The black guy is oddly comfortable demanding change from people he's never even met.
------>Hated to laugh, but I did. I'd like to think this piece (and other similar attempts at comedy) is a clever lampooning of some of our fellow citizens' reductive, ignorant, child-like and fearful viewpoints. But then I think it's just an opportunistic use of message as more fodder for the foals, that all messages are created equal, and are equally open to misuse and disdain, regardless of whether they represent Another 8 Years of child-like fear-mongering or if they represent an open attempt at adult self-appraisal and contemplation of our position. Send in the clowns!
Yeah - I don't really get the intense hatred he earns. People may not agree with his stance but he's almost never an asshole about it. Very reasoned in this thinking regardless of what ideological differences he may share.
lol where's the "intense hatred?" I just scrolled through two pages of posts about how much people respect this guy.
Not now. In the past. He's like a punching bag in the same way Rock is - even when the attack isn't deserved or even logical.
I look forward to the days when guys like Saba and Rock see that the response to Wright should be, "yeah, and now what?".
I look forward to the day when you don't stereotype me and put words in my mouth.
What exactly WAS my response??
Here are a few of your responses so far.
1) I call this the "don't lump me in with those assholes" defense.[/b]
"The Government is mostly white but certainly isn't all "white people".
The average white person would agree that the government is fucked up but when Rev. Wright doesn't distinguish the difference between the Government and "White People" it offends all those non-Governmental whites.
Big Business is mostly white but they don't represent "white people".
The average white person would agree that the Big Business is fucked up but when Rev. Wright doesn't distinguish the difference between Big Business and "White People" it offends all those working class/poor whites."
2) The "let me tell you how to deal with your anger" argument[/b]
"If so, is it done with hatred[/b] towards the people responsible or as a lesson as how the world has progressed away from such hatred? "
Barack
I assume you're white....should we lump you in with the assholes called our Government and Big Business too?? The point I was making was NOT that I was offended by the comments, I've stated that repeatedly and that it did not effect my vote. The point was THIS is why some white folks ARE offended. No one likes to be stereotyped. Therefore your first point makes zero sense.
Your second point is directed at a question I asked, not about Obama, but about whether there is hatred verbally directed towards the Nazis in today's Jewish religion. It was an appropriate question in the context of not ignoring history. It has nothing to do with my comments about Barack whom by the way, I've supported from the get go. Your earlier comments about giving it the "Rock test" to see how long I would continue to support Barack was unfounded and insulting. I've never had anything but positive things to say about him and his campaign.
RIF
The real problem here is this.....
Comment all you want about my opinions, belittle them, debunk them, present your side of the argument.
By me posting my opinions, which I assume is what we should all do here, I'm not calling names or insulting people on a personal level.
But why is it that you(and a few others) always seem to reduce it down to just that, a name calling contest by insulting and belittling, not my opinions, but me as a person.
While you may think that posting "Rock & Saba blah blah blah makes you look cool to your fellow lefties, it makes you look like an ass to those who desire a true exchange of ideas and a debate on the issues.
And in my experience, when people resort to name calling it's because they don't have anything important or interesting to say.
When black folks start rapping about how fucked up white America is, I do not get asshurt. I quite agree that America has a despicable record of abuse and hatred toward blacks. But I always ask what's next now that we agree on the broad picture.
I have never made any of our arguments personal. I assume that you are a good guy in real life. Pay your taxes, love your wife and kids and barbeque on the 4th. Over the years we have talked privately about political matters. When I felt others were not giving you a fair shake, I let you know it. But I have grown tired of your "holier than thou" stance on politics; your constant bashing of soulstrut liberals because they detest what Bush and Co have done to our beloved homeland. Our disgust is warranted. Deal.
My latest comments were written to elucidate the fact that you find Wright's words hateful and stereotyping which I feel is a misreading of the pastor's sermon. You dressed your feelings up with the canard of asking about Jews and the holocaust. None of my Holocaust refugee family ever talked about the holocaust (except when I pestered them as a teen). But their deep anger was evident by the choices they made. My grandfather never returned to Germany even though he had the means and traveled widely as a lecturer on plastic surgery. Many of my relatives refused to purchase things like Volkswagens because of their intense bitterness toward their former homeland. Your leading question as to whether Jews talked about the holocaust as teaching moment is absurd. The Jews I grew up with never considered it an obligation to heal the world for abuses they had suffered. To expect blacks to do the same is silly. If you feel that I am wrong simply say so. Meanwhile you accuse Wright of stereotyping. He never did. He called it as he saw it. Whites run this place and blacks suffer for this. This is not in dispute. If it is school me.
If you look at my comments you will see my critique of Wright's approach which I think Obama would agree with.
As for the Rock/Saba test that was not meant to be insulting rather it was meant to acknowledge your unique position on this board. I take seriously your swing vote status and thus you are a bell weather on such issues as Wright. As long as you stick with Obama then I can assume lots of swingers will too.
I look forward to the days when guys like Saba and Rock see that the response to Wright should be, "yeah, and now what?".
I look forward to the day when you don't stereotype me and put words in my mouth.
What exactly WAS my response??
Here are a few of your responses so far.
1) I call this the "don't lump me in with those assholes" defense.[/b]
"The Government is mostly white but certainly isn't all "white people".
The average white person would agree that the government is fucked up but when Rev. Wright doesn't distinguish the difference between the Government and "White People" it offends all those non-Governmental whites.
Big Business is mostly white but they don't represent "white people".
The average white person would agree that the Big Business is fucked up but when Rev. Wright doesn't distinguish the difference between Big Business and "White People" it offends all those working class/poor whites."
2) The "let me tell you how to deal with your anger" argument[/b]
"If so, is it done with hatred[/b] towards the people responsible or as a lesson as how the world has progressed away from such hatred? "
Barack
I assume you're white....should we lump you in with the assholes called our Government and Big Business too?? The point I was making was NOT that I was offended by the comments, I've stated that repeatedly and that it did not effect my vote. The point was THIS is why some white folks ARE offended. No one likes to be stereotyped. Therefore your first point makes zero sense.
Your second point is directed at a question I asked, not about Obama, but about whether there is hatred verbally directed towards the Nazis in today's Jewish religion. It was an appropriate question in the context of not ignoring history. It has nothing to do with my comments about Barack whom by the way, I've supported from the get go. Your earlier comments about giving it the "Rock test" to see how long I would continue to support Barack was unfounded and insulting. I've never had anything but positive things to say about him and his campaign.
RIF
The real problem here is this.....
Comment all you want about my opinions, belittle them, debunk them, present your side of the argument.
