PDA

View Full Version : Photographer Harassed Online After Using American Flag as Prop for Baby Photo



Rusty Jones
03-12-2015, 11:35 AM
Photographer Vanessa Hicks is fighting back today after being chastised and harassed online for using an American flag as a prop during a baby photo shoot. It was a simple Facebook share that has gotten quite a bit of national attention.

A few days ago, on March 8th, Hicks — a veteran of the US Navy — shared a photo of an 8-day-old baby named Landon being held up by his father — a member of the US Navy — in an American flag:

https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/s640x640/12887_575434762559047_7336593203836482300_n.jpg?oh =8b812f0c4f042c4130b1da16953dba24&oe=5585C096

Hicks says she wanted to honor the flag and incorporate the family’s military background into the portrait.

The photographer got a number of positive comments about the photo and the shoot, but some people didn’t approve of the flag being used in this way. One of the critics was Facebook page You Call Yourself a Photographer?, which shared the image with its audience with a scathing message for Hicks:




You Call Yourself a Photographer? shared Vanessa Hicks Photography's photo.

The flag is not a prop.

I repeat: THE FLAG IS NOT A PROP

To use the American flag in such a way is disrespectful, rude, tacky, disgusting, and against the U.S. Flag Code.

Let me point out a few key points of that code:
*The flag should never touch anything beneath it
*The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free
*The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should ALWAYS be allowed to fall free
*The flag should never be used in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way
*The flag should never be used as a covering
*The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything
*The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any way whatsoever
*No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume

This flag is a symbol of everything my son died for many years ago. It was of the utmost honor to have a flag laid upon your coffin as my son did. That honor is taken away when disrespectful photographers throw our flag code out the window. Although you can't see it anymore, I posted another picture from this same photographer a few minutes ago who had a naked baby on that same flag I laid upon my son's casket. She allowed that baby to pee and poop on that flag that is meant to honor our fallen soldiers. Disgusting.

Mr. Clevenger, you have disgraced our fallen soldiers as well by disobeying that code. I don't know what the military teaches these days but I do know my son was taught the flag code and also taught that any disobedience towards that code would result in repercussions from your command....yet here you are in uniform, name fully visible, on a photographer's Facebook page disobeying that code and dishonoring our fallen soldiers and you obviously don't care.


“This flag is a symbol of everything my son died for many years ago. It was of the utmost honor to have a flag laid upon your coffin as my son did,” the page writes. “That honor is taken away when disrespectful photographers throw our flag code out the window.”

People soon started sending Hicks angry messages, and the story began attracting the attention of media outlets. Here’s ABC’s coverage:

Soon there was an outpour of support for Hicks as commenters began to leave positive messages to boost her spirits and defend her photograph. She responded with an update yesterday:




So I figured I would share with all of you what has transpired in the past 24 hours! This is coming straight from my personal page:

**Long post but please read**
Yesterday was a hard day for me.
Yesterday, I almost let the hatred of some cyber bullies get to me.
Yesterday, I ALMOST believed them.

I posted a picture that I had recently taken of a military man holding his newborn son in a vinyl prop flag that I purchased at The Dollar Store. I love the shot. The family loves the shot. Most of you loved the shot.

Yesterday, I woke up to see this photo was shared on a group site that is meant to bash other photographers. It was in their opinion I had disrespected our nations flag. I had disrespected our country by taking this picture. Several of these people not only bashed the picture, but me, saying I should be ashamed of myself, my husband should be ashamed, etc and I received several private messages to my business page. They even took it a step farther and bashed the service member in the picture, hoping he gets in trouble for participating in desecration of the flag.

I am very well aware of our U.S Flag code. I also know exactly what desecration of a flag is. It's when you pull into ports and you see protestors with our flag and have spray painted horrible things on it. It's when you watch the news and you see other countries burning our flags, and you are a young Quartermaster scared because you know you are just a few nautical miles from that exact country.

I almost let these cyber bullies get me yesterday. I could have easily deleted the picture off of my business page and ended it with that. I almost did. Then I thought, WHY?

These cyber bullies would win!
Hell no!
So I went to the group and I stood up to them. I stood up for what I believed in! And you know what, so did so many others! A photography group saw the picture and agreed there was nothing disrespectful about it and went to the page and stood up for it. Friends, who I didn't even say anything to, somehow saw it and went and stood up for the picture.
The HONOR of the picture.
In the last 24 hours, the image has gone viral. From my business page, over 12,000 people have seen the image.
This morning, two local reporters have contacted me wanting to talk about this image and the affects of cyber bullying and pages like this.

I didn't ask for any of this. I just took a picture.

But, I stood up for the picture. To me, that is what being an American is about.

**I have been asked by many if they could share this picture and status and you sure can! I'm not doing this for any other reason except for every service member, including this one in this photo, who has wrapped in this flag that so many wanted to defend, the main thing he would fight for, his family. The men and woman in our military, they are the true heroes. Not me, I just took a stand.**

Thanks for reading!

------------------

Rusty Jones
03-12-2015, 11:35 AM
Continued

You Call Yourself a Photographer? then responded with a Facebook update of its own:




Let's stop and be real here for a minute shall we?

Our page is nothing but a business review page. We see a bad photographer, we review their work publicly for others to see.

