Conference back40::soapbox

    
>    Also, I am going to the Bulls game tomorrow night, as they play the
>    Denver Nuggets. It is my virtual Friday as well.

	will you be standing during the anthem?  that's the important
	question.

    
    as long as it doesn't go against his beliefs.  
    
    

    
    (that was referring to the national anthem thing, not the back side of
    a rainbow....)
    
    

>	will you be standing during the anthem?  that's the important
>	question.

	he's not bound by league rules. ;-)

    
    well, it isn't costing me $32,000 a game for that honor either.
    I guess I won't be seeing Mr. Rauf tomorrow night. a shame he is a
    good player.

 Mr. Rauf should join the IBA (Iranian Basketball Association) since he feels
 the USA flag is a symbol of oppression.  I'm sure they'd welcome him there,
 though I suspect he would make considerably less than the $36k/day he makes
 in this oppressive country.



 Jim

    
    Poor baby...  I feel so bad for him...
    
     I'm gonna call the Nuggets and see if they'll pay me a quarter of what
    he's making... and I'll stand through the whole game if they want!!
    

    
    nah Andy, they know about your sleeping habits in plays.

    You're wrong.  George Rauh has a deep admiration for the American
    flag!!! 

    
    <---- hell, he dress in it.

    I fly the flag of glory from my second story house.:) 

  so if i understand it correctly from listening to the RKO jocks,
  standing for the NA isn't in the contract, but it's in an operational
  handbook that was issued by management, but never agreed upon by
  the union.  is that right?

    It is in the league rules.  Mumble mumble, section J.  "Get off yer ass
    and show respect, ya idjit."  It might read a little differently though.   

    I sense a rush by lawyers wishing to make a name for themselves to be
    the one who represents this guy in his suit against the league...
    
    What if he claimed it were against his religion to wear a white
    uniform? 
    
    FWIW- Akeem Olajuwon who is also a muslim says that Rauf is FoS when he
    uses "it's against my religion" as justification for failing to stand
    during the playing of the anthem. 
    
    My take- if you don't want to stand during the playing of the anthem,
    ply your trade in a league that doesn't require it.

    
    
    The union says that it was never something that was put on the table,
    so it shouldn't count...
    
    re: Doc's reply
    
    Two member of American Muslim Orgs commented that the Koran says
    nothing about standing for a NA...
    
     This guy is out to lunch big time... I hope they don't cave in.
    

    He don't stand, he don't play.  There, problem solved.  8^)  If he
    don't like it, he can go play in an anti-American league in another
    country.

    Why do they bother to play the national anthem at sporting events
    anymore?  It is not respected by the vast majority of people attending
    - the players are usually fidgeting or talking to each other and very
    few of the spectators sing.  It has even become a farce when certain
    performers butcher it (see Rosanne) or have to lip-sinc (W.Houston and
    K.L. Gifford come to mind)  I think the anthem only has a place where
    it is nation against nation (like the Olympic games), not professional
    sporting events where teams can be made up of players from many
    different nationalities.  JMHO.

 I, for one, get chills up my spine when I attend a sporting event (or any
 event for that matter) in which the flag is raised and the National Anthem
 raised.  But, I'm one of those patriotic types which I'm sure one day will
 be a thing of the past.



 Jim

> I, for one, get chills up my spine when I attend a sporting event (or any
> event for that matter) in which the flag is raised and the National Anthem
> raised.

The guy behind you spilled his beer on you when he stood up.

  i got chills up my spine once too, but it was 'cuz the kid in 
  back of me dumped his Coke.

  actually, i like it too.  the anthem, that is.

    He can go play with Sinead.  Actually, they have a lot in common. 
    Neither like the Pope and they both won't stand for the National
    Anthem.

Her head _does_ resemble a basketball.

    yeah, and i'll bet her brain has all the convolutions of a basketball
    too!

re: .14 (Mark)

Well, Mark, just as we see "God's one true direction/word/meaning" interpreted
about 150 different ways here in Soapbox, it's sure not hard for ME to
understand how somebody of the muslim faith COULD find the U.S. flag
unworthy of standage.

Heck, there are some thumpers right here that have been <gasp> divorced!
Hardly following "God's word" or demonstrating family values, but we let
'em live anyway, ya know?

\john

    >              -< Would a non-muslim cause as much furor? >-
    
     Absolutely.
    
    >it's sure not hard for ME to understand how somebody of the muslim faith 
    >COULD find the U.S. flag unworthy of standage.                     
    
     Such a person would be best served by plying his trade in a league
    where displaying respect to the country in which your playing is not 
    required.

    
    re: /24
    
    \john
    
    Like I stated before... there were two.. count em.. TWO, leaders from
    the American Muslim (whatever) that have been quoted that this poor
    baby doesn't have a leg to stand on...
    
     Don't let that stand in your way, though...
    

    i was wondering about that too, though, andy.  just because it
    doesn't say anything about standing for a national anthem in the
    Koran, does that mean that he isn't bound by his personal religious
    beliefs to refrain from honoring a nation he considers oppressive?

re: .26 (Andy)

The point: Just as all Christians don't have the same beliefs, it's clear
not all muslims do either.

>    Like I stated before... there were two.. count em.. TWO, leaders from
>    the American Muslim (whatever) that have been quoted that this poor
>    baby doesn't have a leg to stand on...
>     Don't let that stand in your way, though...

.24 >Well, Mark, just as we see "God's one true direction/word/meaning" interpreted
.24 >about 150 different ways here in Soapbox, it's sure not hard for ME to
.24 >understand how somebody of the muslim faith COULD find the U.S. flag
.24 >unworthy of standage.

Andy - Please try again, for comprehension.  Start with the word "JUST".
Make sure you don't skip the "IT'S SURE NOT HARD".  Finish up with "COULD".

Want me to drag in a few Pentacostals and see what they say about your
"Christian" lifestyle and beliefs?

\john

 He doesn't wish to honor a nation he feels is oppressive, but he is quite
 pleased to pocket $36k/day from citizens therein.


 Jim

    
    	If it is a religious belief, then I applaud him for taking
    	a stand.  However, if his conviction is so strong, then I'd
    	say even playing for the N (As in National) BA would also
    	be against those convictions.  
    
    	If he has a moral objection, he should leave the NBA.
    
    

re: .25 (Mark)

>     Such a person would be best served by plying his trade in a league
>    where displaying respect to the country in which your playing is not 
>    required.

Gee, and here I thought everybody was excited about a person who "stands
up" (no pun intended) for what he believes.  Ask some PatB supporters
about holding firm to one's positions.

Perhaps we're all best served by a person that challanges our dogmatic
behavior.  I could sure do without the gratuitous nationalistic displays.
Like anything, do 'em enough, they become meaningless.

We could discuss "where is the best place for one to fight this battle,"
but where better than out in the open?  He was content to be quiet about
it, and just "agree to disagree."  Somebody, somebody with an AGENDA,
made it the mess it is today.

\john

    
      His agent put him up to it, and the religion thing is an
     afterthought.  His suit will be tossed, but he doesn't care.
     People will remember his name, and that's big bucks.  The
     "Bad Boy" image is a tangible asset these days - he can quit
     and do beer ads.
    
      bb

re: .29 (Jim)

> He doesn't wish to honor a nation he feels is oppressive, but he is quite
> pleased to pocket $36k/day from citizens therein.

So?  I don't wish to honor a church I feel is oppressive, but I'm quite
pleased to attend a wedding of members therein.

It's clear his "calling" is basketball.  It's clear he can do the best job
of fulfilling his ultimate destiny right here in the good ol' U.S.ofA,
playing with the best of the best.  But because he won't bear false
witness, you don't think he's good enough.  How eye-opening.

\john

    
    	Does he have a contract that binds him to the rules of the NBA?
    