By me posting my opinions, which I assume is what we should all do here, I'm not calling names or insulting people on a personal level.
But why is it that you(and a few others) always seem to reduce it down to just that, a name calling contest by insulting and belittling, not my opinions, but me as a person.
While you may think that posting "Rock & Saba blah blah blah makes you look cool to your fellow lefties, it makes you look like an ass to those who desire a true exchange of ideas and a debate on the issues.
And in my experience, when people resort to name calling it's because they don't have anything important or interesting to say.
When black folks start rapping about how fucked up white America is, I do not get asshurt. I quite agree that America has a despicable record of abuse and hatred toward blacks. But I always ask what's next now that we agree on the broad picture.
I have never made any of our arguments personal. I assume that you are a good guy in real life. Pay your taxes, love your wife and kids and barbeque on the 4th. Over the years we have talked privately about political matters. When I felt others were not giving you a fair shake, I let you know it. But I have grown tired of your "holier than thou" stance on politics; your constant bashing of soulstrut liberals because they detest what Bush and Co have done to our beloved homeland. Our disgust is warranted. Deal.
My latest comments were written to elucidate the fact that you find Wright's words hateful and stereotyping which I feel is a misreading of the pastor's sermon. You dressed your feelings up with the canard of asking about Jews and the holocaust. None of my Holocaust refugee family ever talked about the holocaust (except when I pestered them as a teen). But their deep anger was evident by the choices they made. My grandfather never returned to Germany even though he had the means and traveled widely as a lecturer on plastic surgery. Many of my relatives refused to purchase things like Volkswagens because of their intense bitterness toward their former homeland. Your leading question as to whether Jews talked about the holocaust as teaching moment is absurd. The Jews I grew up with never considered it an obligation to heal the world for abuses they had suffered. To expect blacks to do the same is silly. If you feel that I am wrong simply say so. Meanwhile you accuse Wright of stereotyping. He never did. He called it as he saw it. Whites run this place and blacks suffer for this. This is not in dispute. If it is school me.
If you look at my comments you will see my critique of Wright's approach which I think Obama would agree with.
As for the Rock/Saba test that was not meant to be insulting rather it was meant to acknowledge your unique position on this board. I take seriously your swing vote status and thus you are a bell weather on such issues as Wright. As long as you stick with Obama then I can assume lots of swingers will too.
I never said "I" find his words hateful and/or stereotyping.....both JP and Drew specifically asked ME whare I stood on the Wright issue and I made my stance very clear. If you had read those responses you would not think I personally found them offensive...as a matter of fact, you'll find I share your EXACT view that " my critique of Wright's approach which I think Obama would agree with."
I even posted Monday night how I think Obama should/would address it in his speech Monday night before Philly and I was pretty spot on.
HOWEVER
When we discuss the "swing vote" and how some people might be swayed away from Obama because of Wright, I did indeed point out that people would view his statements as hateful, and many have.
For someone to say "I don't understand why ANY white people would be offended by his language" is absurd. You can say that you don't think they should....or it's wrong if they do...but reality is that they do, and the latest polls which suddenly have McCain 7% ahead of Obama reflects just that.
As far as you making it personal...when you say "People like Rock.....or "The Rock test" you are making the thread about ME and not the topic.
Ironically...you recently accused me of "personally attacking LW's wife" when in reality you can't find a single post where I mentioned her, her name or the word "wife".
Hell....you even challenged me to post my PERSONAL voting record as some ploy to prove some point?? Tell me THAT's not making it personal.
I enjoy these threads....I enjoy hearing peoples views, sharing mine, and challenging those I don't agree with.
But you will never see me make a point by saying "People like Dr. Wu....".
I expect the same respect in return.
And I challenge you to search the Strut archives and find ANY defense or support I've made of GWB.
I do disdain and voice my dissatisfaction with the "Far Left/Far Right / Dem vs. Rep" bullshit and apparently that is what you object to.
Ironically...you recently accused me of "personally attacking LW's wife" when in reality you can't find a single post where I mentioned her, her name or the word "wife".
I think it was me who asked you not to attack my wife. I thank you for stopping your attacks.
Ironically...you recently accused me of "personally attacking LW's wife" when in reality you can't find a single post where I mentioned her, her name or the word "wife".
I think it was me who asked you not to attack my wife. I thank you for stopping your attacks.
Again, cut and paste ANY post where I attacked your wife and I'll humbly apologize.
This is the second time I've asked that and still nothing but crickets and more accusations.
Ironically...you recently accused me of "personally attacking LW's wife" when in reality you can't find a single post where I mentioned her, her name or the word "wife".
I think it was me who asked you not to attack my wife. I thank you for stopping your attacks.
Again, cut and paste ANY post where I attacked your wife and I'll humbly apologize.
This is the second time I've asked that and still nothing but crickets and more accusations.
I would but you have asked me NOT to ever cut and paste your posts.
You have repeatedly attacked my wife using an argument, that we all know you don't believe; that she should contact the families of ever coalition soldier who died in Iraq and ask them permission to use their family name.
1) You know that she is one person who does not have the time or resources to do that.
2) You sight antifreespeech laws as your reason for why she should do this. We know that you support freespeech and are only using those laws as a way to make your attacks. (You never demanded that Saba ask permission from the widows of plane crashes before making political jokes about their dead husbands.)
3) We all know that your goal is not to attack my wife, it is to attack me - through my wife. That you don't use her name does not give you cover.
4) I spent a lot of time trying to educate you about what she was doing but chose to ignore what I wrote except for a few words that you took out of context to continue your attacks.
At any rate I appreciate that you have dropped your attacks, even if you wont admit they ever happened.
Ironically...you recently accused me of "personally attacking LW's wife" when in reality you can't find a single post where I mentioned her, her name or the word "wife".
I think it was me who asked you not to attack my wife. I thank you for stopping your attacks.
Again, cut and paste ANY post where I attacked your wife and I'll humbly apologize.
This is the second time I've asked that and still nothing but crickets and more accusations.
I would but you have asked me NOT to ever cut and paste your posts.
You have repeatedly attacked my wife using an argument, that we all know you don't believe; that she should contact the families of ever coalition soldier who died in Iraq and ask them permission to use their family name.
1) You know that she is one person who does not have the time or resources to do that.
2) You sight antifreespeech laws as your reason for why she should do this. We know that you support freespeech and are only using those laws as a way to make your attacks. (You never demanded that Saba ask permission from the widows of plane crashes before making political jokes about their dead husbands.)
3) We all know that your goal is not to attack my wife, it is to attack me - through my wife. That you don't use her name does not give you cover.
