Why should someone on land sold to them be allowed to fly the American flag. I might go in the forest and become inraged to see the flag that allowed me to be in the forest in the first place.
I mean, can you imagine some of the nonsense that will be going on if THIS is the kind of silliness happening today and it continues to go unchecked for another decade?
The guy in the story IS right: with all the wildfires going on, I'd like to think they have bigger things to worry about than stuff like this.
I'll be first to say that I read the article very fast, because well, I have other things to do. But...
he land wasn't sold to him. It's being leased to him by the forest service. Now I'm not a lawyer, but the way I understand it, if the land is being leased to this guy, then the land still belongs to the forest service.
Also, to be fair, this article was VERY one sided. If you notice, it does not expalin the reasoning behind the forest service's request.
On another note, I think the "they have better things to be doing, there are forest fires!" argument doesn't exactly hold much water. Fire fighting is a very dangerous job, and a very specialized job. Not all forest service employees are qualified to be fighting fires. These employees should still be doing their jobs. That's what we pay them to do.
Just my thoughts, flame away.
p.s. sorry about all the puns. I don't know what came over me
If I can't fly the US flag in my own country, then I'm not sure I want to live here. Shit, the Forest Service is a government agency! They of all people shouldn't mind the flag being flown. Here's my opinion on all this flag flying controversy lately: if the American flag offends you so much, don't live here, because it is obvious that you don't want to.
<strong>I'll be first to say that I read the article very fast, because well, I have other things to do. But...
he land wasn't sold to him. It's being leased to him by the forest service. Now I'm not a lawyer, but the way I understand it, if the land is being leased to this guy, then the land still belongs to the forest service.
Also, to be fair, this article was VERY one sided. If you notice, it does not expalin the reasoning behind the forest service's request.
On another note, I think the "they have better things to be doing, there are forest fires!" argument doesn't exactly hold much water. Fire fighting is a very dangerous job, and a very specialized job. Not all forest service employees are qualified to be fighting fires. These employees should still be doing their jobs. That's what we pay them to do.
Just my thoughts, flame away.
p.s. sorry about all the puns. I don't know what came over me</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, fair enough. Not every forest ranger in a silly hat is qualified to be a firefighter.
But why is flying the flag a problem?
I swear, people. This is just another idiotic product of the times. 10, 20, 40 years ago, this would not even be an issue.
Lately, anytime somebody is a bit put-off or not nuts about a particular institution or tradition (mind you, one that's been around WAY longer than the person doing the bitching), instead of that small (but loud and obnoxious) group learning to suck it up and deal with it, we have to - literally - make a Federal case of it. Or, at the very least, it turns into a big ugly debate and "huge story", worth 4-6 "Crossfire" episodes and an O'Reilly segment.
At some point, some smartass, hand-wringing Senator or Representative is going to let it be known that he/she is offended or bothered by the American flag flying on the Capitol building, and that - in the interest of "inclusiveness", it should be taken down.
<strong>Also, to be fair, this article was VERY one sided. If you notice, it does not expalin the reasoning behind the forest service's request.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, I'd like to hear the reasoning. Maybe it's some fire code issue. For those who said they should be fighting fires, maybe that's exactly what they're doing here.
But my guess is that it's just one of those places with extremely tight regulations on what your cabin can look like in the middle of the national park.
There's probably a million little regulations about the way your cabin is supposed to look so it doesn't stand out in the park. And flags are just one of them.
And we all know the media love stories like this. They play them up like crazy to get people wringing their hands and talking about it and tuning in to O'Reilly.
Notice at the bottom of the article there was a comment about how they also told him to take down his clothesline and paint his garage a darker color. Stupid and micro-managing, maybe, but not political correctness gone wild as the article implies.
Notice at the bottom of the article there was a comment about how they also told him to take down his clothesline and paint his garage a darker color. Stupid and micro-managing, maybe, but not political correctness gone wild as the article implies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a big difference between flying a flag and garage paint colors. If the Forest Service has time to do this they need to have their budget cut - we can better use the money for more important & urgent problems.
There's a big difference between flying a flag and garage paint colors. If the Forest Service has time to do this they need to have their budget cut - we can better use the money for more important & urgent problems.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It probably has to do with preserving the wilderness experience. the flag is pretty bright and can be seen from a long way off, and could be seen by some as a distraction from nature. Distractions from nature run contrary to what the national forests and parks are supposed to be.
As far as a budget cut goes, I think the forest service and the park service (they are 2 seperate agencies) need their budgets increased. Our public lands are in horrible shape. They need to be fixed, both for the safety of the present generation, and to preserve the beauty of the places for future generations.
[quote] Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman apologized Monday for what she called a "misunderstanding" in the U.S. Forest Service ordering a vacationer to remove from his summer cabin a flagpole that had been flying the American flag.
Veneman said that "as a gesture of good will," the Agriculture Department would send an American flag that flew over the agency's offices in Washington to Army veteran and former police officer David Knickerbocker of Linden, Calif.
Knickerbocker was ordered to remove the flagpole outside his summer cabin in California's Eldorado National Forest. He complained to Rep. Richard W. Pombo, R-Calif., who demanded the Forest Service rescind the order.
"We apologize for the misunderstanding," Veneman wrote Pombo. "Please be assured that Mr. Knickerbocker's permit will be modified to allow the flagpole to remain at his recreation residence site."
A forester made "an honest mistake" in thinking the flagpole had to be removed rather than amend the permit for what is considered a construction improvement, said Mark Rey, the Agriculture Department undersecretary who oversees the Forest Service.
"Certainly, the flying of the American flag in our national forests is not discouraged," Veneman said in a letter to Pombo. "Rather, I think what happened here was a need to insert more sensitivity into our inspection and permitting process."