    	Did he sign it?
    
    	Do the rules mention "standing for the national anthem"?
    
    
    	If the answer to all 3 questions is "yes" then go to "See ya,
    	bozo".
    

re: .30
    
>    	If it is a religious belief, then I applaud him for taking
>    	a stand.  However, if his conviction is so strong, then I'd
>    	say even playing for the N (As in National) BA would also
>    	be against those convictions.  

How silly.  That's its NAME.

What does baseball's NATIONAL league and AMERICAN league have to do
with the Canadian teams and players?

Please, content only.
Thanks.
\john

>> He doesn't wish to honor a nation he feels is oppressive, but he is quite
>> pleased to pocket $36k/day from citizens therein.

>So?  I don't wish to honor a church I feel is oppressive, but I'm quite
>pleased to attend a wedding of members therein.

    
 --> And you respect the other members while you are there.
    
    
>It's clear his "calling" is basketball.  It's clear he can do the best job
>of fulfilling his ultimate destiny right here in the good ol' U.S.ofA,
>playing with the best of the best.  But because he won't bear false
>witness, you don't think he's good enough.  How eye-opening.

\john
    
--> Respecting other people (both the other players and the fans) is not
    bearing false witness. 
    
    BTW  His union says that he is within his rights to do this as it is
    not part of the collective bargining agreement. 
    
    ed
    

re: .36 (Ed)

>>So?  I don't wish to honor a church I feel is oppressive, but I'm quite
>>pleased to attend a wedding of members therein.
> And you respect the other members while you are there.

When the priest/minister/rabbi says to pray, I do not.
    

> Respecting other people (both the other players and the fans) is not
> bearing false witness. 

Simple question: If in Iran all games started with a chant of "All
Americans suck; Kill them all" would you join right in?  Sure you
would, you respect the fans, right?!?  Gimme a break.  Honor sometimes
means going AGAINST the grain.

Standing to "honor" a nation via song when you don't honor it?  Well, you go
use whatever definition of "bearing false witness" that you'd like.  This
one fits just fine for me.
    
\john

    
    This isn't someone elses country, this is HIS country.
    
    ed

    I'm rather curious.  If the Nuggets were a 'National' team, one that
    sponsored the US here and internationally, I can understand the furor.
    While I enjoy the anthem and feel very patriotic, I cannot understand
    why something like this always gets people's backs up.  If we truly
    don't respect freedom of speech and or freedom of expression, why do
    we so vehemently defend it?

    Standing up and being quiet doesn't seem like a lot to ask. It seems
    even this minor level of respect is too much for him. If he cannot have
    respect for the people who are paying his salary, then he should find
    another job.

    .39  yeah, we'd have to deport all the flag-burners who are
	 pulling down salaries in the US, if we wanted to ship
	 this guy out just for not standing up during the anthem.

	 if it were in his contract, they'd be justified in not
	 renewing him, i'd say.

    
    He claims that this is an oppressive country and that is the reason
    that he cannot honor this ceremony. 
    
    	I have no idea of what he is doing to try to change the opression.
    Is he doing anything beside taking another symbol of this opressive
    country and putting into his bank account? I personaly think that the
    playing of the national anthem at the beginning of sporting events has
    lost its value. But it IS the national anthem and out of respect for
    what it means, I stand and sing. I respect the good parts of these
    traditions. The bad things about this country do not negate the need
    for respect for the ideals of the country. I do not advocate a 'My
    country- love it or leave it" mentality, but I think that respect for
    some traditions helps in the struggle to change the things that need
    changing in this country. 
    
    ed
    

    If this guy has such great principles about protesting this oppressive
    nation, then surely his principles are enough for him to QUIT any league 
    which demands that its players show respect for the National Anthem.

    This would be impressive indeed, and I'd certainly applaud him for it.

>> He doesn't wish to honor a nation he feels is oppressive, but he is quite
>> pleased to pocket $36k/day from citizens therein.

>So?  I don't wish to honor a church I feel is oppressive, but I'm quite
>pleased to attend a wedding of members therein.


 huh?




>It's clear his "calling" is basketball.  It's clear he can do the best job
>of fulfilling his ultimate destiny right here in the good ol' U.S.ofA,
>playing with the best of the best.  But because he won't bear false
>witness, you don't think he's good enough.  How eye-opening.


  What?  His religion means little to me.  He could be a Christian, Buddhist
  whatever, I don't care.  What I do care about is his audacity to claim that
  the American flag is a symbol of oppression.  It is hypocracy in my eyes
  to make such a claim, and take money from citizens of this country who 
  attend the games.

 
 Jim

    >.39  yeah, we'd have to deport all the flag-burners who are
    >	 pulling down salaries in the US, if we wanted to ship
    >	 this guy out just for not standing up during the anthem.
    
     Who said we wanted to ship him out? All I'm saying is that playing in
    the NBA is agreeing to play by their rules. If he cannot in good
    conscience do that, then he is free to find somewhere else to play. He
    is not free to force the NBA to accept his contrary behavior. I asked
    before what if it were "against his religion" to wear the same uniform
    as everyone else? Should the NBA be forced to make an allowance for
    this guy? I think not. There is no right to play in the NBA. It is a
    privilege bestowed at the whim of the NBA franchises. For example,
    people who violate the drug or alcohol policy of the NBA can be tossed.
    If a rastafarian joined an NBA team and tested positive for marijuana,
    could he be similarly protected on religious grounds? I don't think so. 
    
     He could always start his own league. That's the beauty of america. If
    you don't like the rules, you can work to change them or start your own
    league.

So is it against the rules of the NBA for a player to sit down during the
national anthem?

    Who gives a rat's backside if he stands or not? People don't pay
    outrageous prices to see him stand around while somebody sings a song,
    an outdated song at that. Personally, I think "America the Beautiful"
    is more appropriate for the country's purposes , but that's neither
    here nor there. If everybody were looking at the flag and singing like
    they were supposed to be, nobody would have noticed him sitting. I
    personally think it's wrong for an employer to force an employee to
    partake in any custom he or she finds objectionable. Suppose the
    majority of stockholders at your company were strict Christians, and
    every day before work you had to stand in front of a painting of Christ
    and say the rosary in the lobby with all the other employees. I'm a
    Christian and I would object. Substitute "Christians" with a religeon
    you don't neccesarily agree with. Suppose the company was owned by
    muslums, and every day you had to go to a mosque at your facility and
    pray to Allah, even though you don't believe in it. You could find
    another job if you don't like it, but this is your career. This is
    where you get your insurance, your paycheck, do you really want to go
    someplace and make 1/10th of what you're pulling down now, just because
    of your religeous beliefs, or lack thereof. I say, more power to him.
    
    						lunchbox

    
    	Dave, the people behind him have no choice but to notice that
    	he's sitting down.
    

>            <<< Note 680.45 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "hickory dickory" >>>
    
>     Who said we wanted to ship him out?

	messrs henderson and leech suggested he find another country 
	to play in.  i didn't say you said it.  i just got through saying
	that if it's in his contract to stand during the anthem, they'd
	be justified in not renewing him.  i respect him for not going along
	with something that's against his beliefs just to placate the masses
	though.

  First off, America The Beautiful should be the national anthem!  
It's easier to sing and remember all the words.  Plus, I like the song 
better.  I hate the Star Spangled Banner.  NOBODY can sing it. (well, 
Arron Neville did a fair job) What's up with all this bombs in the air stuff
and the rockets red glare anyway?  Kind of violent eh.  Needs a V-CHIP? 
  Second, I agree that IF this is in his contract, he should live up 
to his end of the deal.  Period.  You sign, you play the game. 
However, if it's NOT in his contract, it IS a free country- I think..

z-wolf

    
    well, the Nuggets will miss his abilities tomorrow night against
    the Bulls, no matter what you may think of him. I think this issue is
    being overblown by the media. I mean he has been doing this *all* year,
    and suddenly, now it's an issue.

