The history of the flag has not been forgotten by history buffs like me, but I think there are better chronologies out there than the linked website, which is, well…now what would be a nice euphimism? rather ideological.
Just a sample, from a section called “Driving As A Right” (I confess my bias up front, I think driving is a privilege)
“You know, there was a famous Supreme Court case came down in New Mexico about ten years ago. This farmer was driving down the road in his old pick-up, just bombed out of his mind. He was so drunk that he couldn’t walk. That’s probably why he was driving.
He had a bottle of whiskey about two-thirds empty in the truck bed tool box, and he’s driving down the road and there’s an accident, a head-on crash.
A doctor, his wife and his two children, from Houston, Texas, who were going on holiday to Los Angeles were killed.
The farmer survived.
That’s the way it usually happens. The drunk survives and this wonderful family, this man and his wife and his two children were killed.
The problem here was that the doctor fell asleep, crossed the center line, and hit the farmer head-on.
Now let me ask you: Is that wreck, and are those deaths, alcohol related?
Oh yeah. You bet.
The farmer’s drunk.
But is the farmer the cause of the accident, or is the farmer (who was drunk) the victim?
What none of these people tell you is, who has ever funded a study to find out whether or not drunkenness is the cause of the accidents that cost these lives.
They’ll cite you a few cases where the guy is drunk, ran the red light, ran into this blond-haired, blue-eyed, twenty year old young woman just out of college, or whatever, and ruined her life, and how “we’ve gotta do something about this guy because it’s the fifth time.”
Maybe so.
But, that’s one out of twenty six thousand. There’s still twenty-five thousand nine hundred ninety nine that we’ve got to analyze.
But for some reason we want to zero in on this one group over here.
Why do we want to zero in on one group?
To protect the claims window of the insurance industry.
I don’t care if you drive down the road drunk.
My father never took a sober breath for the last twenty years of his life, and he never had an accident drunk. He had several wrecks sober and never had a wreck drunk.
Now I’m not sitting here telling you that you should drive drunk. I don’t know whether you should or not.”
I don’t particularly like the total ideology of that flag info site/link either. I’d love to find a better one — so, if anyone knows of one, please let me know.
I’m not keen on the slant of that site either. But it’s eons better than the one someone posted to the local Indymedia site, which prompted me to go looking for other sources. This particular site’s historical outline is, oddly, much saner than the one that sent me off on the search.
This may be because this particular take on the flag is one that has been cobbled together by folks of a particular political persuasion. I doubt you will find documentary evidence as simple as this perspective anywhere except on such sites. And frankly the reason is not because the facts have been hidden from truth-seekers by some establishment conspiracy.
What I mean is, the site’s (and similar ones) are not exactly reporting untruths – but let’s just say the details are strung together in a way that supports the author’s starting premise and existing beliefs, which is convenient, sounds convincing and makes for an interesting hypothesis, but it is not really research-based or supportable.
My understanding is that the distinction between the civil and military flag is not as neat and clean as asserted, that certain practices became precedent at first because of custom and not law, that flag variants, including purported civil ones (ie, the Eagle Flag), were adopted by isolated milary regiments here or there during assorted wars, that the Eagle Flag was very popular for at time before the Civil War, but that after that conflict, as a result of Union victory, the role of the federal government was established while the power of the States diminished, resulting in the common flag.
And now I will retreat from being pedantic.
Even given the facts of the matter, though, I still think it’s pretty cool to have a basis for exhibiting an American flag the origins of which are separate from military use and tradition. I don’t notice any groundswell of support for adopting the “common” flag as a statement of a popular stand for peace. But I still think it’s a good idea and will keep the image here as a reminder that America has always had — and still has — another face.
The history of the flag has not been forgotten by history buffs like me, but I think there are better chronologies out there than the linked website, which is, well…now what would be a nice euphimism? rather ideological.
Just a sample, from a section called “Driving As A Right” (I confess my bias up front, I think driving is a privilege)
“You know, there was a famous Supreme Court case came down in New Mexico about ten years ago. This farmer was driving down the road in his old pick-up, just bombed out of his mind. He was so drunk that he couldn’t walk. That’s probably why he was driving.
He had a bottle of whiskey about two-thirds empty in the truck bed tool box, and he’s driving down the road and there’s an accident, a head-on crash.
A doctor, his wife and his two children, from Houston, Texas, who were going on holiday to Los Angeles were killed.
The farmer survived.
That’s the way it usually happens. The drunk survives and this wonderful family, this man and his wife and his two children were killed.
The problem here was that the doctor fell asleep, crossed the center line, and hit the farmer head-on.
Now let me ask you: Is that wreck, and are those deaths, alcohol related?
Oh yeah. You bet.
The farmer’s drunk.
But is the farmer the cause of the accident, or is the farmer (who was drunk) the victim?
What none of these people tell you is, who has ever funded a study to find out whether or not drunkenness is the cause of the accidents that cost these lives.
They’ll cite you a few cases where the guy is drunk, ran the red light, ran into this blond-haired, blue-eyed, twenty year old young woman just out of college, or whatever, and ruined her life, and how “we’ve gotta do something about this guy because it’s the fifth time.”
Maybe so.
But, that’s one out of twenty six thousand. There’s still twenty-five thousand nine hundred ninety nine that we’ve got to analyze.
But for some reason we want to zero in on this one group over here.
Why do we want to zero in on one group?
To protect the claims window of the insurance industry.
I don’t care if you drive down the road drunk.
My father never took a sober breath for the last twenty years of his life, and he never had an accident drunk. He had several wrecks sober and never had a wreck drunk.
Now I’m not sitting here telling you that you should drive drunk. I don’t know whether you should or not.”
I don’t particularly like the total ideology of that flag info site/link either. I’d love to find a better one — so, if anyone knows of one, please let me know.
I’m not keen on the slant of that site either. But it’s eons better than the one someone posted to the local Indymedia site, which prompted me to go looking for other sources. This particular site’s historical outline is, oddly, much saner than the one that sent me off on the search.
This may be because this particular take on the flag is one that has been cobbled together by folks of a particular political persuasion. I doubt you will find documentary evidence as simple as this perspective anywhere except on such sites. And frankly the reason is not because the facts have been hidden from truth-seekers by some establishment conspiracy.
What I mean is, the site’s (and similar ones) are not exactly reporting untruths – but let’s just say the details are strung together in a way that supports the author’s starting premise and existing beliefs, which is convenient, sounds convincing and makes for an interesting hypothesis, but it is not really research-based or supportable.
My understanding is that the distinction between the civil and military flag is not as neat and clean as asserted, that certain practices became precedent at first because of custom and not law, that flag variants, including purported civil ones (ie, the Eagle Flag), were adopted by isolated milary regiments here or there during assorted wars, that the Eagle Flag was very popular for at time before the Civil War, but that after that conflict, as a result of Union victory, the role of the federal government was established while the power of the States diminished, resulting in the common flag.
And now I will retreat from being pedantic.
Even given the facts of the matter, though, I still think it’s pretty cool to have a basis for exhibiting an American flag the origins of which are separate from military use and tradition. I don’t notice any groundswell of support for adopting the “common” flag as a statement of a popular stand for peace. But I still think it’s a good idea and will keep the image here as a reminder that America has always had — and still has — another face.
Is there anywhere i can buy a civilian flag, if you know where please e-mail me at nikol120@yahoo.com