4) I spent a lot of time trying to educate you about what she was doing but chose to ignore what I wrote except for a few words that you took out of context to continue your attacks.
At any rate I appreciate that you have dropped your attacks, even if you wont admit they ever happened.
Anyway enough of this hijack.
Plain and simple....you're full of shit.
Not only do I give you "permission" to cut and paste, I'll send you $100 to donate to the Portland Chalk Project if you can cut and paste me ever insulting or attacking your wife.
Yes, I made comments about the project and I stand by my comments.
It would be illegal in some states including mine.
There are lawsuits filed by soldiers parents to stop the unauthorized use of dead soldiers name for anything commercial or political.
And since the project is listed under the umbrella of Chalk4Peace, an anti-war group, it does indeed make it political.
I'm sure lots of folks love it.
I'm sure you got lots of compliments.
But that's my opinion and at least one person here, who saw it in person, agreed.
I hate rehashing this shit, and I know folks are tired of reading it, but I'm calling you on your bullshit.
I'm putting a $100 bill in an envelope right now......go for it.
At any rate I appreciate that you have dropped your attacks, even if you wont admit they ever happened.
Anyway enough of this hijack.
Plain and simple....you're full of shit.
Not only do I give you "permission" to cut and paste, I'll send you $100 to donate to the Portland Chalk Project if you can cut and paste me ever insulting or attacking your wife.
Yes, I made comments about the project and I stand by my comments.
It would be illegal in some states including mine.
There are lawsuits filed by soldiers parents to stop the unauthorized use of dead soldiers name for anything commercial or political.
And since the project is listed under the umbrella of Chalk4Peace, an anti-war group, it does indeed make it political.
I'm sure lots of folks love it.
I'm sure you got lots of compliments.
But that's my opinion and at least one person here, who saw it in person, agreed.
I hate rehashing this shit, and I know folks are tired of reading it, but I'm calling you on your bullshit.
I'm putting a $100 bill in an envelope right now......go for it. 1) In a thread about where to eat in shop in Montreal I mentioned that I was going there with my wife who had been asked to present the project.
Attack one:
Nancy has been asked to present the Iraq Names Project at a professional conference there. We will be there in early March.
What should we do?
Your response: "How about getting the permission of the deceased soldiers families to use their loved ones names for a political agenda that they may not agree with or support.
Sounds like the right thing to do to me."
This was your full response at that time. A clear attack on my wife and freedom of speech.
2) You continued your attack: "I'm sure you know that there are laws prohibiting the use of deceased soldiers names, many lawsuits trying to stop people from using dead soldiers names, and like I stated originally "It's the right thing to do".
I respect those soldiers and their families and would not infringe on what I perceive is their rights.
If you don't think they deserve a choice in it, so be it."
3) your next post:
Chalk4Peace
Get familar
4) your next post: "I've never mentioned your wife[/b] or said anything about her personally.
If I have, post it here and I'll humbly apologize.
I've simply said that getting the permission of the deceased soldiers families would be "the right thing to do".....and I believe it is.
I've also stated that what your wife[/b] is doing is illegal in at least 4 states, including the one I live in.....that's a fact
And when told that the project was not "political" I posted the name "Chalk4Peace" which has your wife's project listed under it's umbrella....that is also a fact.
And then another poster, viewed the "tribute" in person and concurred with my opinion.
If you have a problem with that, or somehow construe it as a "personal attack on your wife", that's unfortunate.
Attacking someone's wife, child or family on a personal level is not something I have, or would do here, or on any other public forum."
Lets look at this: I've never mentioned your wife[/b] I've also stated that what your wife[/b] I've never mentioned your wife[/b] I've also stated that what your wife[/b] I've never mentioned your wife[/b] I've also stated that what your wife[/b] I've never mentioned your wife[/b] I've also stated that what your wife[/b]
Which is it, never or also?
Please explain how soulstruts champion of freedom of speech thinks that political project (the way you discribe the project) or an art project (the way she discribes it) should get anyones permission before expressing themselves. Then explain in what way these laws that you think are so great are constitutional.
Please show me where a poster, or any one else in the world, has seen this in person and then concured with you. If you do I will let you keep your $100.00.
"My wifes project" (how is it that you never mentioned her, but keep saying your wife?) is not under anyones umbrella. My blog has a link to chlakforpeace, they may have a link back. No umbrella. My blog roll also has a link to Military City, which is the group who print the military newspapers, so I guess I am under their umbrella too. Though that would be my blog, not her project.
I've got to to now, but that should be enough, if you want I'll finish later.
I think Rock pretty clearly meant he's never mentioned your wife in any kind of reference to her as a person . he was pointing out that what she was doing may be illegal, and, even if not, could at the least be objectionable to the people whose names she uses in her project.
I think Rock pretty clearly meant he's never mentioned your wife in any kind of reference to her as a person . he was pointing out that what she was doing
I find that rather hair-splitting. I'm not trying to wade into Rock and LW's debate - which frankly, would be better at the PM level - but most people tend to interpret critiques/attacks on their work as attacks on their person. Ask any artist who've had their works savaged if they don't take that shit personal on some level.
I've got to to now, but that should be enough, if you want I'll finish later.
If you go read that thread, you accused me of "attacking your wife" long before I ever mentioned her in any way...you accused me of posting a photo of a goat that somehow was supposed to represent your wife(even though the person the post was addressed to was Dr. Wu who had JUST posted that he was trying to "get my goat".
After you accused me of this I did indeed reply with .....
4] your next post: "I've never mentioned your wife[/b] or said anything about her personally.
If I have, post it here and I'll humbly apologize.
I've simply said that getting the permission of the deceased soldiers families would be "the right thing to do".....and I believe it is.
I've also stated that what your wife[/b] is doing is illegal in at least 4 states, including the one I live in.....that's a fact)[/b]
The only response that I mentioned your wife was the one where I had already been accused of attacking her.
I made it clear that I wasn't attacking her, but what she was doing.
So your C&P was me defending myself against your crazy accusations.
But I have integrity, and you did indeed c&p a post where I mentioned your wife.
PM me with the Chalk Project mailing address and I guess the chalk is on me.
I think Rock pretty clearly meant he's never mentioned your wife in any kind of reference to her as a person . he was pointing out that what she was doing
I find that rather hair-splitting. I'm not trying to wade into Rock and LW's debate - which frankly, would be better at the PM level - but most people tend to interpret critiques/attacks on their work as attacks on their person. Ask any artist who've had their works savaged if they don't take that shit personal on some level.
right but it was hardly an "attack." to say Rock "savaged" her project by pointing out that the very subjects of the work may object to it (and that indeed it may run afoul of the law) is a stretch.