    The flag is usually hanging from the rafters, regardless of how tall he
    is, if people behind him were craning their necks to ogle the flag,
    they wouldn't notice if he was standing, sitting ,naked, dying, etc.
    
    					lunchbox

    You got to realize that even though Mahmoud is a gifted athlete and
    earns 2M/yr, he's still a 27 year old kid with less than fully formed
    ideals, opinions and beliefs.  Much like most of the boxers.  We
    shouldn't be expecting anymore from him.  We should give him a chance
    to come to his senses.
    
    Which he just has.  I just heard that he will be standing for the
    anthem with his head bowed in prayer.  This to me seems like a graceful
    compromise for both the NBA and Mahmoud to allow both parties to walk
    away with faces saved from an overblown episode.
    
    -- Jim

    Although the matter has been settled, apparently, I wonder how this
    will affect his career.
    

    >i just got through saying that if it's in his contract to stand during 
    >the anthem, they'd	be justified in not renewing him.
    
     If it was actually in his contract, they could require him to stand,
    and if he failed and the league prevented him from playing because he
    still refused, he could be sued for breach of contract. 
    
     I believe it's only in the league rules, which he must still abide by.
    I doubt that they put in his contract that players that accumulate 6
    fouls in a single contest shall be disqualified from the game.
    Nonetheless, he must abide by that rule. The rules say he has to stand
    and behave in a generally respectful manner. He should comply with the
    rules, or be disqualified.
    
     I imagine that in his contract is a clause to the effect of abiding by
    league rules. If so, then he should be held to that.
    

    Muhamad Ali's career wasn't wrecked by his refusal to report for the
    draft. Not that Ali can be compared to anybody in the charisma
    department...

  .55  yeah - wherever the freakin' stuff is written!
       i agree!  they have a right to hold him to it!
       okay?  good grief. ;>

    I'm just saying it's sad that in a country forever patting itself in
    the back for the freedom it grants that a person has to be untrue to
    himself in order to have the job he wants....

    -1
       peeeeeeeeeeeeeer pressssssssure

    >I'm just saying it's sad that in a country forever patting itself in
    >the back for the freedom it grants that a person has to be untrue to
    >himself in order to have the job he wants....
    
     Hey- I've gotta be untrue to myself to have a job at all, so there.

    
    	RE: Dave
    
    	If it was in Ali's contract that he must report for the draft
    	if called upon, then his career could have been ruined.
    
    	Barring that, I guess I'm having a hard time using "Ali" and
    	"relevant" in relation to this discussion.
    

    
    Re: .43 
    
        >If this guy has such great principles about protesting this
    	>oppressive nation, then surely his principles are enough for him 
    	>to QUIT any league which demands that its players show respect 
    	>for the National Anthem.
    
    Ye gods,  I agree with Suzanne.
    I'd best step back and reconsider this issue.
    
    
    						signed,
    
    							Concerned Hank
    
    
    

  .62  so do you think he should take it a step further and leave
       the country too?

    
    	Considering that Suzanne has an opinion on pretty much every
    	topic, odds are that SOMEONE will agree with her on SOMETHING
    	eventually.
    
    	If it happens again, THEN you'd better start to worry.
    

    
    >so do you think he should take it a step further and leave
    >the country too?
    
    No, I'm not an "America, love it or leave it" type. 

    RE: .62  Hank
    
    > Ye gods,  I agree with Suzanne.
    > I'd best step back and reconsider this issue.
    
    No, Hank, it's time to reconsider EVERYTHING ELSE...  :) :)

    
    live free or die?

    
    re .51
    Yes he was doing it all year, the league just found out.
    
    ed

    
    re .58
    
    I'm just saying it's sad that in a country forever patting itself in
    the back for the freedom it grants that a person has to be untrue to
    himself in order to have the job he wants....
    
    
    Just how many people do you think have that much freedom?
    
    ed

    Obviously, he appreciates the opportunity he has, as he's agreed to
    compromise. I can't justify forcing patriotism down somebody's throat,
    though. I like the National Anthem portion of a sporting event. I think
    it serves to remind everybody that what is about to occur is only a
    game, and reverance is owed to the people who died to give us the
    freedom to witness it. If somebody wants to sit or not take off their
    hat, I respect that freedom, too.
    
    						lunchbox

        I don't (ever) stand for, or sing the UK "National Anthem"
        
        It was written to celebrate the defeat of the Scots at Culloden
        and contains the line;
        
         "...those rebellious Scots to crush, god save..." etc.
        
        

     "if you're puttin' down my country, hoss
      you're walkin' on the fightin' side of me"


                   Merle Haggard

    
    
    
    
    "how long shall they kill our prophets
    while we stand aside and look"
    
    
    			-Bob Marley

Note 680.70         Oh say, can you see from the locker room?           70 of 72
CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA"                           9 lines  14-MAR-1996 15:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>  I like the National Anthem portion of a sporting event. I think
>>  it serves to remind everybody that what is about to occur is only 
>>  game, and reverance is owed to the people who died to give us the
>>  freedom to witness it.

--------------> EXCUZZZZZZZZE ME?  Say what?  You mean people died in 
war so I have the freedom to watch SPORTING EVENTS?  Wow. I feel 
better knowing this..I'll sing REAL loud now.

z-wolf    

    re.74
    
    People didn't die so you can see a sporting event, necessarily, but
    it's nice that you do have the freedom to see one. I do not sing the
    national anthem, as it would be a disgrace and a mockery.
    
    						lunchbox

If the Nazis had won, we'd be watching soccer instead of basketball.
Actually, _you'd_ be watching soccer.  I wouldn't have been born.

    ...and I wouldn't have stood for the German National Anthem.

   >I do not sing the national anthem, as it would be a disgrace and a mockery.
    
    		It is when most people sing it. Don't feel bad. 
Like I said, the song is STUPID. 

z-wolf 

    They probably would have killed you for not standing, Lunchbox.

    Covert, we need a good idiomatic translation of "lunchbox".

    re.79
    
    If I hadn't been brainwashed to the point of standing, I would have
    died with the satisfaction of knowing I had been true to myself. I'd
    rather die on my feet than live under somebody elses.
    
    					lunchbox

 Frankly, I don't care if the guy stands or not.  I celebrate that right (how's
 that Claptrap?).  I am more offended by the "symbol of oppression" comment.
 If he feels this country is oppressive, he is certainly free to go to one
 that is less so.



 Jim

    Again, you'd have the more obvious choice of quitting an employer
    who would demand that you stand for the playing of the National
    Anthem (whatever it might be,) Lunchbox.

    Plenty of other employers in this country make no such demand.

    
    << I'd ratther die on my feet than live under somebody elses.
    
    yeah, you'd think they would at least wash them once in a while.

    
    	The jerk could compromise his principles for a year, make $2.8M
    	and retire.
    

RE: 680.82 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "We shall behold Him!" 

He is also free to stay here and make "symbol of oppression" comments.  I'm
free to disagree.


Phil

>He is also free to stay here and make "symbol of oppression" comments.  I'm
>free to disagree.


 and I am free to tell him what I feel about his "symbol of oppression" 
 comments.




 Jim

    Suzanne
    
    	Certainly he can go someplace else for a job. But the NBA has
    probably been his dream for a long time. Suppose you had your dream
    job. Let's just say what you're doing now is your dream job for the
    sake of argument. How would it feel to have to come in and stand to
    revere the nazi flag every morning? You can go find another job that
    pays a fraction of what you're getting now. But this is your dream,
    after all, and you're forced to swallow somebody else's morals in order
    to live your dream. I don't like it.
    
    
    						lunchbox

    
    It sticks a bit to compare the swastika to the Stars & Stripes, don't
    you think?
    

