part Archie Bunker, part ex-war hero great-grandpa on "Mary Hartman", and part Cartman from "South Park" - all rolled into one.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 5:15 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    On Clinton and Mitterand:
    No mention of flags flown at half staff in news reports.
    Story does appear on Page A1 of GDN with 4 lines of text, no picture on January 9, 1996.
    President Clinton sent Vice President Al Gore to the funeral.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 4:45 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3017

    They TRIED to make it a sovereignty issue. The world didn't buy it because the racially repressed people objected, and, eventually, too, did a growing chasm of whites. If it weren't for the internal protests and loss of acceptance of the practice, the RSA could have clung to the sovereignty banner for many more years, and, eventually the rest of the world would have had to cave in and acknowledge a sovereign nations right to govern itself.

    The world has teeth in Iran because of the non-proliferation treaty. There are human rights treaties, too, but they only apply if you can prove that human rights are violated. If the victims do not believe they are victims, there's only so long that observers can stake claims that violations are occuring.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 4:34 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    ? IHOG ?
    How about Bill Clinton? As a self-appointed judge of character, my conclusion is that he likes America. However, he's a supporter of Obama. Kinda debunks your theory.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 4:11 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    ? IHOG ?

    I would like a lot of close friends and supporters of Obama (Oprah for example) love America since it gave her the opportunity to emass millions for her TV empire. Now, I think it was bear asking - what gives you motives/ or prompts you to judge that someone who happens to support Obama "hates America"? When did Oprah say that she hated America? Can I find it on YouTube?

     
  • drumb47 posted at 4:11 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    drumb47 Posts: 268

    What? IHOG, you prove time and time again your racist mindset. It's a shame
    the lies you post in this paper to further your racist view points. However,
    there are many who are on to you. Stop the madness.

     
  • IHOG posted at 2:42 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Kevjlang.

    The RSA government held out as long as they could.
    International economic pressure forced them to relent.

    Study the RSA position. White Africans were the original citizens of the country.
    They fought the take over of their country by migrants who happened to be blacks from other African countries.
    White RSA citizens brought the situation on themselves by importing and hiring blacks until the migrants were the majority in the RSA.

    America has a simular situation building.
    Illegal migrants are trying to force citizens to give them rights they don't deserve.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 2:29 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3017

    Unless you know of a better reason, I'd guess that if Obama was considering attending Thatcher's funeral, the events in Boston probably played a role in his not going. It's not like his administration has shown disdain for jumping on board AF1 for one junket or another. Sending Shultz and Baker was a good move, as they worked closely with her.

    Consistency in matters of state are not a solid trait in this country--regardless of administration. It would be nice if we fixed that, but we've been inconsistent for more than two centuries, so, I guess the sense of urgency on that isn't there.

    My memory isn't good enough, but did Clinton order the flags to half-staff when Mitterand died? I haven't found any indication of it through Google.

     
  • IHOG posted at 2:25 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Something seems to be lost in this half flag issue. Obama can only order Federal flags flown at half staff.
    All other Americans have the right to do it or not. Lowering a flag to half staff is a statement of respect. I flew my flag at half staff when Reagan and Thatcher died. I will not when Obama dies. I have no respect for Obama. I respect the office of President but that office hasn't died yet.

     
  • gecroix posted at 2:12 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Time will tell if segregation and separation and special considerations for one over another have actually passed, or just done a 180.
    Here. There. Everywhere.

     
  • IHOG posted at 2:12 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Severige.

    As a self appointed judge of motives of people you don't know please answer one question.
    Why do most of Obamas friends and supporters hate America while most of his opponents love America?

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 2:00 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    Consistency would be nice. There is an old saying: "What is good for the goose is good for the gander." Treating their deaths differently looks bad to one of our greatest allies (at least in this and the last century) Great Britain. I do know that some Brits are now asking about the double standard. President Obama did not even attend her funeral. He sent two former Republican secretaries of state, George Shultz and Jim Baker but no high ranking officials from his own administration..

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:56 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    Maggie Thatcher created divisiveness and strife for the common people of Great Britain. She was not nearly in the league of N. Mandela. She was instrumental in the exit of mentally disturbed patients into the cold, rainy streets of Great Britain. She, along with her co-hort R. Reagan, downplayed the emerging AIDs epidemic.

    The decades since Thatcher's governance have yielded quite an elapse of time. Almost a generation has grown up since her ending days of "rule". So, naturally, our country was not in the throes of a mass-recognition of Thatcher upon her death a few years ago. Mr Mandela, in contrast, and fresh on the minds of many (along with his latest health issues) made it very topical for our current President to call for a 1/2 staff. Mandela is in the league of Pope John II, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa. "Iron Lady" Thatcher is certainly not.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 1:21 pm on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3017

    Apartheid didn't end purely because many of the RSA's trade partners opposed it, and enforced sanctions. Internal opposition was a driver, too. If the people and government of the RSA had been convinced that Apartheid was instrumental to their success as a nation, they would have continued to thumb their noses at the rest of the world for as long as they possibly could.