I don't see it as a purely Rock-LW issue when someone's words are taken out of context months later. it happens a lot on here and we should all be more vigilant about it.
that said there is some room for debate on the "attack" issue I guess. I happen not to have interpreted Rock's words as such.
I think Rock pretty clearly meant he's never mentioned your wife in any kind of reference to her as a person . he was pointing out that what she was doing
I find that rather hair-splitting. I'm not trying to wade into Rock and LW's debate - which frankly, would be better at the PM level - but most people tend to interpret critiques/attacks on their work as attacks on their person. Ask any artist who've had their works savaged if they don't take that shit personal on some level.
Would that prevent you from writing a negative review??
And would you feel like you "attacked" someone personally if you wrote a bad review?
I think Rock pretty clearly meant he's never mentioned your wife in any kind of reference to her as a person . he was pointing out that what she was doing
I find that rather hair-splitting. I'm not trying to wade into Rock and LW's debate - which frankly, would be better at the PM level - but most people tend to interpret critiques/attacks on their work as attacks on their person. Ask any artist who've had their works savaged if they don't take that shit personal on some level.
Would that prevent you from writing a negative review??
And would you feel like you "attacked" someone personally if you wrote a bad review?
Rock - I'm not backing either side. I was responding to Rootless' post that, to me, parses a legitimate but ultimately rather fine difference between critiquing a person vs. their work and in most cases, for the person at the end of the critique, there's not a difference.
Wouldn't stop me from making the critique if I thought it needed to be made. That's not the point I was making though.
...you accused me of posting a photo of a goat that somehow was supposed to represent your wife(even though the person the post was addressed to was Dr. Wu who had JUST posted that he was trying to "get my goat".
I posted your entire posts. You keep using chalkforpeace as an attack on my wife, that was in goat post. I accept your explanation of the meaning of the goat, but to pretend that your post was about something other than the Iraq Names Project is another false.
After you accused me of this I did indeed reply with .....
4] your next post: "I've never mentioned your wife[/b] or said anything about her personally.
If I have, post it here and I'll humbly apologize.
I've simply said that getting the permission of the deceased soldiers families would be "the right thing to do".....and I believe it is.
I've also stated that what your wife[/b] is doing is illegal in at least 4 states, including the one I live in.....that's a fact)[/b]
How to do you reconcile your belief that these laws are just with your oft stated support for freespeech? I've asked you this repeatedly but you refuse to answer. The reason is clear, you don't believe what you say.
The only response that I mentioned your wife was the one where I had already been accused of attacking her.
I made it clear that I wasn't attacking her, but what she was doing.
So your C&P was me defending myself against your crazy accusations.
You never attacked her, you were only attacking what she was doing, but you did all that with out mentioning her? Sorry if I have a hard time following your logic. I have repeatedly tried to explain the Iraq Names Project to you. It is not an antiwar movement that she is part of. It is an art memorial that she conceived and is executing under no ones umbrella. There is no organization behind this, just her. When you attack it, you are attacking her whether or not you mention her name.
But I have integrity, and you did indeed c&p a post where I mentioned your wife.
PM me with the Chalk Project mailing address and I guess the chalk is on me.
Again, so that you will understand, the Iraq Names Project is my wife, no one else. It is something she does while working full time. It is a sacrifice she has chosen to make. I write a blog and maintain a flickr site about the project. If you would like to attack the blog, feel free, I am happy to defend it.
You can write your check to Nancy Hiss co Jump Jump Music 7005 NE Prescott Portland OR 97218. She spends between $15-30 a week on chalk and printing out of her own pocket. If you would rather send it to an organization that honors those who have died in a way that has your stamp of approval be my guest.
If you can find one person, any where, who has actually seen the project and feels the way you do you can keep the money.
If you can find one case where these antifreespeech laws have been successfully used against artistic, political OR commercial speech please post.
I think Rock's accusations about Nancy's project are despicable and his argument about getting soldiers' family's permission, as I have already shown, is a self-serving distraction that holds no water legally or morally. No memorial ever asks the permission of those honored, including the Vietnam memorial. Nancy has clearly stated her position with regard to the project and its meaning. Rock should apologize for staining her name here.
The solution to this whole tete a tete is for Rich to spend time with Nancy, who unlike Dan or I, is one of the kindest and gentlest people you will ever meet (sorry Dan, you're pretty nice too). I believe that Rich would come away with a wholly different opinion of the matter if this were to happen. Talking to guys like me will only reinforce his holier than thou world view.
If you can find one person, any where, who has actually seen the project and feels the way you do you can keep the money.
If you can find one case where these antifreespeech laws have been successfully used against artistic, political OR commercial speech please post.
In the same thread........
So, I visited the site about the project. It's a good thing to honor folks who've given their life for their country............ I'm a little skeptical about the political agenda/artistic statement behind this names project[/b] ....................... Is this honoring sacrifice or making a statement about peace? Those are two diferent things. They both have their relative merits. If you want to make a statement about the horrors of war, that's all well & good, but if it's concealed as some kind of war memorial honoring the sacrifice of people who died for something they believed in, that's disrespectful[/b] .
And that is exactly how I feel.
As far as instances where these names were removed because of soldiers families objecting.....
I think Rock's accusations about Nancy's project are despicable and his argument about getting soldiers' family's permission, as I have already shown, is a self-serving distraction that holds no water legally or morally. No memorial ever asks the permission of those honored, including the Vietnam memorial. Nancy has clearly stated her position with regard to the project and its meaning. Rock should apologize for staining her name here.
The solution to this whole tete a tete is for Rich to spend time with Nancy, who unlike Dan or I, is one of the kindest and gentlest people you will ever meet (sorry Dan, you're pretty nice too). I believe that Rich would come away with a wholly different opinion of the matter if this were to happen. Talking to guys like me will only reinforce his holier than thou world view.
I have no doubt that Nancy is a wonderful person.
My critique is about the Names Project and I've presented way more than just my opinion as to why I oppose it.
The fact is that there are laws that protect people from the unauthorized use of their name for any commercial or political endorsement.
This is not a matter of free speech, it's a matter of using peoples names without their or their estates permission.
You couldn't take the name of Bruce Springsteen(or any other person, dead or alive) and attach it to something like this project without their permission....this isn't my opinion, it's law.
I believe that dead soldiers and their survivors have those same rights and there is legal precedent that they deserve it.
Would you say the same things to those people in Louisiana who successfully had their family members names removed from a similar "Memorial" that you are saying to me? That by asking that the names be removed they are "personally attacking" the memorial's organizers...I think not.