    Before Hitler co-opted the swastika, it was considered a good luck
    symbol.  Swastikas appear in much primitive art pretty much around the
    world.

    > It sticks a bit to compare the swastika to the Stars and Stripes,
    >don't you think?
    
    
    Yes, I agree the two have nothing in common, except red and white. But
    obviously Abdul Rauf sees the Stars and Stripes much the way you or I
    see the swastika, and I think it's wrong to make him partake in a
    tradition he is opposed to in order to keep his job.
    
    						lunchbox

    Lunchbox, if the Nazis were in charge of this country, I'd leave
    altogether.  My 'dream' would be to get the flock out of here
    in the same way that many people fled Communism when it was still
    prevalent in Eastern Europe.

    If the government was acceptable enough to me to remain in this
    country, I'd establish my priorities between a particular job and
    my stance about a particular national song.

    If the job were more important, I'd find a way to live with the
    song.  If taking a stand against the song were more important, 
    I'd find a different dream job.

    It sounds as though this guy has found a way to live with the song.

lunchbox, you should become a standup comedian.  Then you'd really die on
your feet.

    -1:   most would for 31 g's a game...! Even if Rosanne WAS singing!
    
    z-wolf

    In a country as drunk with freedom as the U.S. is, he shouldn't have to
    leave the country or stand for a national anthem to keep his job. It's
    not like the guy is burning the flag at center court, he is quietly
    sitting and is letting everybody else sing and pay homage to the flag.
    He isn't interfering with anybody's freedom, why must the NBA interfere
    with his?
    
    
    						lunchbox
    

Oh, yes.

America the Beautiful would make a great national anthem.

"God shed his grace on thee!"

And then there's this verse:

	Lift high the cross, unfurl the flag!
	May they for ever stand,
	United in our hearts and minds,
	God and our native land!

I'm sure this guy would be _glad_ to stand for this anthem!

/john

    
    Good thing his religious beliefs allow his to pay taxes. He shouldn't
    have to pay taxes just to keep his job
    
    ed

    You don't have to pay taxes in order to keep you job. You may get a car
    taken by the gvt., but you'll be able to keep your job.

    
    What are the taxes on 2.6mil? That'd be one fancy car. I believe there
    would be some jail time involved and no furloughs to play in the NBA
    
    ed

================================================================================
Note 680.96         Oh say, can you see from the locker room?           96 of 99
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      16 lines  14-MAR-1996 16:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>America the Beautiful would make a great national anthem.


--------> I guess I should have listened to the lyrics closer. Oops.
          NEVERMIND.  I still like the MUSIC better anyway. oh well.

    Lunchbox, if you were offered millions of dollars to play basketball
    with the stipulation that you follow NBA rules, you aren't forced to
    accept the job (or the millions.)

    It's possible to say, "I'd love to take your millions of dollars, but
    I'm afraid I couldn't live with myself if I stood up for the national
    anthem.  So, no thanks."

    If they wanted him bad enough to change the rule, fine.  Otherwise,
    he agreed to join the NBA with this rule intact.  If they refuse to 
    change the rule, he finds a way to live with it or he risks losing 
    his job.

    It sounds like he found a way to live with it.

    
    The Star Spangled Banner isn't difficult to sing at all.  It only has
    about an octave and a half range.
    

	The "Star Spangled Banner"

	Written by Francis Scott Key, while a "guest" of British forces on
	the Patapsco River during the aerial bombardment of Fort McHenry,
	13-14 September 1814.  Distributed in handbill form on 15 September.

	O say can you see by the dawn's early light,
	What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
	Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
	O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
	And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
	Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
	  O say does that star spangled banner yet wave
	  O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

	On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
	Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
	What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
	As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses;
	Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
	In full glory reflected now shines in the stream.
	  'Tis the star spangled banner, O long may it wave
	  O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

	And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
	That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
	A home and a country shall leave us no more?
	Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
	No refuge could save the hireling and slave,
	From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.
	  And the star spangled banner in triumph doth wave
	  O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

	O thus be it ever, when free men shall stand
	Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
	Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
	Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
	Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
	And this be our motto, "In God is our trust."
	  And the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave
	  O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

    It's bad enough people can't remember the one verse that is used,
    Covert  gives us more!!!!!!!

    I can't sing *both* the first "say" or the first "by" no matter which
    note I start on.  And "glare" gets rather grating to the ears too. :-/
    People in the cubes around me are starting to give me strange looks as
    I try to find a good note to start this damn song on so I can figure
    out how to make it through the whole thing and not embarrass myself in
    public!

    
    	Try singing it ala Leon Redbone, and "glare" ends up being
    	about 2 octaves below middle "C".
    

    Oh, God, Shawn - 
    
    Where would '...o'er the la-and of the FREEEEEEE' end up?

    
    I think it's very affected for the singer to jump a fourth on "free" 
    (I believe that makes it a two-octave range, but I'm not positive).  It
    sounds better just staying on the note.
    
     
    

    >> The jerk could compromise his principles for a year,
    
    apparently, he has.  he has agreed to stand for the national anthem.
    
    

    This Abdul Raed or whatever the hell his name is really p**ses me off.
    Who even let this clown in the country. I bet he supports terrorism too.
    I'm ashamed to be a Nuggets fan.JMO
    -ss
    

    My mistake. He's from USA. Probably good pals of Tim Mcviegh & that
    other mad bomber loser
    

     To those that claim "he's been doing it all year and the NBA just
    decided to make an issue of it," you're wrong. Most of the year, he's
    been waiting in the locker room until after the anthem was played, then
    he'd come out. He decided to make an issue of his disrespect by coming
    out with the rest of the team and purposely refusing to stand. The NBA
    did not have a problem with him staying in the lockerroom until after
    the anthem had been played. Others have done that before him. But
    league rules state that all players, coaches, assistants, trainers and
    officials will stand together during the playing of the anthem. So when
    he decided to be "in yo face" about it, that's when the league acted.
    
     Frankly, I'm disappointed he didn't quit the league in principle. I
    guess the oppression is a little easier to take at more than $30K a
    day. I guess that gives us an idea of how much his principles are
    worth.

    -1 and just how personally oppressed he really is.

  For those who don't follow:
   There are also Canadian teams in the NBA.  He also refuses to stand for
  the Canadian national anthem.  
kb

Interesting responses. My opinion FWIW? What has happened to the United States 
of America anyway? Have we gotten to the point that we must force respect and 
compliance to our selected "moral" values? What ever happened to "land of the 
free"? Oh yea, that's only if you do what we say!

Of course this is basketball, so who the hell cares?  :)

    Gotta grab my personal soapbox out here....
    
    I'm so sick to death of these Nation of Islam people!!  If this
    basketball player can't stand to the nation's anthem, get him the
    hell out of the country!!
    
    

    
    
    
    .116 I'm never surprized by you.
    
    

    
    
    .117 I meant anymore.
    

    
    
    
    It seems it's all resolved anyway, he's going to pray now when he
    stands.
    
    There are religions that don't have you stand for the flag.
    Jehova Witnesses don't (I hope I got the spelling correct.).
    
    So if the rules to play required you to stand for the flag, 
    wouldn't that be religous discrimination for a hiring practice.
    
    
    
    

    
    >I'm so sick to death of these Nation of Islam people!!  If this
    >basketball player can't stand to the nation's anthem, get him the
    >hell out of the country!!
    
Bigotry and the old "America, love it or leave it" mentality, all rolled into
one neat package. You've come a long way baby!
    

    I heard a speech from Farrakhan a few weeks ago.  What he stated was
    that the American Flag is to be respected...because the American flag
    is a symbol of a Republic, a symbol of a nation.  We must respect what
    it stands for....But we don't have to pledge allegiance to it.
    