Are business reviews considered bullying? If I go to a restaurant and their food is always cold and I say so on my page, is that bullying them? No. Sorry. It's not. Stating the truth about a bad business is not bullying. It's what the public deserves


The hypocrites that state we are bullying others are also the ones calling us names unimaginable and telling us we should kill ourselves. Why? Because we stuck up for a FEDERAL LAW, the U.S Flag Code? We aren't the law breakers here. We aren't the ones that disrespected the flag code. What did we do? We pointed out yet another photographer has respected our flag. That's not MY opinion. That's the law. That's the code. It's not up for your own interpretation. None of us are to decide what is respectful and what isn't because it's CLEARLY written out for all of you. It's stated in the code that certain things are to be done to respect that flag. When you KNOW all that and yet you still do exactly what it's telling you not to, we have a problem.

It's been stated that we have no affiliation with the military and those that serve should be the ones to do what they want with the flag. For the record, I've been in 27 years. My son who passed away served almost 5. Every admin of this page is somehow affiliated with the military. Do any of us think we should do whatever we want with the flag because we've served? No. We do what we swore to do and part of that is to uphold the U.S. Flag Code. We do what is the law. There is a reason the flag code is what is it. People didn't just wake up one day and put it together. It was well thought out and with reason.

It's also been mentioned elsewhere as to why we aren't here cracking down on those that turn the flag into bathing suits and towels and what not. We feature a photographer's work when they are so below the level of what a professional photographer should be. We only feature those that are taking people's hard earned money. We feature those that are ripping people off and making this industry a joke. We also feature those that break laws LIKE THE U.S. FLAG CODE. We feature those that put their clients in danger. Of course we don't condone any breaking of the U.S. Law Code and therefore don't condone putting the flag on clothes and bathing suits and anything else you can think of but we aren't here to fight a war on that.

In reading comments regarding that photographer's work who put a NAKED BABY on the flag (that was on the ground of course) and holding up the baby by the father, it's clear that some of you have no idea what good photography actually looks like. Those were in no way a good picture of professional quality and nobody should be paying for that So, here ya go. Although we don't condone the use of the flag as a prop or in any way breaking the U.S. Flag Code, you all need to see an actual professional tackle the same concept. Lighting is superb. White balance is spot on. The baby is actually in focus. THIS is what a professional should produce. Now go compare this image with that other shared on this page yesterday...
http://stephaniekrupickaphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/edited-version-copy.jpg


Hicks is continuing to stand by her photo and the photograph is now going viral online. It appears the vast majority of public comments — including on the original critical Facebook posts — are in defense of Hicks and her work. What are your thoughts on this matter?
------------------

efmbman
03-12-2015, 11:44 AM
The US Flag Code is indeed a law. However, the code does not prescribe penalties for improper use or treatment of the US flag. As far as I know, all attempts to criminalize improper use or treatment of the US flag have been ruled as unconstitutional. Because of this, it is more like a code of conduct or a guide to flag etiquette.

I have no issue with the photo, the person requesting the photo, nor the photographer.

Rusty Jones
03-12-2015, 11:44 AM
It seems like, ever since 9/11 - and boosted with the election of Obama - levels of patriotism have become one big dick measuring contest, where whenever anyone does anything with the American flag (or other symbols, such as bald eagles, or making themselves out to be youtube heroes by outting fakers in uniform, etc); everyone is ready to beat them up over it, despite the fact that their intentions were likely 100% patriotic in nature. But that doesn't matter. Every American is ready to kick eachother's asses over their own perceptions of what being "disrespectful" to our country is. Looks to me like there's some kind of contagious psychosis going around.

TJMAC77SP
03-12-2015, 12:23 PM
Some people have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on their hands.

sandsjames
03-12-2015, 12:42 PM
No problem with the flag pictures. I'd imagine that half the people bitching display the flag improperly on a regular basis anyway. Patriotism should never be about symbols, but about what's best for the country. Any use, or misuse, of the flag does nothing to harm 'Murka.

Rollyn01
03-12-2015, 01:41 PM
There should be a caption under the photo that says "An American service-member carries freedom wherever they go wrapped in the warm blanket of the U.S. Constitution." I think the symbolism would be obvious but they would probably complain about that too.

UncaRastus
03-12-2015, 03:29 PM
Back in the 60s when I was a paperboy, I was out on my bike, delivering papers when I saw at a hippy commune house an American flag being used as a seat pad on a child's tricycle. I took that flag off of the seat, put it into my paper delivery bag and took it home with me. Since the children at the commune went naked during the summer (when this occurred), the flag had to be washed before I put it out on the flagpole in our front yard.

sandsjames
03-12-2015, 04:58 PM
Back in the 60s when I was a paperboy, I was out on my bike, delivering papers when I saw at a hippy commune house an American flag being used as a seat pad on a child's tricycle. I took that flag off of the seat, put it into my paper delivery bag and took it home with me. Since the children at the commune went naked during the summer (when this occurred), the flag had to be washed before I put it out on the flagpole in our front yard.

Nice...so stealing from children is more appropriate than someone displaying a flag, most likely with good intentions (no matter how against the "code" it is). You should be proud of setting such a great example. I'm sure they learned their lesson.

Stalwart
03-12-2015, 05:05 PM
1. Don't have an issue with the photographs; I actually like the concept once I saw it and showed my wife ... we may use something similar for our kiddo.

2. The only thing about that article that makes me :rolleyes2: is mentioning that the photographer is a veteran and her spouse is still active duty; to me it doesn't really matter ... being a vet doesn't give you more creative liscense with the flag than someone who isn't. Good taste above all.