When you make a public statement, as this project does, you open yourself to public critique. Taking that ability away is truly a blow against free speech.
I'm not trying to wade into Rock and LW's debate - which frankly, would be better at the PM level
no no no, its good where its at.
p.s. get over it, kala says shit about my wife every day and you dont see me crying about it. "sir, you have sullied the name of my honorable wife and i demand satisfaction"
"antifreespeach" laws,what a crock. You rely on "privacy rights" for everything from birth control, abortion, and homosexual sex, but in the context of the great Portland scribble fest, its "antifreespeach"
There is a right way to do something and a wrong way.
If you were out there posting the date from every day of the war and the number dead (May 13, 2006: 11 Dead) no one could legally object.
But to see proof that some families of deceased soldiers feel strongly enough about the use of their names to initiate lawsuits and request that the names be removed, and do it anyway, is wrong.
I've shown much proof that this is indeed the case, but you don't seem to care, what matters is YOUR project, not the feelings or rights of these families.
The Portland Project is not unique, there are many similar projects happening across the country. Most are being done by pronounced "Anti-War" groups. Some apparently are doing the SAME EXACT THING and trying to present it as nothing more than a "tribute".
Posting deceased soldiers names after the end of a war is a tribute.
Posting their names during the war is political.
To say that you're doing the SAME EXACT THING as Anti-War groups around the country but that YOU'RE doing it for all the right reasons is a stretch.
I support anyone's right to protest.
I support the deceased soldiers families rights to have say over when and for what cause their relatives names are used.
To not care enough about these families to take this into consideration is selfish, not selfless.
I think the sacrafices that these soldiers made, and the respect they should be given, is certainly worth the cost of a postage stamp to get permission from their families to use their names.
There is a right way to do something and a wrong way.
If you were out there posting the date from every day of the war and the number dead (May 13, 2006: 11 Dead) no one could legally object.
But to see proof that some families of deceased soldiers feel strongly enough about the use of their names to initiate lawsuits and request that the names be removed, and do it anyway, is wrong.
I've shown much proof that this is indeed the case, but you don't seem to care, what matters is YOUR project, not the feelings or rights of these families.
The Portland Project is not unique, there are many similar projects happening across the country. Most are being done by pronounced "Anti-War" groups. Some apparently are doing the SAME EXACT THING and trying to present it as nothing more than a "tribute".
Posting deceased soldiers names after the end of a war is a tribute.
Posting their names during the war is political.
To say that you're doing the SAME EXACT THING as Anti-War groups around the country but that YOU'RE doing it for all the right reasons is a stretch.
I support anyone's right to protest.
I support the deceased soldiers families rights to have say over when and for what cause their relatives names are used.
To not care enough about these families to take this into consideration is selfish, not selfless.
I think the sacrafices that these soldiers made, and the respect they should be given, is certainly worth the cost of a postage stamp to get permission from their families to use their names.
You should write them with your concerns. I will be interested to hear their replies.
Nancy has spoken to many of the families of people who have died in Iraq. They have all thanked her. They have hugged her. They have helped her. If some day, some family member asks that their name not be used, she will deal with that. But since your concerns stem from unconstitutional laws that will never be enforced and your desire to piss me off, she will continue to ignore your concerns. Which I will try to do as well.
Yesterday I wrote my impressions of Obama's Philadelphia Speech on Race. I would much rather talk about that than this distraction.
It's an interesting dynamic that people who have views that fall on BOTH sides of the "Liberal/Conservative" dividing line are shunned/ridiculed by the far right and far left.
There is a right way to do something and a wrong way.
If you were out there posting the date from every day of the war and the number dead (May 13, 2006: 11 Dead) no one could legally object.
But to see proof that some families of deceased soldiers feel strongly enough about the use of their names to initiate lawsuits and request that the names be removed, and do it anyway, is wrong.
I've shown much proof that this is indeed the case, but you don't seem to care, what matters is YOUR project, not the feelings or rights of these families.
The Portland Project is not unique, there are many similar projects happening across the country. Most are being done by pronounced "Anti-War" groups. Some apparently are doing the SAME EXACT THING and trying to present it as nothing more than a "tribute".
Posting deceased soldiers names after the end of a war is a tribute.
Posting their names during the war is political.
To say that you're doing the SAME EXACT THING as Anti-War groups around the country but that YOU'RE doing it for all the right reasons is a stretch.
I support anyone's right to protest.
I support the deceased soldiers families rights to have say over when and for what cause their relatives names are used.
To not care enough about these families to take this into consideration is selfish, not selfless.
I think the sacrafices that these soldiers made, and the respect they should be given, is certainly worth the cost of a postage stamp to get permission from their families to use their names.
You should write them with your concerns. I will be interested to hear their replies.
Nancy has spoken to many of the families of people who have died in Iraq. They have all thanked her. They have hugged her. They have helped her. If some day, some family member asks that their name not be used, she will deal with that. But since your concerns stem from unconstitutional laws that will never be enforced and your desire to piss me off, she will continue to ignore your concerns. Which I will try to do as well.
Yesterday I wrote my impressions of Obama's Philadelphia Speech on Race. I would much rather talk about that than this distraction.
If you want to exploit the sacrifice of people for your own ends, it's on you. If the people who run those sites are doing the same, well, its on them.
There is a right way to do something and a wrong way.
If you were out there posting the date from every day of the war and the number dead (May 13, 2006: 11 Dead) no one could legally object.
But to see proof that some families of deceased soldiers feel strongly enough about the use of their names to initiate lawsuits and request that the names be removed, and do it anyway, is wrong.
I've shown much proof that this is indeed the case, but you don't seem to care, what matters is YOUR project, not the feelings or rights of these families.
The Portland Project is not unique, there are many similar projects happening across the country. Most are being done by pronounced "Anti-War" groups. Some apparently are doing the SAME EXACT THING and trying to present it as nothing more than a "tribute".
Posting deceased soldiers names after the end of a war is a tribute.
Posting their names during the war is political.
To say that you're doing the SAME EXACT THING as Anti-War groups around the country but that YOU'RE doing it for all the right reasons is a stretch.
I support anyone's right to protest.
I support the deceased soldiers families rights to have say over when and for what cause their relatives names are used.
To not care enough about these families to take this into consideration is selfish, not selfless.
I think the sacrafices that these soldiers made, and the respect they should be given, is certainly worth the cost of a postage stamp to get permission from their families to use their names.
You should write them with your concerns. I will be interested to hear their replies.
Nancy has spoken to many of the families of people who have died in Iraq. They have all thanked her. They have hugged her. They have helped her. If some day, some family member asks that their name not be used, she will deal with that. But since your concerns stem from unconstitutional laws that will never be enforced and your desire to piss me off, she will continue to ignore your concerns. Which I will try to do as well.