    Bottom line is this.  Guys like Rauf and his ilk show their true colors
    through their actions...rhetoric is cheap.  Rauf strikes me as a young
    ignorant soul who is clueless as to what an oppressive country is. 
    Like the sex crowd of the 60's, this kid will one day become
    enlightened by the harsh reality.  Meanwhile as he spews empty, hollow
    ideology about America being oppressive, he will continue to display
    his opportunist tendencies and fight the struggle for his
    kindred spirits and his ilk in bondage.  He will continue in the system
    and reap the millions of dollars in reward...NOT FOR HIMSELF MIND
    YOU..but as a gesture to we, the oppressors, that he is able to
    persevere and suffer fools like us eurocentric domineering
    imperialists.
    
    -Jack

    
    	RE: .119
    
    	If you know that up front, you don't take the job.
    
    	Simple as that.
    

Well Jack, you just changed my mind.   :)

    
    
    .122 if standing for the flag was required to do the job, then
    you'd have an arguement.
    
    

    >.122 if standing for the flag was required to do the job, then
    >you'd have an arguement.
    
In this case I think it is contractual. The player's contracts require them 
to abide by NBA policy. It is their policy to stand during the national 
anthem.
    

    Thanks Tom.  Similar to the many hunger strikes of guys like Jesse
    Jackson (never happened), and of course scum bumbs like Ben Chavis who
    bilked hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NAALCP to pay off his
    girlfriend.....BUT OOOOOOHHHHHHH....IT IS A STRUGGLE AND WE ARE
    SUFFERING FOR THE CAUSE.....OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH WWWOOOOHHH IS MEEEEE!

    Jesse Jackson isn't indicative of the behavior of African Americans,
    nor is Ben Chavis indicative of the morals of the members of NAACP, nor
    is Abdul Rauf or Louis Farrakhan(sp?) the be all and end all of Islamic
    citizins of the US.
    
    						lunchbox
    
    BTW, Islam is Arabic for "peace".

Jack, he took a stand based on his religious beliefs. You do that all the time.

    
      Actually, he took a sit on his religious beliefs.
    
      He took a stand against them, for cash.
    
      bb

    Much different though in Jack's case.  

I don't agree with the guy either. But, let's not blow it out of perportion.
He made a stand he thought was right. It cost too much so he said the hell
with it. Many of us do it all the time. 

    
    
    
>In this case I think it is contractual. The player's contracts require them 
>to abide by NBA policy. It is their policy to stand during the national 
>anthem.
    
    My point exactly! It could be argued that this is done either purposely
    or accidently to discriminate and exclude certain religions.
    
    His job is sinking baskets the rule to stand for the flag 
    is superfilious.
    
    
    

>    I heard a speech from Farrakhan a few weeks ago.  What he stated was
>    that the American Flag is to be respected...because the American flag
>    is a symbol of a Republic, a symbol of a nation.  We must respect what
>    it stands for....But we don't have to pledge allegiance to it.
 
    
    You really start to believe anything is possible when Jack looks to
    Farrakhan for support of his arguements.
    
                             

    >His job is sinking baskets 
    
     That's not the whole extent of his job. He is also expected to behave
    in a manner that does not reflect negatively on his team or the NBA.
    He is employed essentially for his ability to contribute to his team's
    ability to attract a crowd. If his behavior is sufficiently disruptive,
    he will be replaced.
    
    >the rule to stand for the flag is superfilious.
    
     Say what?
    

>        <<< Note 680.121 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
>   Rauf strikes me as a young
>   ignorant soul who is clueless as to what an oppressive country is. 
>   Like the sex crowd of the 60's, this kid will one day become
>   enlightened by the harsh reality.

	the harsh reality that this isn't an oppressive country?

    
    
    .134 
    
    How can any man standing up for his religious beliefs reflect badly on
    him or his team.
    
    

    
    
    
    
    <<< Note 680.134 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "beware the Ides" >>>
                -< are you looking for superfluous? >-
                
    
    
    Yes, thanks, Humbly.  
     

    >How can any man standing up for his religious beliefs reflect badly on
    >him or his team.
    
     The "religious beliefs" stuff is nonsense. The man himself admitted it
    was motivated by "politics and religion." Given the lickety split tune
    change, one can say quite plainly that A) his religion is not all that
    important or B) it wasn't a real religious point of contention in the
    first place. or maybe C) $ is his religion.

    
    
    
    .138
    
    Fine, but that doesn't solve the problem what about the next player.
    When you can not make this arguement.
    
    

    It's simple. I've said it several times. If following the terms of a
    contract with an NBA franchise violates your religious beliefs DON'T
    SIGN SUCH A CONTRACT. What could be simpler?

    
    
    
    .141 and then be discriminated for that job based on religious beliefs.
    
    Seems fair.
    

    Nonsense. That's not discrimination.

    
    	No, it's not.  They would have hired you if you'd agreed to
    	their terms.
    
    	YOU discriminated against THEM by not accepting their offer.
    	Maybe they should file charges.
    

    Diane:
    
    The harsh reality is that Rauf is a bag of wind when he gripes and
    moans about America being oppressive.  In comparison to other parts of
    the world, the young boy doesn't know what oppression is, and
    apparently by his status never will.
    
 ZZZ    BTW, Islam is Arabic for "peace".
    
    Islam began in the year 620 AD by an opportunist who called himself
    Mohammed.  While Islam may mean peace, it is obvious that some of the 
    Islam believers don't subscibe to the tenets of peace.  I think what
    disturbs me most is that when a man goes in and shoots up an abortion
    clinic, said person is condemned by the Catholic Church.  When a Jewish
    man shoots an Israeli Prime minister, said man is condemned by the very
    people who fit the same ideology.  But when a blind cleric bombs the
    World Trade Center, parades are going on in Libya, Iran, and other
    ghastly places.  In other words, no condemnation from within.
    
    -Jack

    Digital requires its engineers to give up any claims to rights to
    anything they invent while they work at Digital. So what you're saying
    is that all I have to do is say it's against my religion to give up
    rights to my intellectual property, and then Digital can't enforce that
    provision or else they are discriminating against me based on
    religion? 
    
    I hope you never sit on a tort jury. You'd give away the country.

   
    >My point exactly! It could be argued that this is done either purposely
    >or accidently to discriminate and exclude certain religions.
    
    >His job is sinking baskets the rule to stand for the flag 
    >is superfilious.
    
I disagree with the policy as well. But the policy was known when the contract 
was signed. If I don't agree with a contract, I simply don't sign it. He
signed it, he is required to comply.
    
    

    
    	I wonder why the guy didn't just paint his kneecaps neon green
    	if all he wanted was some attention.
    

    He didn't want to steal Dennis Rodman's shtick.

    The nation of Islam in America is not the same as the countries you've
    mentioned, Jack. In Libya and Iran, the muslum religeon is the
    motivating factor for politics, marraige, employment, everything in
    these countries is to glorify Allah. In this country, Islam, though the
    fastest growing religeon, is still minute compared to Christianity.
    Members are not fanatical as they are in Libya and Iran. Indeed, Islam
    has only been in this country since the middle of this century, founded
    by the Exalted Elijah Mohammad.
    
    
    						lunchbox

    
    	Is that the guy that dyes his hair a different color every week?
    

    Dennis Rodman has the coolest tattoos in the NBA.

    
    Now THAT belongs in the oxymoron note.
    

    Sleeping with madonna? Yeah, I doubt much sleeping was involved.

    
    	"Slept" and "Madonna"?
    

    
    	CRASH!!
    

    I forgot everybody in Soapbox is opposed to body enhancement via
    piercings and tattoos.
    
    						lunchbox

    It's body alteration, not enhancement. What you do with your body is
    your business. If it looks silly, I'll say so. Feel free to ignore my
    opinion.