CrustySMSgt
03-12-2015, 05:22 PM
I have no personal problem with the photo, despite it violating Federal Code (The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything. )

But I can't help but laugh at those who support this in one post, claiming while it only "technically" violates federal code, it is in good taste, followed by a post bitching about the President, Hillary, or whoever violating the law and federal code.

Rainmaker
03-12-2015, 06:19 PM
It seems like, ever since 9/11 - and boosted with the election of Obama - levels of patriotism have become one big dick measuring contest, where whenever anyone does anything with the American flag (or other symbols, such as bald eagles, or making themselves out to be youtube heroes by outting fakers in uniform, etc); everyone is ready to beat them up over it, despite the fact that their intentions were likely 100% patriotic in nature. But that doesn't matter. Every American is ready to kick eachother's asses over their own perceptions of what being "disrespectful" to our country is. Looks to me like there's some kind of contagious psychosis going around.

It should because, The Puppet masters have taken us into a new era at the turn of the millennium. 9-11 was their kick-off party. Sort of like the fireworks at new years.
The Feminine principle (Luciferian Left hand path) is now in ascendance and the masculine era which, gave us the enlightenment age of reason is being destroyed. These freaks adhere to black majick and are particularly pushing anarcho-feminism onto the west to destroy the old order of things This is a really dangerous time. Because, Whenever a nation no longer has an agreed upon shared set of values then, Everyone just kind of does whatever is right in their own eyes, and the result is chaos. Which, is ultimately the goal of these psychopaths....Out of order Chaos. What kind of maniac wraps a baby up in the stars and stripes with no diaper on. Nomsayin?

sandsjames
03-12-2015, 07:11 PM
What kind of maniac wraps a baby up in the stars and stripes with no diaper on. Nomsayin?The question should be "What kind of maniac is so enthralled with the idea that a piece of cloth takes precedence over actual pride and patriotism that this becomes an issue?"

Rainmaker
03-12-2015, 07:53 PM
Back in the 60s when I was a paperboy, I was out on my bike, delivering papers when I saw at a hippy commune house an American flag being used as a seat pad on a child's tricycle. I took that flag off of the seat, put it into my paper delivery bag and took it home with me. Since the children at the commune went naked during the summer (when this occurred), the flag had to be washed before I put it out on the flagpole in our front yard.

Well played Uncle Rastaus...Well played...

Rainmaker
03-12-2015, 08:03 PM
Nice...so stealing from children is more appropriate than someone displaying a flag, most likely with good intentions (no matter how against the "code" it is). You should be proud of setting such a great example. I'm sure they learned their lesson.

Typical Libtard response....Did you even read what the man wrote?? He said HE LIBERATED OL' GLORY FROM THOSE PINKO COMMIE FASCISTS THAT WERE DESCECRATING HER and you wanna freaking pontificate about some hippie bastards "noble intentions"?? Why don't you just pack it up and move back to China asshole.

sandsjames
03-12-2015, 08:04 PM
Typical Libtard....Did you even read what the man wrote?? He said HE LIBERATED OL' GLORY FROM THOSE PINKO COMMIE FASCISTS THAT WERE DESCECRATING HER and you wanna freaking pontificate about some hippie bastards noble intentions?? Why don't you just pack it up and move back to China asshole.

You almost make me chuckle sometimes.

Rainmaker
03-12-2015, 08:12 PM
You almost make me chuckle sometimes.

Chuckle if you must.... But, we're all Frogs boiling in the water....

TJMAC77SP
03-12-2015, 10:18 PM
I have no personal problem with the photo, despite it violating Federal Code (The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything. )

But I can't help but laugh at those who support this in one post, claiming while it only "technically" violates federal code, it is in good taste, followed by a post bitching about the President, Hillary, or whoever violating the law and federal code.

So you view the photo's violation of a non-criminal title of the US Code and the situation with Hillary Clinton's email debacle as equal and comparable?

garhkal
03-13-2015, 05:14 AM
The US Flag Code is indeed a law. However, the code does not prescribe penalties for improper use or treatment of the US flag. As far as I know, all attempts to criminalize improper use or treatment of the US flag have been ruled as unconstitutional. Because of this, it is more like a code of conduct or a guide to flag etiquette.


That makes no sense to me. If it's law, but cause it can't be enforced, then why the hell still have the law on the books?
As to me, i DO have an issue with that photo. Just like i would if someone made a hammock out of the flag, or a diaper out of one. IMO its disrespectful.


It seems like, ever since 9/11 - and boosted with the election of Obama - levels of patriotism have become one big dick measuring contest, where whenever anyone does anything with the American flag (or other symbols, such as bald eagles, or making themselves out to be youtube heroes by outting fakers in uniform, etc); everyone is ready to beat them up over it, despite the fact that their intentions were likely 100% patriotic in nature. But that doesn't matter. Every American is ready to kick eachother's asses over their own perceptions of what being "disrespectful" to our country is. Looks to me like there's some kind of contagious psychosis going around.

Sorry, but i feel the act should matter more than the intent.


I have no personal problem with the photo, despite it violating Federal Code (The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything. )

But I can't help but laugh at those who support this in one post, claiming while it only "technically" violates federal code, it is in good taste, followed by a post bitching about the President, Hillary, or whoever violating the law and federal code.

Exactly. WHy is one person allowed to violate federal law, just cause of whom they are, while someone else is not?


The question should be "What kind of maniac is so enthralled with the idea that a piece of cloth takes precedence over actual pride and patriotism that this becomes an issue?"

