Confederate Flag (stickers etc...boo)
 

When I see a confederate flag sticker on a car/truck I do not think "the south" or "racism" all I think of EVERYTIME is how the symbol to me is synonymous with "uneducated." Plain and simple.

You are a #### fool if you think that piece of #### flag stands for anything. Get a job and move out of your mom's basement please.

####ing pathetic.

Edit: Bleeped out my (equally ignorant but necessary) swear words.

Where the hell did that come from?

But how else will we know that they're a rebel, like everyone else bearing the stars and bars?

It was just on my mind today after seeing some dude muscle his way down the freeway in his truck covered with confederate flag stickers. It just put me in a bad mood all day. Sorry, just wanted to vent. It's disgusting.

You can always put the "You lost. Get over it." sticker on your car.

Down here that's a good way to get a car keyed. :p

Just be happy knowing you have all your teeth.



















You have all your teeth, right?

Damn, I thought that was because of my "Bad Cop. No Donut." sticker. :p

Sadly, I do as well...but I'm working on it. :(

Gun rack.

On a separate but related issue, whenever I see any kind of bumper sticker on a car, I can't help but think I'd never want to loan the owner of that car any of my property. I've never quite understood the willingness of people to ruin their cars. I refuse to even allow the dealership to put its stupid insignia on my trunk.

This brings up a related question that occurred to me last night while watching the addiction that I like to call "television". I saw a trailer for the new Dukes of Hazzard and I wondered if they were going to keep the confederate flag on the General Lee in the movie. I did not look close enough at the trailer so I couldn't tell for sure. It is an interesting debate if they should stick to remaking the original series or if they should remove it to reflect the increased P.C. of the current time.

Well, if they got rid of the flag, why stop there? The car's named after the leader of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, an army that fought under the same banner that's on the roof.

Yes they are keeping the rebel flag on the hood of the car. They are also keeping the dixie horn as well. It's only fitting seeing as how the name of the car is the General Lee.

As far as being upset by seeing somebody with a confederate flag sticker/banner/insignia on their vehicle...you have absolutely no idea why they have that sticker there. You getting that upset over what someone else chooses to do with their own vehicle makes you ignorant in your own right.

dola -

Now when I see somebody driving around here with a Dallas Cowboys sticker on their car, well that calls for nothing less than five continuous minutes of cursing.

While it's true you really shouldn't "judge a book by its cover", I don't think drawing inferences about someone from what they decorate their car (or house, or otherwise) with makes one ignorant. Certain symbols stand for some pretty clear ideas. I mean, would you think someone "ignorant" if they saw someone wearing a cross and made the assumption that "this person is Christian"? Such symbols aren't the some total of a person, but certainly enough for you to draw an inference and to get annoyed. Hell, I got annoyed/angry whenever I see a Hummer on the road. This is not like judging someone by the color of their skin. Whoever it is went through the trouble of buying the symbol and then goes ahead and displays it proudly.

I saw a trailer for that movie over the weekend... God that looks fucking abysmal. Awful. Atrocious. Pathetic.

I don't get upset by it, but I wonder why people want to affix a symbol of TREASON to thier belongings.

I saw the trailer for the new Dukes movie, and I believe that the Confederate Flag isn't on the hood but on the roof of the car.

You are correct. It is on the roof of the car.

It still looked horrible this movie.

Even Cooter's pissed about this movie.

The treason angle is interesting and I don't understand why it isn't pushed more by those people who are against its display. Confederate flag supporters readily dismiss the racism argument, but don't seem to fight the treason argument as hard (probably since the idea of a flag that is symbolic of an act of treason that actually happened is much more tangible). Confedarate flag supporters on this board have said as much: basically, "don't bring racism into this argument, but treason is fair game"...

Although I don't "do bumperstickers", I'll just say that I'd be happy to compare incomes with you sometime if you'd like. Bet you're closer to "mom's basement" than I am.

I'd take you to task in more detail & with more fervor, but then I see where you're from & figure you can't help it, it'd be like picking on someone with a birth defect.

Just as an anecdotal case in point, I wouldn't dispute your quoted statement.

Having lived in both places, I'd say Michigan and Georgia have a lot in common. There are plenty of birth defects to go around.