Comments
<strong><a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020722-67141633.htm"; target="_blank">Click2Read</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Why should someone on land sold to them be allowed to fly the American flag. I might go in the forest and become inraged to see the flag that allowed me to be in the forest in the first place.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I mean, can you imagine some of the nonsense that will be going on if THIS is the kind of silliness happening today and it continues to go unchecked for another decade?
The guy in the story IS right: with all the wildfires going on, I'd like to think they have bigger things to worry about than stuff like this.
he land wasn't sold to him. It's being leased to him by the forest service. Now I'm not a lawyer, but the way I understand it, if the land is being leased to this guy, then the land still belongs to the forest service.
Also, to be fair, this article was VERY one sided. If you notice, it does not expalin the reasoning behind the forest service's request.
On another note, I think the "they have better things to be doing, there are forest fires!" argument doesn't exactly hold much water. Fire fighting is a very dangerous job, and a very specialized job. Not all forest service employees are qualified to be fighting fires. These employees should still be doing their jobs. That's what we pay them to do.
Just my thoughts, flame away.
p.s. sorry about all the puns. I don't know what came over me
<strong>I'll be first to say that I read the article very fast, because well, I have other things to do. But...
he land wasn't sold to him. It's being leased to him by the forest service. Now I'm not a lawyer, but the way I understand it, if the land is being leased to this guy, then the land still belongs to the forest service.
Also, to be fair, this article was VERY one sided. If you notice, it does not expalin the reasoning behind the forest service's request.
On another note, I think the "they have better things to be doing, there are forest fires!" argument doesn't exactly hold much water. Fire fighting is a very dangerous job, and a very specialized job. Not all forest service employees are qualified to be fighting fires. These employees should still be doing their jobs. That's what we pay them to do.
Just my thoughts, flame away.
p.s. sorry about all the puns. I don't know what came over me</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, fair enough. Not every forest ranger in a silly hat is qualified to be a firefighter.
But why is flying the flag a problem?
I swear, people. This is just another idiotic product of the times. 10, 20, 40 years ago, this would not even be an issue.
Lately, anytime somebody is a bit put-off or not nuts about a particular institution or tradition (mind you, one that's been around WAY longer than the person doing the bitching), instead of that small (but loud and obnoxious) group learning to suck it up and deal with it, we have to - literally - make a Federal case of it. Or, at the very least, it turns into a big ugly debate and "huge story", worth 4-6 "Crossfire" episodes and an O'Reilly segment.
At some point, some smartass, hand-wringing Senator or Representative is going to let it be known that he/she is offended or bothered by the American flag flying on the Capitol building, and that - in the interest of "inclusiveness", it should be taken down.
You THINK I make this stuff up...
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
We'll just see.
<strong>Also, to be fair, this article was VERY one sided. If you notice, it does not expalin the reasoning behind the forest service's request.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, I'd like to hear the reasoning. Maybe it's some fire code issue. For those who said they should be fighting fires, maybe that's exactly what they're doing here.
But my guess is that it's just one of those places with extremely tight regulations on what your cabin can look like in the middle of the national park.
There's probably a million little regulations about the way your cabin is supposed to look so it doesn't stand out in the park. And flags are just one of them.
And we all know the media love stories like this. They play them up like crazy to get people wringing their hands and talking about it and tuning in to O'Reilly.
Notice at the bottom of the article there was a comment about how they also told him to take down his clothesline and paint his garage a darker color. Stupid and micro-managing, maybe, but not political correctness gone wild as the article implies.
<strong>
Notice at the bottom of the article there was a comment about how they also told him to take down his clothesline and paint his garage a darker color. Stupid and micro-managing, maybe, but not political correctness gone wild as the article implies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a big difference between flying a flag and garage paint colors. If the Forest Service has time to do this they need to have their budget cut - we can better use the money for more important & urgent problems.
<strong>
There's a big difference between flying a flag and garage paint colors. If the Forest Service has time to do this they need to have their budget cut - we can better use the money for more important & urgent problems.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It probably has to do with preserving the wilderness experience. the flag is pretty bright and can be seen from a long way off, and could be seen by some as a distraction from nature. Distractions from nature run contrary to what the national forests and parks are supposed to be.
As far as a budget cut goes, I think the forest service and the park service (they are 2 seperate agencies) need their budgets increased. Our public lands are in horrible shape. They need to be fixed, both for the safety of the present generation, and to preserve the beauty of the places for future generations.
Ag Secy Apologizes for Flagpole Order</a>
[quote] Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman apologized Monday for what she called a "misunderstanding" in the U.S. Forest Service ordering a vacationer to remove from his summer cabin a flagpole that had been flying the American flag.
Veneman said that "as a gesture of good will," the Agriculture Department would send an American flag that flew over the agency's offices in Washington to Army veteran and former police officer David Knickerbocker of Linden, Calif.
Knickerbocker was ordered to remove the flagpole outside his summer cabin in California's Eldorado National Forest. He complained to Rep. Richard W. Pombo, R-Calif., who demanded the Forest Service rescind the order.
"We apologize for the misunderstanding," Veneman wrote Pombo. "Please be assured that Mr. Knickerbocker's permit will be modified to allow the flagpole to remain at his recreation residence site."
A forester made "an honest mistake" in thinking the flagpole had to be removed rather than amend the permit for what is considered a construction improvement, said Mark Rey, the Agriculture Department undersecretary who oversees the Forest Service.
"Certainly, the flying of the American flag in our national forests is not discouraged," Veneman said in a letter to Pombo. "Rather, I think what happened here was a need to insert more sensitivity into our inspection and permitting process."
<hr></blockquote>