I host a daily public affairs radio show in San Francisco called Your Call. It airs from 11 am - noon PST on KALW 91.7 FM. I am also happy to report that I recently got a book deal with PoliPoint Press to write about my road trip through the heartland and the interviews I did with people about why they vote the way they do (or not). It's scheduled to be out in September.
A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti- Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.
posted by storiesinamerica @ 7:59 PM
14 comments
I'm currently writing a book about my recent six-month road trip to the so-called "red states." I also report for KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco, AlterNet and Bay Area BusinessWoman.
14 Comments:
Reminds me of how the ACLU always get their knickers in a twist over manger scenes.
House with Peace Sign = Private Property.
City Hall with Manger Scene = Public Property.
It's the homeowners association, who's rules transcend the individual -- like the government.
In both cases, it's the same story: The petty and intolerent making the most noise.
or the most stupid
oh Mr. Boo ... After reading the linked article it occured to me that there is a flaw in your observation. Here's the pertinent excerpt: "The subdivision's rules say no signs, billboards or advertising are permitted without the consent of the architectural control committee.
Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything. Kearns fired all five committee members."
So it would seem that an individual, Kearns, is really running the show. The 'committee' is nothing more than a cover for his tyranny.
You're making my point. Haven't you heard of the "Bush Cabal?"
http://storiesinamerica.blogspot.com/2006/11/this-is-bushs-war.html
http://storiesinamerica.blogspot.com/2006/05/cia-veteran-calls-rumsfeld-liar.html
In any case, the title of the post is completely misleading and false...nowhere in the article is anyone involved identified as a "conservative". Or is this one of those Dan Rather false-but-accurate deals?
Where did conservatives come into this? It has been my experience that liberals are most ready to jump on things that some people may find offensive... These people who were offended are idiots plain and simple. Who cares what political group they are associated with it has nothing to do with the issue.
If it doesn't have anything to do with the issue, why include it in the title of the post?
(Especially when the word doesn't appear anywhere in the story.)
Anonymous said:
"Who cares what political group they are associated with it has nothing to do with the issue."
Well, apparently Rose did. Otherwise why would she add something that wasn't there?
it's pretty obvious a conservative called the peace sign "satan"
what a sick/sad state of affairs.
"It amazes me how people can focus on little things like this."
You mean the "little thing" like calling someone a conservative without justification?
Well, you certainly answered the question I asked if it was like the Dan Rather "Fake but Accurate" excuse.
Jack, once again someone needs to point out the obvious to you. There is no way on this earth that a liberal would consider the peace sign to be a satanic symbol. That kind of imbicility is the exclusive domain of some conservatives, like this Kearns jerk. Granted, liberals can be just as dumb sometimes, but this has Robertson-Falwell absurdity written all over it. No need for the word conservative in the article.
It was reported that the Democrats in the last election garnered a greater share of evangelical voters than ever before (around 1/3). This represents millions of people who might statistically be more inclined to consider a peace sign to be satanic symbol.
Now consider: This story only exists because ONE crank in a homeowners association didn't like looking at a peace sign hanging on the side of someone's house (and by the way, these developments that have homeowners associations seem attract an over abundance of these persnickety, butt-insky types -- of every political persuasion.) The story doesn't tell us anything else about the guy. So whether or not this guy happens to be a conservative, regardless of the odds, is unknown. Nor would it be relevant even if he was. He's no more representative of conservatives than people who want to ban nativity scenes from public property at Christmas are representative of liberals. Maybe I'm just naive, but I suspect most liberals could care less when the local Baptist church arranges some figurines around a wooden crib on the front lawn of the library at Christmas time. (I think generally speaking its only grumpy atheists that can muster the required indignation to properly motivate someone to bitch about nativity scenes...and for whatever reason they seem to be sympathetic to libertarianism quite often.)
And or the record, I don't have any problems with nativity scenes, peace signs, Hanukkah menorahs displayed on public or private property. But, then again, I'm probably a bit more conservative than many of you so I'm less inclined to impose collectivist proclamations and rules over individuals.
Bottom line: If in fact conservatives are intolerant assholes who regard the peace sign as a satanic symbol, this story not only doesn't support your case on the facts, but it makes you look small and petty for advancing it in the context that it might do so because of your prejudices.
And really, am I really asking so much that if your going to identify people as conservatives you might want to actually link to a story where they are identified as such?
'This represents millions of people who might statistically be more inclined to consider a peace sign to be satanic symbol.'
Statistically maybe. In real life, uh, I don't think so. Not saying all conservatives are so dumb they would consider the peace symbol Satanic, just some.
Post a Comment
<< Home