Expressing a desire for peace...
Is apparently a crime in some municipalities in the United States. Well, at least by certain Homeowner's Associations. First off, I can't understand how displaying a sign of peace as part of a Christmas decoration is a bad thing. And secondly, when they state that displaying a peace sign is offensive "when our country is at war", they will have to prove to me that their country is actually at war. Yes, the US military is at war - and 2.5 of their members are dying every day, but there is no way in hell that the nation is at war. Save for a few magnetic "we support the troops" bumper decals for their SUV's and a few poor people dying for Haliburton's profit margin, the nation is not at war. Hell, they are even getting tax cuts, that's how seriously they are at war.
No, the US is not at war and this is just another example of the self-imposed totalitarianism writ large across the soul of the United States. Well done, George, well done Dick.
No, the US is not at war and this is just another example of the self-imposed totalitarianism writ large across the soul of the United States. Well done, George, well done Dick.
Also, peace signs are apparently "anti-Christ" according to those quoted in the article? WTF? Whatever happened to "Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards men?"
Posted by
Anonymous |
Mon Nov 27, 09:05:00 PM
Sorry, Kuri, but Christians haven't been about "peace" for a long, long time. Certainly not since they ponied up with the Necropublicans.
Posted by
kevvyd |
Tue Nov 28, 09:03:00 AM
I love the need for the journalist to tell both sides of the story:
The 1972 edition of Symbol Sourcebook: An Authoritative Guide to International Graphic Symbols, a major reference work by Henry Dreyfuss, admits to uncertainty about the source of the "crow's foot" design.
"Controversy surrounds the origin of the ubiquitous peace symbol," Dreyfuss wrote. "It was introduced by pacifist Lord Bertrand Russell during Easter of 1958, when he marched at Aldermaston, England, campaigning for nuclear disarmament."
Dreyfuss said the symbol, designed by a British commercial artist, most likely represents the convergence of the semaphore symbols for the letter D (sic) and the circle symbol, for total nuclear disarmament. Others claim the symbol represents an upside-down cross with broken arms and is therefore anti-Christian or Satanic.
On the one hand, we have a definitive source by an author who specializes in history symbol origins. On the other, we have some angry man-on-the-street wearing a wife-beater and sipping Budweiser from an Uncle Sam beer hat. We shall give both possible origins of the so-called "Peace Sign" equal weighting.
Does anyone else think that maybe part of the reporter's job should be to present the reader with the facts that are most likely true (i.e. make a judgement), rather than list any old facts that happen to fall from the sky?
Posted by
Anonymous |
Tue Nov 28, 09:42:00 AM
Briguy,
That would require thought, and today's media is about spoon-feeding pretty people to say what you want.
There was a knife-fight between journalism and public relations, and public relations won, unfortunately.
Posted by
kevvyd |
Tue Nov 28, 10:05:00 AM