Yesterday I wrote my impressions of Obama's Philadelphia Speech on Race. I would much rather talk about that than this distraction.
The difference between the links you posted and the Names Project is that none of the links above are associated with Anti-War protesting.
Instead of spending your time trying to belittle me for having an opinion you don't agree with, maybe you should ask those Anti-War(Chalk4Peace, etc.) websites that have you listed under their umbrella to remove your name if indeed that is not the sentiment of your intent.
If your wife feels that by me criticizing the names project it was somehow a personal attack on her, please pass on apologies as that was not my intent.
If you feel that ANYONE who criticizes the Names Project is making a personal attack I'll suggest you're either mistaken or too thin skinned.
I only know about the project because you posted about it here....on multiple occasions.....I'm sure you did so not expecting anyone to disagree with it's concept. You were wrong.
Finally, I'll assume that my posting of another persons views, who viewed your site, and came to the same conclusion I did, means you'll be buying your own chalk this month.
I fully intended on sending it and folks who have dealt with me here know I am a man of my word.....the fact that you challenged me with an offer to keep the money, and I delivered, means we agree to call this quits and move forward.
Comments
BLACK GUY ASKS NATION FOR CHANGE[/b]
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change
The black guy is oddly comfortable demanding change from people he's never even met.
------>Hated to laugh, but I did. I'd like to think this piece (and other similar attempts at comedy) is a clever lampooning of some of our fellow citizens' reductive, ignorant, child-like and fearful viewpoints. But then I think it's just an opportunistic use of message as more fodder for the foals, that all messages are created equal, and are equally open to misuse and disdain, regardless of whether they represent Another 8 Years of child-like fear-mongering or if they represent an open attempt at adult self-appraisal and contemplation of our position. Send in the clowns!
Not now. In the past. He's like a punching bag in the same way Rock is - even when the attack isn't deserved or even logical.
When black folks start rapping about how fucked up white America is, I do not get asshurt. I quite agree that America has a despicable record of abuse and hatred toward blacks. But I always ask what's next now that we agree on the broad picture.
I have never made any of our arguments personal. I assume that you are a good guy in real life. Pay your taxes, love your wife and kids and barbeque on the 4th. Over the years we have talked privately about political matters. When I felt others were not giving you a fair shake, I let you know it. But I have grown tired of your "holier than thou" stance on politics; your constant bashing of soulstrut liberals because they detest what Bush and Co have done to our beloved homeland. Our disgust is warranted. Deal.
My latest comments were written to elucidate the fact that you find Wright's words hateful and stereotyping which I feel is a misreading of the pastor's sermon. You dressed your feelings up with the canard of asking about Jews and the holocaust. None of my Holocaust refugee family ever talked about the holocaust (except when I pestered them as a teen). But their deep anger was evident by the choices they made. My grandfather never returned to Germany even though he had the means and traveled widely as a lecturer on plastic surgery. Many of my relatives refused to purchase things like Volkswagens because of their intense bitterness toward their former homeland. Your leading question as to whether Jews talked about the holocaust as teaching moment is absurd. The Jews I grew up with never considered it an obligation to heal the world for abuses they had suffered. To expect blacks to do the same is silly. If you feel that I am wrong simply say so. Meanwhile you accuse Wright of stereotyping. He never did. He called it as he saw it. Whites run this place and blacks suffer for this. This is not in dispute. If it is school me.
If you look at my comments you will see my critique of Wright's approach which I think Obama would agree with.
As for the Rock/Saba test that was not meant to be insulting rather it was meant to acknowledge your unique position on this board. I take seriously your swing vote status and thus you are a bell weather on such issues as Wright. As long as you stick with Obama then I can assume lots of swingers will too.
I never said "I" find his words hateful and/or stereotyping.....both JP and Drew specifically asked ME whare I stood on the Wright issue and I made my stance very clear. If you had read those responses you would not think I personally found them offensive...as a matter of fact, you'll find I share your EXACT view that " my critique of Wright's approach which I think Obama would agree with."
I even posted Monday night how I think Obama should/would address it in his speech Monday night before Philly and I was pretty spot on.
HOWEVER
When we discuss the "swing vote" and how some people might be swayed away from Obama because of Wright, I did indeed point out that people would view his statements as hateful, and many have.
For someone to say "I don't understand why ANY white people would be offended by his language" is absurd. You can say that you don't think they should....or it's wrong if they do...but reality is that they do, and the latest polls which suddenly have McCain 7% ahead of Obama reflects just that.
As far as you making it personal...when you say "People like Rock.....or "The Rock test" you are making the thread about ME and not the topic.
Ironically...you recently accused me of "personally attacking LW's wife" when in reality you can't find a single post where I mentioned her, her name or the word "wife".
Hell....you even challenged me to post my PERSONAL voting record as some ploy to prove some point?? Tell me THAT's not making it personal.
I enjoy these threads....I enjoy hearing peoples views, sharing mine, and challenging those I don't agree with.
But you will never see me make a point by saying "People like Dr. Wu....".
I expect the same respect in return.
And I challenge you to search the Strut archives and find ANY defense or support I've made of GWB.
I do disdain and voice my dissatisfaction with the "Far Left/Far Right / Dem vs. Rep" bullshit and apparently that is what you object to.
I think it was me who asked you not to attack my wife. I thank you for stopping your attacks.
Again, cut and paste ANY post where I attacked your wife and I'll humbly apologize.
This is the second time I've asked that and still nothing but crickets and more accusations.
I would but you have asked me NOT to ever cut and paste your posts.
You have repeatedly attacked my wife using an argument, that we all know you don't believe; that she should contact the families of ever coalition soldier who died in Iraq and ask them permission to use their family name.
1) You know that she is one person who does not have the time or resources to do that.
2) You sight antifreespeech laws as your reason for why she should do this. We know that you support freespeech and are only using those laws as a way to make your attacks. (You never demanded that Saba ask permission from the widows of plane crashes before making political jokes about their dead husbands.)
3) We all know that your goal is not to attack my wife, it is to attack me - through my wife. That you don't use her name does not give you cover.
4) I spent a lot of time trying to educate you about what she was doing but chose to ignore what I wrote except for a few words that you took out of context to continue your attacks.
At any rate I appreciate that you have dropped your attacks, even if you wont admit they ever happened.
Anyway enough of this hijack.
Plain and simple....you're full of shit.
Not only do I give you "permission" to cut and paste, I'll send you $100 to donate to the Portland Chalk Project if you can cut and paste me ever insulting or attacking your wife.