But I'm from Michigan... :confused:

The Confederate Flag is stupid.

Thank you and good day.

I believe the "Handbook of Comedy" suggests that a distinct "silent pause" is the way for me to go here.

:D

As a post-script to my earlier post: this is America and I wouldn't want restrictions on it's display by private citizens. But I do think that those people who do decide to display should reflect on what the Confederate flag means as a symbol to both themselves and others and on how one's respect for the Confederacy jibes with one's love for America, etc...

Two favorite stories about Georgia:

A group of friends and I drove to Atlanta (from Michigan) one night to visit another friend. We have seen signs for "Waffle House" at every exit south of Cinci. So, finally the repetition pays off and we stop at a "Waffle House" about 45 minutes north of Atlanta.

The waitress there (sans a few teeth) comes to our table and asks us to place our order. We do and it's pretty obvious we're from the north. She asks "Where y'all from?" We say Michigan. She replies "Ohhh weee! Yankees! Wait 'til Earl gets in. He'll love this!" So we nod, smile, and finish our order.

A few minutes later Earl comes in and sits at the bar. He's a big ole boy. He's wearing a hat that reads "Keep the South Clean, Send a Yankee Home." So the waitress calls over to Earl and says, "Hey, Earl. We've got some Yankees here." She nods to our table. Earl turns around in his stool and eyes us down. He then says "Only two things come from the North: Yankees and bad weather." He gives us a bit of a snarl and turns back around to start his meal.

Second story:

A friend of mine from law school and a bunch of his friends were headed down to Florida for Spring Break. They were in undergrad. A bunch guys from New York driving a black SUV. So they go tearing through Georgia and get pulled over by a cop for speeding. The cop gets out of his car and he's straight out of central casting. Big guy, hat, mirrored-shades, all of that. He walks up to the SUV and says:

"Boy. Aint nobdy go through Georgia that fast."

Without missing a beat, the guy from New York replies:

"Sherman did."

He spent the night in jail.

The flag they almost exclusively display was the Confederate battle flag or the Navy Jack. It was a symbol used by those taking up arms against the United States of America. It is 100% treasonous.

Usually it doesn't bother me and I'll only comment on it if I'm asked. I usually ask why they don't display the Stars and Bars if it's Southern Pride they're showing. Most of the time they're knuckleheads that don't know the difference.

The only time I've taken action against such a display was on the 4th of July. My brother-in-law had his flag flying at the in-laws and I took it down and threw it on the ground. I then had to explain to him what he was doing and he hasn't flown it, at least with me around, since.

Actually, we had a discussion on this a year or two ago.

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ead.php?t=6671

It's my opinion that the confederate battle flag is racist - at least it is now. It may not have started out that way, but it was used in the 1950's by southern governments as a protest against federally mandated racial integration.

Like it or not, to a great many Americans, the symbol connotes white power.

No, thanks to the blasted Navy. :)

I have a masters degree and I'm proud of my heritage. So take that. :)

Much in the way that guns don't kill people, people do, flags are incapable of being racist(s).

Personall, I couldn't care less about a Confederate flag on a car, and I admit I'm surprised about the fervor presented in the first post. Get over it - the guy chooses to mess up his car/truck, so what?

When I see a Confederate flag, I don't think racism...really I just see pride in living in the south (though I don't think I'd ever go so far as to put such a flag on my car that could POSSIBLY denote something negative like that - then again, I do walk around with a t-shirt that says "Your favorite band sucks"). Really, Texans do the same thing - putting their flag on their car, "don't mess with Texas", etc. I guess the only differences are the additional connotations that the Confederate flag has attached to it. Again, personally, I see very little difference, ymmv.

Then they're the ones that are uneducated.

Do you display the Stars and Bars or one of the battle flags?

Well played, Jon :)

SI

I must admit, the topic of why people display the confederate flag fascinates me. If I may ask (not trying to be rude here), what does the symbol mean to you? What does your pride in your heritage mean, and how is it encapsulated in the symbol?

I wouldn't call people who associate the Confederate flag with racism "uneducated." Like it or not, the flag was used and is still used today (by some) as a symbol for racism. While someone may just be putting the Confederate Flag on their car to display Southren Pride, you can't ignore the fact that the symbol has been used to "display" other ideas and that certain people, very well educated people, may associate those ideas with that symbol.