So SJ, you would have no problem with someone shitting all over the stars and stripes?

sandsjames
03-13-2015, 10:19 AM
So SJ, you would have no problem with someone shitting all over the stars and stripes?

No. It's a piece of cloth. People put cloth diapers on their kids all the time.

What upsets me more is people, including most of our politicians, who shit all over the intent of what the flag stands for on a daily basis.

Rusty Jones
03-13-2015, 11:02 AM
That makes no sense to me. If it's law, but cause it can't be enforced, then why the hell still have the law on the books?

Do you have any idea how many well-intentioned people would be in jail right now if those laws were enforced? Probably the most common violation of the Flag Code would be flying the flag at night with no lights shining on it. Probably a good quarter of my neighbors would be sitting in jail right now.

I don't have a law degree, but I think that the Flag Code was intended to establish standards and not to punish people who violate it. Anyone who knows better, feel free to comment.


As to me, i DO have an issue with that photo. Just like i would if someone made a hammock out of the flag, or a diaper out of one. IMO its disrespectful.

If there was only going to be ONE person on MTF that would take issue with the photo, it would be you. Everyone here on MTF knows what pisses you off. No one here knows what makes you happy.


Sorry, but i feel the act should matter more than the intent.

Clearly, this is only something said by someone who would cite a law when it suits them.


Exactly. WHy is one person allowed to violate federal law, just cause of whom they are, while someone else is not?

Wait, did she break a law? I really didn't follow the email situation closely, but I thought all that happened was that she was conducting business with personal email accounts. If there was classified information in those emails, I never heard about it.


So SJ, you would have no problem with someone shitting all over the stars and stripes?

The photographer said that the flag in the photo was a cheap flag from the Dollar Tree. One that could be easily replaced if that were to happen. By an infant, no less. It would be one thing if someone old enough to know better shit on the flag. But at the end of the day... why not just appreciate the photograph for what it is, instead of worrying about legal technicalities?

Update: I just went back and took a look at the photos once more. The infant in the first photograph was wrapped in a blanket, so there was at least one "barrier" between the infant and the blanket. In the second photograph, you couldn't see anything but the infant's headband, but there's nothing indicating that she wasn't wearing a diaper as that part was covered up. The "shitting on the flag" thing is a non-issue here.

technomage1
03-13-2015, 11:37 AM
So people are all outraged about something on the Internet and overreact. Gosh, that's never happened before.

sandsjames
03-13-2015, 12:03 PM
Sorry, but i feel the act should matter more than the intent.



I think the courts would disagree, which is exactly why there are different degrees of murder and other crimes. When shooting someone in self defense, the act is still shooting someone. Should that punishment be the same as hunting someone down an shooting them?

Intent is everything. If I am rushing my wife to the hospital for an emergency, driving 10MPH over the speed limit and get pulled over, odds are I'm not getting a ticket. Intent is everything.

garhkal
03-13-2015, 08:21 PM
No. It's a piece of cloth. People put cloth diapers on their kids all the time.

What upsets me more is people, including most of our politicians, who shit all over the intent of what the flag stands for on a daily basis.

I liked this post, only for the latter part. For the former i wish i could give you a dislike. The flag is not 'just a piece of cloth'..


Do you have any idea how many well-intentioned people would be in jail right now if those laws were enforced? Probably the most common violation of the Flag Code would be flying the flag at night with no lights shining on it. Probably a good quarter of my neighbors would be sitting in jail right now.

I don't have a law degree, but I think that the Flag Code was intended to establish standards and not to punish people who violate it. Anyone who knows better, feel free to comment.


So if it was intended to 'set standards' but those standards can't be enforced, what's the point in having it???
Its like a school saying all students will adhere to uniform XYZ requirements, but are not allowed to do anything to those who violate it.. POINTLESS in having it.


Wait, did she break a law? I really didn't follow the email situation closely, but I thought all that happened was that she was conducting business with personal email accounts. If there was classified information in those emails, I never heard about it.

The law iirc says that any federal employee need to use their official govt email for conducting work. And if they wish to use their personal ones, then it needs to be copied and printed/stored by work. Since its only NOW she is doing the latter part (printing it out for the govt to have a copy), is that not violating the law?
Also, last year SHE fired an ambassador for doing the same thing
http://www.examiner.com/article/private-email-gate-hillary-fired-ambassador-for-using-private-email-account

Ergo, how is it ok for her to have done it when it was NOT ok for that ambassador to do it?

Mjölnir
03-13-2015, 08:44 PM
So if it was intended to 'set standards' but those standards can't be enforced, what's the point in having it???

Its like a school saying all students will adhere to uniform XYZ requirements, but are not allowed to do anything to those who violate it.. POINTLESS in having it.

I would say there is a difference between not being able to enforce the law with 100% compliance and just letting people run around like anarchists. The speed limit or stop signs is a good example, I know I occasionally speed, everyone does I am sure at some point. Are the police looking to stop and ticket everyone or just the worst of the offenders?

The Flag Code is law (part of the US Code) but a while ago the Supreme Court ruled that punitive enforcement could be an infringement of the 1st Amendment. So why is it still around, maybe as an effort to maintain the what it has turned into -- a guide for Flag etiquette; maybe as a way to keep it on the books for those cases that would not be covered by the 1st Amendment (in this case the photographer could easily claim her work as art and that is that.)

Interesting bit of history: part of the Code use to be the rendering of the 'Bellamy Salute' while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, once the Nazi's and Fascists in Italy began using the same salute that part was redacted.