    I really don't care.

    .158 belongs in note 672.

I'm not opposed to it. I like it on others.  :)

    
    
    
    .142 Sure it is, Saluting the flag is not required to perform the job.
    
    	                                

    Nor is saluting the flag required by league rules. /hth

    
    
    
    .145
    
     No, more like Digital to requiring you to perform
     satanic acts very morning before your first coffee break.
    
     Ok if your a witch maybe, but pretty bad for your soul to others.
    
    

    
    	Would you sign a contract and legally bind yourself to a set of
    	rules that you had no intention of following, just so you could
    	complain about it later on when someone called you on it/them?
    
    	[This is not a rhetorical question, unfortunately, since there's
    	 more than a 50% chance you'll answer "yes".]
    

    
    
    
    .146 Can any contract hold water if it's illegal.
    
    

    Abdul Rauf only joined the Nation of Islam a couple of years ago.
    Before that his name was Chris Jackson. Maybe he signed his contract
    before finding Islam and objected to the practice then.

    
    
    
    .144 All religions are found by opportunists Jack, didn't you know?
    
    

    I found two yesterday.  Under my desk of all places.

    
    
    
    .164 I argue that I believe the contract and the rules are illegal
    	if they do not allow for religious or national alliance.
    

    
    	So you're saying only a fool would even think of signing it?
    
    	Or am I misunderstanding you?
    

    
    A few comments

    1) Chris Jackson (I have no hope of spelling his new Muslim name) is *not*
       a member of NOI.  He is a Muslim. Members of NOI are a very small
       subset of the Muslims in the US.

    2) If standing for the flag bothered him I think he should have hung
       out in the locker room.  I do not think he handled this well.

    3) I think the NBA should provide an alternative for those whom the
       flag or the song is problematic.                               
     
    4) I think the comments about if you don't like don't sign the
       contract are off base.  This isn't one company; it's the whole
       industry.  It's like all the major SW companies were in a consortium
       and all started the day by doing the same ritual which went against
       your beliefs.   You can't just switch companies because all the
       companies are in this together; this practice is locking you out of
       your chosen profession.  

    5) Hence 3), the companies should provide an alternative. In return,
       the employees should not be confrontational.
    
    
    IMO,
    Greg

 ZZ   3) I think the NBA should provide an alternative for those whom the
 ZZ      flag or the song is problematic.
    
    Greg, I believe as you that Rauf should have the right to dissent his 
    appeal for the American flag...his choice.  I definitely disagree with
    you on the above though.  I'm not 100% sure what you mean by an
    alternative; however, my complete pet peeve in this conference is this
    notion that we have to acquiesce to multiculturalism.
    
    We live in a Eurocentric society.  It IS NOT our responsibility to be
    absorbed in other cultures.  It is THEIR responsibility to absorb into
    ours....or leave, whatever their choice.  I have no problem with his
    rights, but he needs to either stand and keep his mouth shut...or sit
    and keep his mouth shut.  Whatever he decides makes no diff to me.
    
    -Jack

    >3) I think the NBA should provide an alternative for those whom the
    >   flag or the song is problematic.                               
    
     Staying in the lockerroom has worked for a number of other players,
    and worked for Rauf this year until he decided to make an issue out of
    it.
    
    >4) I think the comments about if you don't like don't sign the
    >   contract are off base.  This isn't one company; it's the whole
    >   industry.  
    
     No it is not. There are other leagues. Yes, they are not as well
    known, and no you don't make as much money, but if you don't like the
    rules of the most lucrative league, they are an option.
    
     As far as I'm concerned, this guy's already overstayed his 15 minutes.

    Leonard Greene writes editorials for the Boston Herald. A lot of people
    criticize him for making mountains out of molehills. He is
    African-American, and often finds prejudace where others don't see it.
    In today's Herald, Greene addresses the suspension and makes some good
    points, among some nonsensical points. Below are some of the good:
    
    Greene sites J.R. Reid, a NY Knicks player who knocked a few chicklets
    out of an opposing players mouth with an elbow. He was suspended for 2
    games. I will quote the next  4 paragraphs directly:
    
    
    "That was last month. Reid has played in nearly a dozen games since,
    scoring seven points against the Minnesota Timberwolves Wednesday
    night.
    
    Mahmoud Abdul Rauf didn't knock anybody's teeth out. He didn't poison
    anybody's body with an illegal substance.
    
    He had declined to participate in an overblown ritual because he said
    it conflicted with his religeous beliefs. Yet, Abdul Rauf was also
    suspended-indefinitely.
    
    "My intentions were not in any way to be disrespectful to those who
    regard the national anthem as a sacred ceremony," Abdul Rauf said in a
    statement explaining his reasons for not standing during the national
    anthem.
    
    "I am an African American, a citizen of this country, and one who
    respects freedom of speech and freedom of expression."

    
    
    
    .172 Ok Jack, where would a Witness fit in this? 
    

    
>    "I am an African American, a citizen of this country, and one who
>    respects freedom of speech and freedom of expression."


     ..but if he finds it oppressive, why does he stay when at least in
     this oppresive country he is free to leave?




 Jim

    a better question would be is "is there better game on this planet?".

    prejudice.  nnttm.  

    
    >   <<< Note 680.172 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
    
    
    >We live in a Eurocentric society.  It IS NOT our responsibility to be
    >absorbed in other cultures.  It is THEIR responsibility to absorb into
    >ours....or leave, whatever their choice. 
    
    You really believe this, don't you?  At what point do we ask them to
    leave (or do we throw them out when they fail to "absorb" properly)?  
    When they refuse to become Christian (oh, i forgot, you have no
    prejudice in this area)?  it might be ok if they became Jewish.  but no
    Islam.  forget those buddists, too.  not eurocentric enough?  When
    they criticize the president?  When they continue to speak their pesky
    native languages?  when they criticize the gov't?
    
    >I have no problem with his
    >rights, but he needs to either stand and keep his mouth shut...or sit
    >and keep his mouth shut.  Whatever he decides makes no diff to me.
    
    Yeah, no problem with his rights as long as he STFU and doesn't make
    waves.

    ZZ    .172 Ok Jack, where would a Witness fit in this? 
    
    Specify.  Do you mean a Jehovah Witness...or a witness as in a
    Christian testimony?  
    
    If you mean the former, then as stated before, I agree one does not
    need to pledge allegiance to anything...and I respect anybody for
    standing up to what they believe.  But it isn't my responsibility to
    accomodate that belief...especially when it goes against the grain of
    the American culture that is present.  We live in a diverse
    society...and that's fine.  Let's not but into this lie however that
    says we live in a muticultural society.  Simply not true.  We live in a
    culture that is predominantly Western European with the same values.
    We are one of the few countries that don't require immigrants to
    conform to a national language and I think that is the beginning of
    failure and oppression right there!
    
    -Jack

    Jack-
    
    the US has no official language. English has never been crowned the
    "official language". Maybe you should learn to speak Arabic.

    >Yeah, no problem with his rights as long as he STFU and doesn't make
    >waves.
    
     He can mouth off all he wants and make all the waves he wants. If he
    wants to make a lot of money playing basketball, he has to play by the
    rules of the league in which he wants to play. He is always free to
    start his own league and institute his own rules.