Come on, now! I set him up for that! A nice, big grapefruit of a pitch to the old fella...

Neither; contrary to popular belief, the Stars and Bars originated as a Confederate Naval flag on CSS ships and was only later adopted by field units in battle.

I don't display them, not because I don't want to be labelled a racist, but because what they mean to me is personal to my beliefs and own feelings. I don't feel the need unlike other "causes d'celebrare" (sic)to "project" my beliefs onto others.

If its wrong of me to be proud of my ancestors that fought in the 13th AL Infantry "Tallassee Guards" for a cause that they "at the time" believed in then I don't want to be right. (1$ to that preacher in Coming to America)

Apparently you are the one who is uneducated - with a complete lack of reading comprehension ability. KWhit is right - some have overtly used that flag as a symbol of their racist views. People who know that and then associate that symbol with racism are not uneducated or unintelligent at all. If you consider it a symbol of something other than resistance to racial equality, then you should blame the racist perception some have of that flag on those who advanced it as such, planting that perception in so many people's minds and not on those who actually have that perception.

I am well aware that certain people have used that flag as a symbol of their racist views. I grew up in a small town in Alabama, so you don't have to remind me about those aspects of society. I however see the distinction with being proud of your heritage and your ancestors and being racist. Some apparently do not.

Just curious, should all the people that are against the Iraq war or feel that it is unjust, illegal, etc. be ashamed of their fathers, grandfathers, brothers and sisters that are fighting it?

Just making sure everybody knows he's smart enough to judge mean people when he see's their bumper stickers.

If you are as educated on the issue as you claim to be, I'm sure you'll be able to explain to me why the Georgia state flag was changed to incorporate the confederate symbol in 1956.

I'm also sure you know who Denmark Groover is, but for the others reading this thread, he's the Georgia House floor leader who in 1956 sponsored the legislation to add the Southern Cross into the state flag. He also has since admitted that the flag was changed to a protest of court-ordered integration.

The timing couldn't make it more obvious. The entire 1956 session of the GA legislature was devoted toward twarting the federal government's institution of Brown v. Board of Education. The incorporation of the confederate battle flag was a thinly veiled "screw you" to the federal gov't - specifically as it related to racial integration.

KWhit -- I believe you're failing to make an important distinction between "opposing integration" & "opposing Federally-ordered integration".

You're welcome to disagree, but I believe that it's a valid distinction, albeit infinitely more distinctive today than in 1956.

I'll even go so far as to say that the circumstances of legal integration are a major component of the poor state of racial affairs in Georgia today.

That is the Stars and Bars. The original Confederate National Flag.



The second Confederate National Flag. Mostly white.



The third and final Confederate National Flag.



A sample of some battle flags.

I couldn't tell if it was intentional or just the result of years of Red Wings brain damage (oh, it's good to have hockey back!) ;)

SI

equals



as far as I'm concerned. Flags symbolizing the taking up of arms against the United States of America.

Warm out today.

Warm yesterday.

Even warmer today.

I'll agree with you that Georgia lawmakers were certainly making the point that the state should have the ability to decide to integrate or not. That's why they took a symbol from the confederacy. Sure, it was partially a states-rights vs. federal-rights issue to the GA lawmakers. But let's face it, at its core, opposition to integration was because white people wanted to keep black people as far away from them as possible.

Then you should learn more about the men who fought under the former.

(Heck, probably the latter too for that matter, there were honorable men who fought under it as well).

FWIW, we're about as far apart on this subject as we can be, to the point that your comment probably qualifies as "use of fighting words" if it was made in my physical presence ... but I sincerely respect your willingness to say what you believe without trying to dance around it.

Given the tracks that my train of thought around this subject usually follow, the word "honorable" comes to mind as being appropriate.

The connatations that fought for slavery and what not - I guess that doesnt make much of a difference ? Hey, its their car - and they can put what they want on it. But everytime I see one, I'm inclined to think of some dumb redneck as well. Its a symbol of treason (hilarious given the self-proclaimed "patriots" ) and racism - pretty hard to distance those things from it.