WINTHORP1
03-13-2015, 09:55 PM
I have no problem with this photo. I really like it and would have done the same thing with my son when he was a newborn if I thought about it. To everyone who does have a problem with it, where were your protests during the Olympics, when the athletes where wearing the flag after winning the gold, silver, or bronze? Would you be protesting if a Wounded Warrior had the flag draped across his/her shoulders after competing in the Warrior Games, Endeavor Games, or the Paralympics? It seems like people are just looking for something to complain about.

Rainmaker
03-14-2015, 01:52 AM
Wait, did she break a law? I really didn't follow the email situation closely, but I thought all that happened was that she was conducting business with personal email accounts. If there was classified information in those emails, I never heard about it.

[.

Nobody will ever know what was in the emails. At the very least it's a security malpractice. Public servants are supposed to conduct themselves in a forthright manner. The Secretary of State conducting official state business on a private hidden server in order to hide official records from future public disclosure should be a big deal. Of course nothing will happen to this charlatan, because, half the adults in this country have been conditioned to believe that silly things like Laws are only for us plebes.

garhkal
03-14-2015, 04:08 AM
I would say there is a difference between not being able to enforce the law with 100% compliance and just letting people run around like anarchists. The speed limit or stop signs is a good example, I know I occasionally speed, everyone does I am sure at some point. Are the police looking to stop and ticket everyone or just the worst of the offenders?

The Flag Code is law (part of the US Code) but a while ago the Supreme Court ruled that punitive enforcement could be an infringement of the 1st Amendment. So why is it still around, maybe as an effort to maintain the what it has turned into -- a guide for Flag etiquette; maybe as a way to keep it on the books for those cases that would not be covered by the 1st Amendment (in this case the photographer could easily claim her work as art and that is that.)

Interesting bit of history: part of the Code use to be the rendering of the 'Bellamy Salute' while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, once the Nazi's and Fascists in Italy began using the same salute that part was redacted.

If that's the case, then repeal it as an actual law, and call it a guide.


I have no problem with this photo. I really like it and would have done the same thing with my son when he was a newborn if I thought about it. To everyone who does have a problem with it, where were your protests during the Olympics, when the athletes where wearing the flag after winning the gold, silver, or bronze? Would you be protesting if a Wounded Warrior had the flag draped across his/her shoulders after competing in the Warrior Games, Endeavor Games, or the Paralympics? It seems like people are just looking for something to complain about.

To me those situations are not the same as this though. It has long been held that draping the flag over your shoulders while celebrating at an international sporting event is patriotic.

How is making a 'baby sling' showing patriotism?

Mjölnir
03-14-2015, 05:06 AM
It is just odd that in one instance you argue for a strict literal interpretation and in another you don't.

Capt Alfredo
03-14-2015, 09:49 AM
Is it really odd, or just about what you'd expect from him?

sandsjames
03-14-2015, 12:28 PM
To me those situations are not the same as this though. It has long been held that draping the flag over your shoulders while celebrating at an international sporting event is patriotic.

How is making a 'baby sling' showing patriotism?

The sling, to me is representing that his baby is being cradled and protected by the security that he is providing by serving his country. That seems pretty patriotic to me.

efmbman
03-14-2015, 02:02 PM
To me those situations are not the same as this though. It has long been held that draping the flag over your shoulders while celebrating at an international sporting event is patriotic.

Maybe we are fortunate to be alive at this moment. Are we witnessing the beginnings of a new form of patriotic expression? Since wearing the flag as cape or a shawl has come to be patriotic, perhaps the flag baby sling will be too.

"If you don't stick to your values while they're being tested, they're not values: they're hobbies."
-- Stephen Colbert

Rusty Jones
03-14-2015, 04:20 PM
What I'm seeing from garhkal is not much different than from what you'll get when you ask some people their views on illegal immigration; i.e., "It pisses me off because they're breaking the law!"

In my opinion, there's alot to be said of those who let government laws, statutes, and ordinances dictate their own personal morals; especially when violation would constitute a victimless crime at best.

All the naysayers are offended at this... and being offended is an emotional thing. But what if this wasn't against the Flag Code? There'd be no law that tells them to have hurt feelings by looking at this photo. And they wouldn't.

garhkal
03-14-2015, 05:12 PM
It is just odd that in one instance you argue for a strict literal interpretation and in another you don't.

Checking the flag code, i do note that wearing apparel is prohibited.. So maybe i need to change my stance on atheletes 'wearing it'..

Rusty Jones
03-14-2015, 05:19 PM
I liked this post, only for the latter part. For the former i wish i could give you a dislike. The flag is not 'just a piece of cloth'..

So if it was intended to 'set standards' but those standards can't be enforced, what's the point in having it???
Its like a school saying all students will adhere to uniform XYZ requirements, but are not allowed to do anything to those who violate it.. POINTLESS in having it.

The law iirc says that any federal employee need to use their official govt email for conducting work. And if they wish to use their personal ones, then it needs to be copied and printed/stored by work. Since its only NOW she is doing the latter part (printing it out for the govt to have a copy), is that not violating the law?
Also, last year SHE fired an ambassador for doing the same thing
http://www.examiner.com/article/private-email-gate-hillary-fired-ambassador-for-using-private-email-account

Ergo, how is it ok for her to have done it when it was NOT ok for that ambassador to do it?