 Z   You really believe this, don't you?  At what point do we ask them to
 Z   leave (or do we throw them out when they fail to "absorb" properly)?  
 Z   When they refuse to become Christian (oh, i forgot, you have no
 Z   prejudice in this area)?  it might be ok if they became Jewish. 
 Z   but no Islam.  forget those buddists, too.  not eurocentric enough?  When
 Z   they criticize the president?  When they continue to speak their
 Z   pesky native languages?  when they criticize the gov't
    
    To answer your first question, I absolutely do believe it.  Secondly,
    your response above reeks of an emotional outburst.  Read closely.  I
    stated that we live in a diverse nation.  I don't have a problem with
    that at all.  What I said...again and again...is that one who comes to
    the United States bears the responsibility of assimilation into the
    current culture of the US...which is predominantly Western European. 
    One does not have to become a Christian, Jewish, or anything for that
    matter; however, the key here is I have NO responsibility to assimilate
    into their culture...just for the sake of valuing their
    culture...follow?  So...to recap....
 
    - Multiculturalism is a blight on a cohesive nation.
    - Diversity can be a good thing as it educates people to other cultures 
      and could bring peoples closer together through knowledge and
      understanding.
    - The core culture of America is Western European.
    - It is the responsibility of immigrants to assimilate into American
      culture, which is predominantly Western European.
         Helpful hints:
         - Learn the English language.
         - Keep that which you escaped from behind, don't bring it here.
           It is not appreciated or valued.
         - Comply with the United States laws and form of government.
         - Respect the US as a sovereign nation.  Men and women died for
           your privelage and mine.
         - You have the right to free speech but you don't have the right
           to be heard.  
    
    - Finally, you have no right to demand that I recognize your heritage
      and the customs therein.  I can appreciate them if I so choose but 
      that's about as far as it goes.  Example...the government shuts down
      for Christmas...it is a Western European holiday.  Ramadan is a
      respected holiday of Islam but is not highly recognized in our
      culture.  Don't call America oppressive because we don't close the
      gummint down for it.  Not our hangup mon!  Deal with it.
    
    -Jack

    RE: .120
    
    >>>I'm so sick to death of these Nation of Islam people!!  If this
    >>>basketball player can't stand to the nation's anthem, get him the
    >>>hell out of the country!!
    
>Bigotry and the old "America, love it or leave it" mentality, all rolled into
>one neat package. You've come a long way baby!
    
    
    Say what you will (and you will!), but society complains about the
    "Gay Agenda" and how the gays are trying to shove it down the throats
    of America.  Well, the Nation of Islam, imvho, is pushing their
    agenda from hell for _all_ it's worth.  
    
    It's not bigotry, it's my reaction to its members constantly raising
    their Religion as "issues" in the media limelight.  Frankly, I'm tired
    of it.

    >It's not bigotry, it's my reaction to its members constantly raising
    >their Religion as "issues" in the media limelight.  Frankly, I'm tired
    >of it.

It is bigotry when you generalize as you did.

> I'm so sick of these Nation of Islam people!!

I know many of these people who keep to themselves and never raise "their
issues in the media limelight". Generalizations, without regard to context,
when related to a collective body of individuals, is bigotry pure and simple. 

                     <<< Note 680.184 by POWDML::BUCKLEY >>>

>Well, the Nation of Islam, imvho, is pushing their
>    agenda from hell for _all_ it's worth.  
 
	It should be noted for the record that Raul is NOT a member
	of the Nation of Islam. Also for the record, not all Blacks
	that practice the Islamic faith are members of the Nation
	of Islam.

Jim

    Not only that, there are two main factions of Islam...Suni and Shihite.
    They both have different outlooks on things!

    Shite.

    And you spelled Shiite wrong too.

    
    So tell me, at what point do you want people to leave (since your
    previous reply mentioned that people who didn't assimilate should
    leave)?
    
    How do you reconcile the following from your previous reply?
    
>    - Diversity can be a good thing as it educates people to other cultures 
>      and could bring peoples closer together through knowledge and
>      understanding.
    
>         - Keep that which you escaped from behind, don't bring it here.
>           It is not appreciated or valued.
    
    So what has this athlete done (who is AMERICAN by the way, and for all
    we know his father fought for our country) that caused your cerebral
    replies as opposed to my emotional outburst?  He's said in no uncertain
    terms that he has felt oppression living in America, and he has (in
    violation of *no* laws) refused to stand up for the national anthem. 
    Have you ever given thought that maybe he has possibly experienced
    oppression?  Nah, couldn't happen in the land of the free and the home
    of the brave...

    Whatever.
    
 ZZ   the US has no official language. English has never been crowned the
 ZZ   "official language". Maybe you should learn to speak Arabic.
    
    I know and I think it's a disgrace.  It causes immigrants to fail here
    and it helps create a welfare class.  
    
    Now before you get all over me on this, keep in mind that Barbara
    Jordan, the first black congresscritter and highly respected
    stateswoman...A DEMOCRAT NO LESS, believed that the flood of immigrants
    in this country without English skills not only helped create a welfare
    class, it also was a detriment to the advancement of young African
    Americans as a whole.  Of course the Ted Kennedys of the world didn't
    want to hear this!
    
    -Jack

    
    | He's said in no uncertain terms that he has felt oppression living 
    | in America, and he has (in
    | violation of *no* laws) refused to stand up for the national
    | anthem.
    
    not quite.  he said the american flag was "a symbol of oppression
    and tyranny."  the person is welcome to his opinion but his 
    understanding of history is suspect.  
    

    Bob:
    
    You ask how I compliment the two...
    
    > - Diversity can be a good thing as it educates people to other cultures 
    >   and could bring peoples closer together through knowledge and
    >   understanding.
        
    > - Keep that which you escaped from behind, don't bring it here.
    >   It is not appreciated or valued.
    
    
    An example:  I wake up on a vacation in San Fran and decide I want to
    spend the day in Chinatown.  I take the trolley in and check out all
    the shops.  Then I go to a Chinese art museum and see many artifacts
    and displays of China's history.  I go to a superb Chinese restaurant
    and partake of Hunnan delicacies.  I then go to a show where lovely 
    women demonstrate different dances in the Chinese culture.  I learn to
    appreciate the robes, the dances, the history, and the food.  I have
    just had an excellent experience in diversity.
    
    Scenario two:  Three basketball players who come from the Peoples
    Republic of China sit on the bench in protest to the singing of the
    National Anthem.  Three players protest to the media that in respect
    for their country, a thirty second postlude to their anthem follow the
    US National Anthem.  In fact, they insist upon it.  
    
    Bob, my initial response here was a reply to the notion that we should
    provide an alternative for those who don't share the commonality of
    American culture.  My response was to say look, this is a practice of
    American culture and NO alternative will be offered.  I don't want you
    to leave, I think you have much to offer; but if you insist upon
    propogating practices from your culture into ours...particularly the
    nasty practices, then there's the door.
    
    Simple enough!
    
    -Jack

    Why is multiculturalism a blight on a cohesive nation? I think bigotry
    is more of a threat and a blight than multiculturalism. I'm not clear
    enough on your personal views to call you a bigot, but I think that you
    are smug because your culture is the predominant culture, and the wave
    of immigration is going to change that in the near future.
    
    							lunchbox

    Lunchbox:
    
    It has been stated by different sources all corroberating America will
    become a third world country in the not so distant future.  
    
    Wake up damnit and smell the coffee.  This has nothing to do with
    bigotry or anything like it.  It has to do with a society which has
    worked effectively for over 200 years, skeletons in the closet not
    withstanding.
    
    Lunchbox, you need to realize that a national identity is defined by
    what we have in common, NOT by how we differ.  If you find this bigoted
    then my guess is you have been indoctrinated in Massachusetts college
    mushminded mentality.  Multiculturalism fragments a society Lunchbox.
    You think your being sincere and sensitive to others but what you are
    actually doing is bringing America to the brink of perdition.  I think
    you need to rethink your priorities in this matter.
    
    As far as being smug...ha...far from it.  I am part Irish, part
    Scottish and part English.  I hold absolutely no allegiance to ANY of
    these nationalities.  I forego any kind of devotion to them as nations.
    I respect them and identify with them in heritage but that's about as
    far as it goes Lunchbox.  So don't worry about it.  
    