That may be, but did Georgia and most of the South have any record to suggest they would have conceded these basic human rights themselves ? Perhaps a secession would have been for the best. I'm sorry Jon, but when a state fails to show even a basic amount of respect to its citizens, it deserves the federal government to mandate rights its too chickenshit to enforce.

I don't disagree with you, in fact, I was sort of making the same point (or at least intended to) -- that I believe the former (state v. federal) is much more
an issue for those of us living today than for those who lived through that era.

I agree wholeheartedly ... but that was sorta the point of the whole exercise wasn't it?

I rarely use the phrase "Occupied City of Atlanta" without a certain amount of sincerity.

Fair enough. I thought it sounded like you were agreeing with me, but then I came to my senses and thought, "Jon and I agreeing on something in this thread? No way!"

So it would be ok to drive around with a swastika bumper sticker with a flag with a swastika on it?

Nah, we seem to be in agreement about the hierarchy of motivations in the 50's.
But fear not ... we likely draw different enough conclusions about the aftermath that we're well covered on the disagreement scale ;)

I understand - esp. having been born and raised in Virginia - the tremendous honor and virtue held by many men that fought under and defended the Confederate battle flag. Under different circumstances I may even display one myself...

HOWEVER

I also recognize the terrible hatred, bigotry, and negative associations most people - justifiably so - have for this flag and the people that display it now. I respect that - and them - and wouldn't display a Confederate flag for others to see and be subject to.

That said, Jon's reply was better than expected. He didn't just hit a homer run it was out of the park, over the Green Monster, into the Bay, all that jazz...
:)

I personally wouldn't display the confederate flags because of the biblical principle of "not causing a weaker brother to stumble." Though the flag stands for noble causes as well as ignoble, and though I should be perfectly free to display such a flag, I would not use my freedom in that way, out of respect for those who would so stumble over it, seeing it as encouragement to be racist or rebellious, or out of respect for those who would view it in fear that I meant a racist message.

That said, I do object to considering the flag "treasonous." Treason agianst what? Though it's rarely ever discussed today, even some modern scholars read into our founding documents a consistutionally legitimate "right to secede." At the time, there were many that saw association with the United States as an individual state's prerogative, rather than a conscripted necessity. Many in law and government believed those states had the right to form a new nation. When they did, it was the United States of America that built an invasion army against the Confederate States of America and violated the latter's territory. Who took up arms against whom?

Frankly, all the heat and anger against the flag is largely unjustified. It is not a symbol of racism, not a symbol of rebellion, and not a symbol of treason (though individuals have taken it to mean all those things). Even so, good conscience and biblical direction would instruct us to reserve display of the flag except in situations whose purpose is clearly defined (such as a part of a historical display or even state flag).

I know plenty about them. I'm from a former Confederate State, remember?

Why are they fighting words if you agree with the comparison? What I said is true, both flags were used to represent those actively engaged in warfare against the United States of America. And you yourself now concede that there were almost certainly honorable soldiers in both camps.

So what about a truthful comparison should drive you to physical retaliation?

Having a gun can imply your willingness to inflict harm upon a person though. Why else do you have a gun, but to hurt someone? Whether in self defense or otherwise. Apply that to the flag analogy.

two words

cat hunting

I'm from michigan and I don't really understand how the stars and bars stand for treason.

I'll be sure to hide my cat from you.

First, to clarify, this:



is not the Stars and Bars. It is a battle flag that was flown when engaged in warfare against the United States of America.

Now, Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:


Pretty straightforward. The Confederate Battle Flag represents the levying of war against the United States. That is the Constitutional definition of treason.

First shots fired at Fort Sumter by Confederate forces.

I don't doubt that the Union would have invaded anyway, but your implication that the Union started the fighting is completely wrong.

yeeeeeeeeeeeee haaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


tension breaker. had to be done.

This thread proves one thing: Flags are stupid.

But that definition seems to take us back to a question of whether the members of the CSA were part of the USA at the time of the fighting -- in their minds they weren't ... therefore rendering "treason" an impossibility (just as there's plenty to accuse, for example, Germany or Japan of during WWII, but treason isn't on the list).