If there is such a law, I'm willing to bet the vast majority of Americans have never heard of it two weeks ago. Hell, many people in military - probably some people right here on MTF - have had to do it while the email server was down... and depending on where you are, that can be pretty often.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2015, 06:40 PM
What I'm seeing from garhkal is not much different than from what you'll get when you ask some people their views on illegal immigration; i.e., "It pisses me off because they're breaking the law!"

In my opinion, there's alot to be said of those who let government laws, statutes, and ordinances dictate their own personal morals; especially when violation would constitute a victimless crime at best.

All the naysayers are offended at this... and being offended is an emotional thing. But what if this wasn't against the Flag Code? There'd be no law that tells them to have hurt feelings by looking at this photo. And they wouldn't.

You aren't saying illegal immigration is victimless are you?

I get the point you are making but was curious of the tie-in.

sandsjames
03-14-2015, 07:44 PM
If there is such a law, I'm willing to bet the vast majority of Americans have never heard of it two weeks ago. Hell, many people in military - probably some people right here on MTF - have had to do it while the email server was down... and depending on where you are, that can be pretty often.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Personally, I don't care either way about the emails, but the fact that most Americans didn't know about it doesn't make a difference. There are many rules/laws that military members have to follow that the majority of Americans don't know about. Doesn't mean military members don't get in trouble if they violate them.

Rusty Jones
03-15-2015, 02:14 PM
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Personally, I don't care either way about the emails, but the fact that most Americans didn't know about it doesn't make a difference. There are many rules/laws that military members have to follow that the majority of Americans don't know about. Doesn't mean military members don't get in trouble if they violate them.

Dude, you missed the point of what I was saying. The people who are crying foul over Hillary and the whole email fiasco are beating her up for breaking a "law" that they didn't even know existed until her political adversaries mentioned it.

This is basically the equivalent of shouting "Yeah! What he said!" when someone who is more intelligent than you speaks. And the people who are doing this are patting themselves on the back!

But to get back to your point - which missed mine - often times, the law does bear some responsibility for people's ignorance of it. Even if not legally, then ethically. In many cases, if not most cases, people's ignorance of a particular law comes from that law not being enforced. If a particular law is not being enforced, or is only selectively enforced, then people's eyes need to be on the jurisdiction that those laws belong to.

sandsjames
03-15-2015, 02:41 PM
Dude, you missed the point of what I was saying. The people who are crying foul over Hillary and the whole email fiasco are beating her up for breaking a "law" that they didn't even know existed until her political adversaries mentioned it.

This is basically the equivalent of shouting "Yeah! What he said!" when someone who is more intelligent than you speaks. And the people who are doing this are patting themselves on the back!

But to get back to your point - which missed mine - often times, the law does bear some responsibility for people's ignorance of it. Even if not legally, then ethically. In many cases, if not most cases, people's ignorance of a particular law comes from that law not being enforced. If a particular law is not being enforced, or is only selectively enforced, then people's eyes need to be on the jurisdiction that those laws belong to.

And now it's going to be interesting, since Jeb Bush was just found to have the same issues with his email, to see the GOP change their tune, or differentiate the two, or whatever.

Oh, and I did get your point. And I agree. But I don't see how it's relevant whether people knew or not. The "Yeah! What he said!" is perfectly valid once people are aware of it.

As I said, I don't give two shits about what was sent over personal email and what wasn't. That doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong.

Rusty Jones
03-15-2015, 02:52 PM
Oh, and I did get your point. And I agree. But I don't see how it's relevant whether people knew or not. The "Yeah! What he said!" is perfectly valid once people are aware of it.

How can that be the case when, in all likelihood, the people who didn't know about the law were breaking it themselves up until that point? Like I said before, many people in the military - likely including people right here on MTF - have had to use personal email accounts to get their work done when the email server was down in their shop.

I don't know if you know about this, but this was a big discussion in the Navy Times about five years ago when something along similar lines was happening when people would go to Home Depot or Lowe's on their lunch break in order to buy their own tools, paint, or other HAZMAT (which is unauthorized - and they KNEW this) in order to do their jobs. Sometimes, supply support either didn't have the items that they needed, or the process to get these items are so lengthy that it would take days. The problem? Department head says that no one is going home today until the particular job gets done. Yep... you bet your ass people are going to Home Depot on their lunch break to spend their own money on what they need so they can go home that day.

If anyone here has done the same with their own personal email accounts - and I'm sure none of you will admit to it (and I don't blame you) - they really can't point fingers at others for doing the same.

sandsjames
03-15-2015, 03:14 PM
How can that be the case when, in all likelihood, the people who didn't know about the law were breaking it themselves up until that point? Like I said before, many people in the military - likely including people right here on MTF - have had to use personal email accounts to get their work done when the email server was down in their shop.

I don't know if you know about this, but this was a big discussion in the Navy Times about five years ago when something along similar lines was happening when people would go to Home Depot or Lowe's on their lunch break in order to buy their own tools, paint, or other HAZMAT (which is unauthorized - and they KNEW this) in order to do their jobs. Sometimes, supply support either didn't have the items that they needed, or the process to get these items are so lengthy that it would take days. The problem? Department head says that no one is going home today until the particular job gets done. Yep... you bet your ass people are going to Home Depot on their lunch break to spend their own money on what they need so they can go home that day.

If anyone here has done the same with their own personal email accounts - and I'm sure none of you will admit to it (and I don't blame you) - they really can't point fingers at others for doing the same.