Yes, I made comments about the project and I stand by my comments.
It would be illegal in some states including mine.
There are lawsuits filed by soldiers parents to stop the unauthorized use of dead soldiers name for anything commercial or political.
And since the project is listed under the umbrella of Chalk4Peace, an anti-war group, it does indeed make it political.
I'm sure lots of folks love it.
I'm sure you got lots of compliments.
But that's my opinion and at least one person here, who saw it in person, agreed.
I hate rehashing this shit, and I know folks are tired of reading it, but I'm calling you on your bullshit.
I'm putting a $100 bill in an envelope right now......go for it.
Plain and simple....you're full of shit.
Not only do I give you "permission" to cut and paste, I'll send you $100 to donate to the Portland Chalk Project if you can cut and paste me ever insulting or attacking your wife.
Yes, I made comments about the project and I stand by my comments.
It would be illegal in some states including mine.
There are lawsuits filed by soldiers parents to stop the unauthorized use of dead soldiers name for anything commercial or political.
And since the project is listed under the umbrella of Chalk4Peace, an anti-war group, it does indeed make it political.
I'm sure lots of folks love it.
I'm sure you got lots of compliments.
But that's my opinion and at least one person here, who saw it in person, agreed.
I hate rehashing this shit, and I know folks are tired of reading it, but I'm calling you on your bullshit.
I'm putting a $100 bill in an envelope right now......go for it.
1) In a thread about where to eat in shop in Montreal I mentioned that I was going there with my wife who had been asked to present the project.
Attack one:
Your response:
"How about getting the permission of the deceased soldiers families to use their loved ones names for a political agenda that they may not agree with or support.
Sounds like the right thing to do to me."
This was your full response at that time. A clear attack on my wife and freedom of speech.
2) You continued your attack:
"I'm sure you know that there are laws prohibiting the use of deceased soldiers names, many lawsuits trying to stop people from using dead soldiers names, and like I stated originally "It's the right thing to do".
I respect those soldiers and their families and would not infringe on what I perceive is their rights.
If you don't think they deserve a choice in it, so be it."
3) your next post:
4) your next post:
"I've never mentioned your wife[/b] or said anything about her personally.
If I have, post it here and I'll humbly apologize.
I've simply said that getting the permission of the deceased soldiers families would be "the right thing to do".....and I believe it is.
I've also stated that what your wife[/b] is doing is illegal in at least 4 states, including the one I live in.....that's a fact
And when told that the project was not "political" I posted the name "Chalk4Peace" which has your wife's project listed under it's umbrella....that is also a fact.
And then another poster, viewed the "tribute" in person and concurred with my opinion.
If you have a problem with that, or somehow construe it as a "personal attack on your wife", that's unfortunate.
Attacking someone's wife, child or family on a personal level is not something I have, or would do here, or on any other public forum."
Lets look at this:
I've never mentioned your wife[/b]
I've also stated that what your wife[/b]
I've never mentioned your wife[/b]
I've also stated that what your wife[/b]
I've never mentioned your wife[/b]
I've also stated that what your wife[/b]
I've never mentioned your wife[/b]
I've also stated that what your wife[/b]
Which is it, never or also?
Please explain how soulstruts champion of freedom of speech thinks that political project (the way you discribe the project) or an art project (the way she discribes it) should get anyones permission before expressing themselves. Then explain in what way these laws that you think are so great are constitutional.
Please show me where a poster, or any one else in the world, has seen this in person and then concured with you. If you do I will let you keep your $100.00.
"My wifes project" (how is it that you never mentioned her, but keep saying your wife?) is not under anyones umbrella. My blog has a link to chlakforpeace, they may have a link back. No umbrella. My blog roll also has a link to Military City, which is the group who print the military newspapers, so I guess I am under their umbrella too. Though that would be my blog, not her project.
I've got to to now, but that should be enough, if you want I'll finish later.
I think those are pretty uncontroversial points.
not sure about the goat though.
I say Rock keeps his $100.
I find that rather hair-splitting. I'm not trying to wade into Rock and LW's debate - which frankly, would be better at the PM level - but most people tend to interpret critiques/attacks on their work as attacks on their person. Ask any artist who've had their works savaged if they don't take that shit personal on some level.
If you go read that thread, you accused me of "attacking your wife" long before I ever mentioned her in any way...you accused me of posting a photo of a goat that somehow was supposed to represent your wife(even though the person the post was addressed to was Dr. Wu who had JUST posted that he was trying to "get my goat".
After you accused me of this I did indeed reply with .....
4] your next post:
"I've never mentioned your wife[/b] or said anything about her personally.
If I have, post it here and I'll humbly apologize.
I've simply said that getting the permission of the deceased soldiers families would be "the right thing to do".....and I believe it is.
I've also stated that what your wife[/b] is doing is illegal in at least 4 states, including the one I live in.....that's a fact)[/b]
The only response that I mentioned your wife was the one where I had already been accused of attacking her.
I made it clear that I wasn't attacking her, but what she was doing.
So your C&P was me defending myself against your crazy accusations.
But I have integrity, and you did indeed c&p a post where I mentioned your wife.
PM me with the Chalk Project mailing address and I guess the chalk is on me.
right but it was hardly an "attack." to say Rock "savaged" her project by pointing out that the very subjects of the work may object to it (and that indeed it may run afoul of the law) is a stretch.
I don't see it as a purely Rock-LW issue when someone's words are taken out of context months later. it happens a lot on here and we should all be more vigilant about it.
that said there is some room for debate on the "attack" issue I guess. I happen not to have interpreted Rock's words as such.
Dr. Wu had just claimed that he made a post for no other reason than to "get my goat".
My next post to him had a photo of a goat.
I'm certain Dr. Wu will confirm this.
Somehow it became a shot at LW's wife??
Would that prevent you from writing a negative review??
And would you feel like you "attacked" someone personally if you wrote a bad review?
Rock - I'm not backing either side. I was responding to Rootless' post that, to me, parses a legitimate but ultimately rather fine difference between critiquing a person vs. their work and in most cases, for the person at the end of the critique, there's not a difference.
Wouldn't stop me from making the critique if I thought it needed to be made. That's not the point I was making though.
WRONG. Go read #1 in my post right above.
I posted your entire posts. You keep using chalkforpeace as an attack on my wife, that was in goat post. I accept your explanation of the meaning of the goat, but to pretend that your post was about something other than the Iraq Names Project is another false.
How to do you reconcile your belief that these laws are just with your oft stated support for freespeech? I've asked you this repeatedly but you refuse to answer. The reason is clear, you don't believe what you say.