As the saying goes, history (among other things) is written by the victors ... therefore, the War of Northern Aggression provided a precedent that States do not have the "right" to secede from the Union. In reality, what was proven was more along the lines that a given group of States did not have the might to successfully defend the right to secede and therefore lost it.

How many Confederate leaders were convicted of treason after the North won the war? You would have thought, for such treasonous actions, they would certainly have hung Jefferson Davis. He's an easy mark, right? President of the CSA? He's the ringleader! How about Lee? He was responsible (indirectly) for thousands and thousands of Union deaths. When did his trial commence? I mean, they are traitors, right? Where is the criminal prosecution? These should be open and shut cases. Hang those men!!

The trick is the definition of war, yes? The North invaded the South time and time again. The Confederates could claim that they were simply defending themselves against an aggressive government out to subjugate the rights of the southern states. Victors make the rules (see Texas v. White in 1869), and the Civil War is no different. But the idea that the situation was as black and white (traitors vs. patriots) as you are making it out to be is preposterous.

This threat might work in your neck of the woods but seriously, a bet? Why don't we whip our dicks out and measure thoughs instead?

Take your thesaurus back to the county library before it is overdue.

I'm done reading this thread and am removing my subscription. Enjoy!

Jon hath been burned. :(

Aylmar: Lincon and Grant were the major reasons that Davis and other leaders didn't get executed. There was great popular support for punishing the South, but Lincoln's wishes and Grant's actions at Appomatox luckily carried the day. Both men realized that the fighting would end only if it could be replaced by a new national unity. Credit should also be given to Lee in particular for refusing to sanction a guerilla war.

Its very frustrating to read all of these "noble cause" arguments. The Civil War wasn't fought between an aggressive North and a passive South. Remember that the South fired the first shots, they stole tons of Federal property and they also invaded Northern territory numerous times. There was never any intention by either side to sit back and see if a peaceful resolution could be found.

Spare me, you sanctimonious p.o.s. You were the one who raised the income issue, not me. I just decided to take you up on it, since you had decided to let your oh-so-wise "student" mouth write a check your ass isn't likely to be able to cash.

You took the shot at income-levels, I offered to prove just how far off base you are ... and we see how willing you are to go there, I believe that makes my point.

Come back & see us when you've grown up a little, m'kay. In the meantime, stick to your homework.

Sounds like you should spend some time there checking out a dictionary. thoughs? I mean, a typo I could see...but that's not even in the ballpark.

you don't want me whipping my dick out and making you all feel inadequate



ps - It's big.

You could also look at Lincoln's order to resupply Fort Sumter. He knew it would lead to war well before he issued it. It can be argued that Lincoln needed a war to strengthen the resolve of the states remaining in the Union in order to put it back together again. The CSA made overtures to Lincoln before Sumter for a resolution. He spurned them. The inclusive branding of the south as traitors is probably just as frustrating for me as the noble cause argument is for you. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Aylmar:I agree with you. I'm not arguing for a good/evil branding. Both sides knew that the decision to seceed meant war and both sides did all they could to destroy the other.

Gee, an income comparison between a student and someone in what, their mid-30's? Yeah, that's a reasonable comparison.

Again, I wasn't the one who raised the income issue, Mr. Yankee Know-It-All-Don't-Know-Jack brought it up.
I just thought it was time someone called it for the b.s. comment it was.

Somehow though, I'm not surprised that you would have a problem with it.
I really don't give a fuck, but I'm not surprised.

Is it a B.S. comment? Compare apples to apples.

Per capita income in 2004:
Michigan: $31,954
Georgia: $30,051

And to your other point, I'm really not surprised you're acting like a jerk, so I guess we're even.

Ok, they are whipping their dicks out. Everybody clear out.

Given that they were citizens of States that willfully joined the USA and that the Constitution gives Congress authority regarding the territory of the United States (Article IV), they were by definition - due to Congress' nonacceptance of the secession - still United States citizens occupying United States territory.

However, I agree with the decision not to execute their leaders. It was also made for the right reason, politically it enabled a return to one nation.

And, yes, the American Revolutionaries were treasonous. Revolutions necessarily require it. The argument regarding whether the South was as justified as the Colonies to commit their acts is a separate debate. It does not change the fact that both were acts of treason.

You don't really think they're going to need all that much room, do you?