That's exactly why I don't care, and think they should just leave Clinton alone about this. Of course that's not going to happen, because politics is politics, but they need to stop.

But, again, that doesn't mean it's wrong to pursue it, if one is so inclined. If it was actually about national security then I'd be more concerned. But it's not, as we all know.

TJMAC77SP
03-15-2015, 03:22 PM
How can that be the case when, in all likelihood, the people who didn't know about the law were breaking it themselves up until that point? Like I said before, many people in the military - likely including people right here on MTF - have had to use personal email accounts to get their work done when the email server was down in their shop.

I don't know if you know about this, but this was a big discussion in the Navy Times about five years ago when something along similar lines was happening when people would go to Home Depot or Lowe's on their lunch break in order to buy their own tools, paint, or other HAZMAT (which is unauthorized - and they KNEW this) in order to do their jobs. Sometimes, supply support either didn't have the items that they needed, or the process to get these items are so lengthy that it would take days. The problem? Department head says that no one is going home today until the particular job gets done. Yep... you bet your ass people are going to Home Depot on their lunch break to spend their own money on what they need so they can go home that day.

If anyone here has done the same with their own personal email accounts - and I'm sure none of you will admit to it (and I don't blame you) - they really can't point fingers at others for doing the same.

I think it is you missing the point here. While some of her most ardent critics are arguing the use of a private email account for official business creates potential security issues due to compromise of the server in question the real issue is one of accountability. She failed to turn over any email for permanent retention (which is a violation of the Federal Records Act) when she left office. When she did turn over some records it was a relatively small number in response to a request from the DoS. It isn't the fact she used a personal account she hasn't maintained the accountability and retention required. Even traditional supporters are holding their nose at the "it wasn't convenient" excuse. I would hope that any hearings held first call to testify the IT Support employees at the DoS who I am sure will reveal that putting two accounts on one device is not rocket science. They will also surely testify as to the advise given to the staff regarding the law. I have received such advice myself. Of course I didn't have a choice but to comply with records retention law and policy.

I would also suggest everyone read the whole story regarding Gov Bush when attempts are made to compare his email usage to Hillary Clinton's. It is a transparent attempt at best to deflect (a well worn tactic). http://news.yahoo.com/jeb-bush-used-personal-email-discuss-security-issues-002108257.html

Also to get ahead of the posting, here are some facts for when the email retention of former SECSTATEs are mentioned as I am sure they will be.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/08/charles-schumer/fact-checking-chuck-schumers-defense-hillary-clint/

Rusty Jones
03-15-2015, 04:14 PM
I think it is you missing the point here.

Missing what point? SJ said nothing that relates to what follows:


While some of her most ardent critics are arguing the use of a private email account for official business creates potential security issues due to compromise of the server in question the real issue is one of accountability. She failed to turn over any email for permanent retention (which is a violation of the Federal Records Act) when she left office. When she did turn over some records it was a relatively small number in response to a request from the DoS. It isn't the fact she used a personal account she hasn't maintained the accountability and retention required. Even traditional supporters are holding their nose at the "it wasn't convenient" excuse. I would hope that any hearings held first call to testify the IT Support employees at the DoS who I am sure will reveal that putting two accounts on one device is not rocket science. They will also surely testify as to the advise given to the staff regarding the law. I have received such advice myself. Of course I didn't have a choice but to comply with records retention law and policy.

I would also suggest everyone read the whole story regarding Gov Bush when attempts are made to compare his email usage to Hillary Clinton's. It is a transparent attempt at best to deflect (a well worn tactic). http://news.yahoo.com/jeb-bush-used-personal-email-discuss-security-issues-002108257.html

Also to get ahead of the posting, here are some facts for when the email retention of former SECSTATEs are mentioned as I am sure they will be.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/08/charles-schumer/fact-checking-chuck-schumers-defense-hillary-clint/

Again, I point out that the vast majority weren't aware of this law or how to comply with it until her political adversaries brought it up. People in the military use personal email accounts to conduct official business all the time when the email server is down; and I'd even put money on it that at least 95% of those cases don't involving turning over those emails for permanent retention. What we have here is a case of selectivity in holding people accountable for breaking laws.

TJMAC77SP
03-15-2015, 04:30 PM
Missing what point? SJ said nothing that relates to what follows:

It has nothing to do with what SJ said. What you are saying is missing the point of the real issue. Whether that is because you don't see the point or are doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing I don't know. Well, I believe I know but in the end that too is irrelevant.

Despite irrelevant comparisons of US Navy personnel buying their own tools for official use, Clinton's actions regarding her emails are wrong. The motivations of those calling her out for it are equally irrelevant. Now adding in anecdotal hypotheticals of military members using personal email complete with exact hypothetical percentages is equally irrelevant.


Dude, you missed the point of what I was saying. The people whoare crying foul over Hillary and the whole email fiasco are beating her up forbreaking a "law" that they didn't even know existed until herpolitical adversaries mentioned it.

This is basically the equivalent of shouting "Yeah! What he said!"when someone who is more intelligent than you speaks. And the people who aredoing this are patting themselves on the back!

But to get back to your point - which missed mine - often times, the law doesbear some responsibility for people's ignorance of it. Even if not legally,then ethically. In many cases, if not most cases, people's ignorance of aparticular law comes from that law not being enforced. If a particular law is notbeing enforced, or is only selectively enforced, then people's eyes need to beon the jurisdiction that those laws belong to.