You never attacked her, you were only attacking what she was doing, but you did all that with out mentioning her? Sorry if I have a hard time following your logic. I have repeatedly tried to explain the Iraq Names Project to you. It is not an antiwar movement that she is part of. It is an art memorial that she conceived and is executing under no ones umbrella. There is no organization behind this, just her. When you attack it, you are attacking her whether or not you mention her name.
Again, so that you will understand, the Iraq Names Project is my wife, no one else. It is something she does while working full time. It is a sacrifice she has chosen to make. I write a blog and maintain a flickr site about the project. If you would like to attack the blog, feel free, I am happy to defend it.
You can write your check to Nancy Hiss co Jump Jump Music 7005 NE Prescott Portland OR 97218. She spends between $15-30 a week on chalk and printing out of her own pocket. If you would rather send it to an organization that honors those who have died in a way that has your stamp of approval be my guest.
If you can find one person, any where, who has actually seen the project and feels the way you do you can keep the money.
If you can find one case where these antifreespeech laws have been successfully used against artistic, political OR commercial speech please post.
The solution to this whole tete a tete is for Rich to spend time with Nancy, who unlike Dan or I, is one of the kindest and gentlest people you will ever meet (sorry Dan, you're pretty nice too). I believe that Rich would come away with a wholly different opinion of the matter if this were to happen. Talking to guys like me will only reinforce his holier than thou world view.
In the same thread........
So, I visited the site about the project. It's a good thing to honor folks who've given their life for their country............ I'm a little skeptical about the political agenda/artistic statement behind this names project[/b] ....................... Is this honoring sacrifice or making a statement about peace? Those are two diferent things. They both have their relative merits. If you want to make a statement about the horrors of war, that's all well & good, but if it's concealed as some kind of war memorial honoring the sacrifice of people who died for something they believed in, that's disrespectful[/b] .
And that is exactly how I feel.
As far as instances where these names were removed because of soldiers families objecting.....
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/03/18/news/state/16_11_533_17_07.txt
Here is a state law that bans the use...
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/metro/196823.php
http://www.progressiveu.org/033219-anti-...soon-to-be-more
If your contention is that no one can criticize the Portland Names Project without personally attacking your wife, I think that is absurd.
I have no doubt that Nancy is a wonderful person.
My critique is about the Names Project and I've presented way more than just my opinion as to why I oppose it.
The fact is that there are laws that protect people from the unauthorized use of their name for any commercial or political endorsement.
This is not a matter of free speech, it's a matter of using peoples names without their or their estates permission.
You couldn't take the name of Bruce Springsteen(or any other person, dead or alive) and attach it to something like this project without their permission....this isn't my opinion, it's law.
I believe that dead soldiers and their survivors have those same rights and there is legal precedent that they deserve it.
Would you say the same things to those people in Louisiana who successfully had their family members names removed from a similar "Memorial" that you are saying to me? That by asking that the names be removed they are "personally attacking" the memorial's organizers...I think not.
When you make a public statement, as this project does, you open yourself to public critique. Taking that ability away is truly a blow against free speech.
no no no, its good where its at.
p.s. get over it, kala says shit about my wife every day and you dont see me crying about it. "sir, you have sullied the name of my honorable wife and i demand satisfaction"
"antifreespeach" laws,what a crock. You rely on "privacy rights" for everything from birth control, abortion, and homosexual sex, but in the context of the great Portland scribble fest, its "antifreespeach"
If you were out there posting the date from every day of the war and the number dead (May 13, 2006: 11 Dead) no one could legally object.
But to see proof that some families of deceased soldiers feel strongly enough about the use of their names to initiate lawsuits and request that the names be removed, and do it anyway, is wrong.
I've shown much proof that this is indeed the case, but you don't seem to care, what matters is YOUR project, not the feelings or rights of these families.
The Portland Project is not unique, there are many similar projects happening across the country. Most are being done by pronounced "Anti-War" groups. Some apparently are doing the SAME EXACT THING and trying to present it as nothing more than a "tribute".
Posting deceased soldiers names after the end of a war is a tribute.
Posting their names during the war is political.
To say that you're doing the SAME EXACT THING as Anti-War groups around the country but that YOU'RE doing it for all the right reasons is a stretch.
I support anyone's right to protest.
I support the deceased soldiers families rights to have say over when and for what cause their relatives names are used.
To not care enough about these families to take this into consideration is selfish, not selfless.
I think the sacrafices that these soldiers made, and the respect they should be given, is certainly worth the cost of a postage stamp to get permission from their families to use their names.
Isn't this more an issue between you and your wife though?
BING BANG no BOOM
Here is a link to a fraction of other "political antiwar" groups who are using soldiers names illegal and with out permission:
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
http://heroesmemorial.blogspot.com/
http://www.iraqwarheroes.org/
http://www.arng.army.mil/Lists/InMemoriam/AllItems.aspx
http://livinglegendteam.blogspot.com/
http://www.patriotguard.org/
You should write them with your concerns. I will be interested to hear their replies.
Nancy has spoken to many of the families of people who have died in Iraq. They have all thanked her. They have hugged her. They have helped her. If some day, some family member asks that their name not be used, she will deal with that. But since your concerns stem from unconstitutional laws that will never be enforced and your desire to piss me off, she will continue to ignore your concerns. Which I will try to do as well.
Yesterday I wrote my impressions of Obama's Philadelphia Speech on Race. I would much rather talk about that than this distraction.
"Get it how you want it" related?
Yup.
If you want to exploit the sacrifice of people for your own ends, it's on you. If the people who run those sites are doing the same, well, its on them.
The difference between the links you posted and the Names Project is that none of the links above are associated with Anti-War protesting.
Instead of spending your time trying to belittle me for having an opinion you don't agree with, maybe you should ask those Anti-War(Chalk4Peace, etc.) websites that have you listed under their umbrella to remove your name if indeed that is not the sentiment of your intent.
If your wife feels that by me criticizing the names project it was somehow a personal attack on her, please pass on apologies as that was not my intent.
If you feel that ANYONE who criticizes the Names Project is making a personal attack I'll suggest you're either mistaken or too thin skinned.
I only know about the project because you posted about it here....on multiple occasions.....I'm sure you did so not expecting anyone to disagree with it's concept. You were wrong.
Finally, I'll assume that my posting of another persons views, who viewed your site, and came to the same conclusion I did, means you'll be buying your own chalk this month.
I fully intended on sending it and folks who have dealt with me here know I am a man of my word.....the fact that you challenged me with an offer to keep the money, and I delivered, means we agree to call this quits and move forward.