But what about the people who want to watch?

I mean seriously, when does this ever happen.

Nobody settles things like this. Let's whip out our dicks to see who is bigger? Who does that?

Perhaps watching more gay porn is in order? :D

But it does not specifically mention the legality of secession. And therefore, in the mind of some, is subject to:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Jefferson described the tenth amendment as the "foundation of the Constitution". He argued that the states were not "united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government" and "whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force". In fact, in his railings against the Sedition Act, Jefferson expected the states themselves to "take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories".

Now, this doesn't sound like an unbreakable Union of states to me. It sounds like a set of independent entities working together to accomplish a goal that they could not accomplish on their own. You are implying that the states happily gave up their rights in order to form this union. To people like Jefferson and Madison, that was far from true. The states were the last line of defense against a central government that could easily transform itself into a monarchy.

Now, how much of this do I buy? I don't know. It's an interesting debate, though, that's for sure.

I don't believe I implied any such thing. I am a very strong believer in States' rights and in the Tenth Amendment (but believe also very strongly in the Ninth Amendment and the rights I believe it affords the people against not only an overbearing federal government but also an overbearing State government).

The way I see it is that the Constitution places the People first, then the States, then the Nation.

But that doesn't change my opinion that the 10th doesn't apply here because Article IV gives Congress authority regarding the Nation's territory. Secession clearly involves the taking of the Nation's territory.

But the territory in the US doesn't belong to the federal government. It belongs to the people. The people of those states chose to take their ball and go home. They withdrew from the contract forming the United States. Therefore, there is no basis for enforcement of Article IV. That territory, once the letter of secession is signed, no longer belongs to the United States of America, assuming that it ever did.

Edit: Clarification - I believe Article IV is meant to be applied to property and/or territory purchased by the United States government, not the actual territory contained within the states themselves. That, by all indications, is a matter of the state's individual sovereignty and not governed by Article IV.

What a fascinating argument. Many of you are making the mistake of layering today's understandings on people who lived and died a century and a half ago. Many of our understandings of what our country is about are a result of the Civil War, which was in part a culmination of the argument between two very different ideas of what the United States was. In addition to slavery, which was the catalyst that sparked the war, these two competing visions of America were in direct conflict and had been from the very beginning of the nation. The war decided the issue of slavery and the very idea of secession as a legitimate mechanism. But by the reasoning of some of you, the American flag itself is the flag of traitors. Did we not rebel against Britain?

As for the Confederate flag itself, it is quite unfortunate that the Confederate battle flag was usurped by racists and bigots as a symbol of their racism. That flag is forever tainted by that association.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of, basically, contract law.

The idea that one can just decide they don't want to abide by a contract anymore and are therefore no longer subject to its requirements is ridiculous and would cause chaos. The Constitution, at its core a contract between the States, is no different.

Your clarification is a more cogent argument against my position. However, Article IV Section 3 makes no mention of any "purchase" requirement in its scope. Furthermore, the entire Section clearly shows to me that Congress was to be consulted regarding all changes in statehood.

I preemptively addressed that question in post #88 of this thread. Also, I do not hold the Stars and Bars - the presumptive National Flag of the Confederacy - to be a symbol of treason against the United States. I hold the battle flags of the Confederacy to be such.

Come to the South some time and I think you'll get a completely different vibe for whether the North or the South was acting in a treasonous manner.

And why was South Carolina given so much shit for having the flag on their state house capitol? Georgia had it in their fucking flag, I think Mississippi does/has had it in their flag or at least displayed it prominently. Same with LA and AL, but you don't hear a peep from the NAACP. Hell they're still having a boycott because there is a monument with the flag on state house property. The NCAA said they wouldn't hold anymore tourneys in SC until they get rid of it. Perhaps it all comes down to revenue (since they'd never dare strip Atlanta of anything), but its seems a little contradictive, the NCAA's statements and the general politics of it all.

That's because they believe you'll cave in. Georgia isn't getting any serious crap anymore because they already know we've got enough politicians who'll sell their souls for a few pieces of silver.

What SC, and all the rest, should do is tell the NCAA to shove their tournaments squarely up their misguided asses ... but there's a lack of honor & character in a lot of places, which is what these organizations are banking on.