    At the time of Mandela's arrest, he was neither the first, lone, or loudest voice against Apartheid. His legend grew as his prison time piled up, and more people recognized he was there, what he was there for, and realized the government was perpetuating a crock of sheep dung by claiming that he was some major public hazard.

    The "myth", as IHOG calls it, was created by the RSA government. It got additional momentum courtesy of the media, but had the government behaved intelligently back in the 70's, Mandela would have been a young lawyer with no special cause.

     
  • IHOG posted at 10:57 am on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Severige.

    I envy your ability to judge a persons motives without ever meeting them.
    Why didn't you warn us about Obama?

     
  • IHOG posted at 10:49 am on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Severige?

    Is skin color your reason to honor Mandela? Isn't that a little racist? Papa Doc was black, another hero of yours?

     
  • IHOG posted at 10:33 am on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Carlos.

    I suspect he didn't want Thatcher's importantce recognized. The more important she was the less important he is?
    Not really prejudiced against Brits, prejudiced in favor of muslims instead. Thatcher contributed nothing to his election, Muslims used OPEC to contribute millions

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:21 am on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3017

    What is your point? Do you think he was wrong to honor Mandela, or wrong not to provide the same honor for Thatcher?

    Do we need to research everyone that died during the last 10 administrations to see if any were more or less consistent in such matters?

    Do we know if Maggie or her representatives asked that such honors be avoided? I don't know. I've never been in her inner circle, so I don't know.

     
  • IHOG posted at 10:19 am on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    The Mandela myth was created by the media.
    He was jailed on conviction for terrorist activities, not because he was black.
    He was released after De Klerk ended aparthide. He became the leader of the ANC for propoganda purposes.
    Aparthide was defeated by capitalists.
    Banks, corporations and investors withdrew money from South Africa's economy. A dying economy ended Aparthide not Mandela. He just took advantage of it's end.

    The sanctions that defeated Aparthide could defeat Iran's nuke programe.

     
  • gecroix posted at 9:38 am on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    One of the prerogatives of being President (or, in other countries, king...) is ordering The Flag to be flown at half mast for pretty much whatever he wants.
    This particular President has a long list of failures, inadeqacies, lies, and subterfuges to justly complain about, and as such it takes valuable time away from that to nit pick on every thing he does that you don't particularly agree with but IS appropriate for the occasion.
    He picks one over another to fly the flag at half mast for BECAUSE HE CAN, just like other Presidents have done.
    So be it.
    Elections have consequnces.
    A real unemployment rate at about 10%, the 'new normal' of part time replacing full time jobs, all time record high food stamps and federal assistance, and serial lying and evasion and divisiveness have proven to be one of those consequences.
    Fight the battles that make a difference.
    If you just can't stand it, then remember there's no law that requires you to fly The Flag.
    A 'leader' who routinely claims he doesn't even know what's going on in his own Administration and own White House offices and with his Signature Achievement is certainly not going to know or care what Joe Blow does in response to the minutia of the Office.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:38 am on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2625

    So tell me why President Obama did not order American Flags lowered to half mast when Margaret Thatcher died? She was a good friend of the United States, was instrumental in the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of one of America's closest allies. Could it be that President Obama is prejudiced against Brits?

     
  • kevjlang posted at 7:19 am on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3017

    For one point, the rock I was under around the end of last week and over the weekend, I did here reminders about Pearl Harbor. Perhaps not as much as last year when the focus was on the 70th anniversary. Perhaps because this was not a "big" anniversary of it, but also quite likely because Mandela AND the deep freeze captured large chunks of focus. Most people, not just anti-war media types (not sure I understand that perception since war sells tons of papers, which is something media would be giddy about), focus a lot more attention on the "Here and Now" than on the past.

    As far as dropping the flag to half-staff, I can't imagine any logic that would indicate that the lowering of flags to half-staff for Mandela was any different that Bush's order to lower them for Pope John Paul II, nor that the fact that the flags were at half-staff during a period that overlapped the traditional lowering of the flags for Pearl Harbor day.

    It could very well be that our country's consistency in such matters may be a factor in this. For example, had there been a similar proclamation last year for Thatcher, we might not be having this discussion today. Now, I don't know if not doing it for Thatcher was an oversight, a show of disrespect, or, perhaps, by prior agreement with Thatcher.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:32 am on Thu, Dec 12, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3675

    Let's not kid ourselves. That sheriff should simply only get a little credit for finding a way to make the news. He wanted to make a statement that he wouldn't fly half staff in honor of Mandela not because he wanted to honor Americans first.

    The sheriff did what he did not to honor Pearl Harbor Day. Instead, the Carolina sheriff continued along with the likely qualities of his prejudicial family upbringing and his "external locus of control" to "slam" a man of color who he seemingly never respected in the 1st place.