Again, I point out that the vast majority weren't aware of this law or how to comply with it until her political adversaries brought it up. People in the military use personal email accounts to conduct official business all the time when the email server is down; and I'd even put money on it that at least 95% of those cases don't involving turning over those emails for permanent retention. What we have here is a case of selectivity in holding people accountable for breaking laws.

Aside from the fact that you are stating assumptions as fact (I am well aware of the records retention requirements) this argument fails on so many levels. Because an individual is unaware of the details of a particular law that another individual broke the second individual should not be held accountable for breaking that law? Do you see the absurdness of that argument?

((rhetorical question))

garhkal
03-15-2015, 08:34 PM
You aren't saying illegal immigration is victimless are you?

I get the point you are making but was curious of the tie-in.

Yea, tell that to the thousands of people over the past decade who have either
A) been crashed into by illegals driving, B) have had one of their family crashed into, C) have had their ID stolen, D) have had their tax return illegally filed prior to them getting it in, E) had their house broken into...
Anyone claiming Illegal immigration is a victimless crime is deluded imo.


Dude, you missed the point of what I was saying. The people who are crying foul over Hillary and the whole email fiasco are beating her up for breaking a "law" that they didn't even know existed until her political adversaries mentioned it.

This is basically the equivalent of shouting "Yeah! What he said!" when someone who is more intelligent than you speaks. And the people who are doing this are patting themselves on the back!

But to get back to your point - which missed mine - often times, the law does bear some responsibility for people's ignorance of it. Even if not legally, then ethically. In many cases, if not most cases, people's ignorance of a particular law comes from that law not being enforced. If a particular law is not being enforced, or is only selectively enforced, then people's eyes need to be on the jurisdiction that those laws belong to.

Rusty. Since Hillary was one of those who was in the "Know" when she fired a former Ambassador for doing the SAME THING (using private email for business), claiming she was ignorant of the law is wrong.


I think it is you missing the point here. While some of her most ardent critics are arguing the use of a private email account for official business creates potential security issues due to compromise of the server in question the real issue is one of accountability. She failed to turn over any email for permanent retention (which is a violation of the Federal Records Act) when she left office. When she did turn over some records it was a relatively small number in response to a request from the DoS. It isn't the fact she used a personal account she hasn't maintained the accountability and retention required.

Combine that with the fact how can she claim NONE of her correspondences were classified is beyond me, what with ALL that the state department does.

Rusty Jones
03-15-2015, 10:00 PM
Yea, tell that to the thousands of people over the past decade who have either
A) been crashed into by illegals driving, B) have had one of their family crashed into, C) have had their ID stolen, D) have had their tax return illegally filed prior to them getting it in, E) had their house broken into...
Anyone claiming Illegal immigration is a victimless crime is deluded imo.

Those are separate crimes from illegal immigration, fool! Shit, by your logic, when an American citizen does it; being a citizen should be a crime.


Rusty. Since Hillary was one of those who was in the "Know" when she fired a former Ambassador for doing the SAME THING (using private email for business), claiming she was ignorant of the law is wrong.

You might want to read the WHOLE story on why Scott Gration was fired.


Combine that with the fact how can she claim NONE of her correspondences were classified is beyond me, what with ALL that the state department does.

Right, because with ALL that the military does, anyone in the military who uses personal email accounts to do their job is sending classified information with it; right?

Are you retired, or something? If so, how long have you been out? Even if you wanted to send classified information via email, you'd have to do it with a computer on a SIPR line. If Hillary so much as sent classified information on a government computer that's not on a SIPR line, we'd have all heard about it. The GOP would've made sure of that.

WINTHORP1
03-15-2015, 11:24 PM
Wow, we went from the Flag being used as a sling to Hillary's e-mails. Why doesn't someone start a thread for Hillary and leave this one for the original topic?

Rainmaker
03-16-2015, 01:22 AM
Wow, we went from the Flag being used as a sling to Hillary's e-mails. Why doesn't someone start a thread for Hillary and leave this one for the original topic?

What Difference Does it Make?

WINTHORP1
03-16-2015, 02:32 AM
I thought that the whole point of having topics for threads was to express opinions on a common subject. It's just annoying to have the topic of conversation go completely off course to political people and the B.S. that follows.

garhkal
03-16-2015, 04:14 AM
Those are separate crimes from illegal immigration, fool! Shit, by your logic, when an American citizen does it; being a citizen should be a crime.


They maybe somewhat separate, but since most of those are perpetrated by illegals and those who service them, its still not a victimless crime.

sandsjames
03-16-2015, 10:10 AM
What Difference Does it Make?This is the most coherent post you've made in well over a year.

TJMAC77SP
03-16-2015, 12:06 PM
This is the most coherent post you've made in well over a year.


If I am not giving RM too much credit he was actually making a Hillary reference with his post.

TJMAC77SP
03-16-2015, 12:09 PM
Are you retired, or something? If so, how long have you been out? Even if you wanted to send classified information via email, you'd have to do it with a computer on a SIPR line. If Hillary so much as sent classified information on a government computer that's not on a SIPR line, we'd have all heard about it. The GOP would've made sure of that.

Not that it means much in the big picture here but there are secure (classified capable) smart phones in use at all levels of the military and government, to include the President's

Rainmaker
03-16-2015, 12:54 PM
I thought that the whole point of having topics for threads was to express opinions on a common subject. It's just annoying to have the topic of conversation go completely off course to political people and the B.S. that follows.

Please email your concerns to hdr22@clintonemail.com