    -Jack

    >    <<< Note 680.194 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

    >Bob:
    >
    >You ask how I compliment the two...
    
    >> - Diversity can be a good thing as it educates people to other cultures 
    >>   and could bring peoples closer together through knowledge and
    >>   understanding.
    
    No, Bob didn't ask.  Dan did.  Bob is PARTS.  Dan has no PARTS

    
            <<< Note 680.196 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
    
>    It has been stated by different sources all corroberating America will
>    become a third world country in the not so distant future.  
    
    Geez.  I've read the globe, the times, and several magazines this week
    and it seems like this big story didn't make the headlines.

    Jack-
    
    The cheap, pocket dictionary here at the desk defines as follows:
    
    third world-those countries not allied with the Communist or Non
    Communist Blocs.
    
    When *I* think of third world, I think of a country devoid of modern
    technology, usually a dictatorship, squalid sanitary conditions. This
    country , imho, has progressed too far to be thrust into such a
    situation, barring a war of thus unseen destruction.
    
    You are Irish, Scottish, and British, all are Western European
    countries, all are of the "culture" you recognize as the majority
    (temporary) in this country.

    
  |   Why is multiculturalism a blight on a cohesive nation?
    
  A culture is a binding force that defines the social structure by
  which people can live together and interact.  In America we have
  a sort of metaculture that is based on Western civilization and
  does a pretty good job of permiting people of different cultures
  and backgrounds to co-exist.                            
    
  |   I think bigotry
  |   is more of a threat and a blight than multiculturalism. I'm not
  |   clear enough on your personal views to call you a bigot, but I think that
  |   you are smug because your culture is the predominant culture, and the
  |   wave of immigration is going to change that in the near future.
    
  They are both dangerous if "multiculturalism" means
  the rejection of the American culture that is a common bond for
  our country.   
       
  
                

 
    | He's said in no uncertain terms that he has felt oppression living 
    | in America, and he has (in
    | violation of *no* laws) refused to stand up for the national
    | anthem.
    
>    not quite.  he said the american flag was "a symbol of oppression
>   and tyranny."  the person is welcome to his opinion but his 
>    understanding of history is suspect.  
    


As an african American his view of history might NOT be so suspect.

    
  >They are both dangerous if "multiculturalism" means
  >the rejection of the American culture that is a common bond for
  >our country.   
    
    Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I would think "multiculturalism"
    to be an inclusive term, not an exclusive one.  We are a multicultural
    society whether we want to admit it or not.  Culture in this sense
    being customs, beliefs, etc. based on race, religion, ethnicity, social
    grouping, etc.  
    
    The problem is there have been and will always be people who think
    different is bad.  It happened with Irish, it happened with Oriental
    cultures, Italians, etc.  It happens based on race, religion, etc.
    
    America will include pieces of other cultures as we assimilate them
    into our culture (sorry Jack, no "pure" American culture) and as a
    nation we will discard pieces of other cultures.

BTW, you might want to get his name right:

First Name:  Mahmoud
Last Name:   Abdul-Rauf

Thank you for your attention.

    And he is in the process of getting it changed to Majihir Mahmoud
    Abduf-Rauf.  (I'm not sure I remembered the exact spelling of the
    additional first name, but I do remember Abdul being changed to Abduf
    to correct a minor transliteration error.)
          
    -- Jim

    The coverage of the Denver-Chicago basketball game last night made a
    point of covering Mahmoud during the playing of the national anthem. 
    The whole mess should have been settled by leting him remain off-court
    during the anthem.  It was a pitiful sight to watch the privacy of a
    deeply religious young man in prayer, violated.
    
    -- Jim

    If we as a country are having to contract, legislate or otherwise force
    respect for the flag or the anthem, then the flag and anthem are only a
    hollow representation of the ideals that this country was supposedly
    founded on.   
    
    I think this is what people need to focus on, instead of what one
    person or group of persons do.
    
    meg

    Jim, how was his privacy violated? if anyone violated his privacy it
    was self inflicted.

    I agree with -1 -- he brought this all upon himself with his big mouth.

                                                   
   | Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I would think
   | "multiculturalism" to be an inclusive term, not an 
   | exclusive one.
    
    i think that is the heart of the debate since
    is a natural tension between the needs to be tolerant of people
    of different values and backgrounds and the need to assert
    a common set of attributes that allow a society to work (this 
    includes a common language etc.)   
    
    there seems to be extremists on both sides of this debate.  we
    all know about people who are fearful of immigrants and
    perpetrate (sp) bigotry and racism.  the other extreme is
    are those that assert all value systems are equal hence it
    is oppression to try to impose some common set.
    
    there is a strong cottage industry in academia who are pushing 
    deconstructionalism and other such philosophies that assert that 
    values are simply a by-product of a political agenda (not vice versa).  
    (this renders facism as being no better or worse than democracy.)  
    
     
     
       
    
     

    >The whole mess should have been settled by leting him remain off-court
    >during the anthem.  
    
     He was allowed to remain off court during the anthem. He chose to
    subject the fans and the NBA to his disrespect by coming onto the floor
    during the playing of the anthem and refusing to stand. He made an
    issue out of it, and was duly spanked by the league. Had he chosen to
    remain in the locker room _as he's done all season_ this issue would
    not have arisen.
    
    >It was a pitiful sight to watch the privacy of a deeply religious young 
    >man in prayer, violated.
    
     Privacy, shmivacy. He's the one who called attention to himself. You
    can't say "Hey, look at me!" and then cry about a loss of privacy.
    That's disingenuous.

    
    | As an african American his view of history might NOT be so suspect.
    
    yikes.  a relativist in our midst.
    
    

I guess one's interpretation of history can be both
white and black and not just black and white. 


 

    Z    the other extreme is
    Z    are those that assert all value systems are equal hence it
    Z    is oppression to try to impose some common set.
    
    THANK YOU Private Parts, for hitting a home run on this one.  This is
    EXACTLY the burr in my saddle with the multiculturalist schtick.  This
    is part of the reason my respect for academia in the United States has
    plummeted in the last few years.  The elitist crowd in the National
    Education Association and other horrid ghastly organizations continue
    to insist upon this notion of diversity and eschew the prime goal of
    educating our youth.  The plain fact of the matter is that all cultures
    in this world ARE NOT equal and not all cultures are valuable.  At the
    same time, cultures are mostly defined by their form of government and
    you will find most of the pond scum cultures in this world to often be
    run by dictators and other third world maggots.  
    
    I believe cultures have the potential to be great; however, the reality
    is that they are not and what's more important is that western
    civilization far exceeds the cultures of barbarism and dictatorship. 
    What I simply ask for is this...stop lying.  Stop lying to our
    youth...particularly in the colleges and universities.  Comparing Ghana
    for example and trying to equalize it to the United States is absurd!
    
    -Jack

    ditto

  I have some strong feelings on this (and other) flag issues.  Now,
  I understand the fact that the NBA already has it in writing that
  people must stand before the flag so, in light of this, I think
  they are in the right.

  However, I am opposed to the 'typical' argument that everyone should
  be expected to honor the flag.  The following are some reasons why...

  I don't think anyone has a right to insist upon anyone else what the
  flag must be a symbol of.  For example, if I was the brother or sister 
  of one of the people 'executed' at Kent State, I might see the flag as
  symbolic of a country that sometimes is too authoritarian and oppressive.
  I might have deep emotional feelings for my stance.  What right does anyone
  have to insist upon me that I give the flag the symbolic meaning *they*
  give it?  Does not every individual have the freedom to attribute to the
  flag the symbolic meaning they wish?

  But, let us let the flag stand for the government as it exists today.
  The pledge of allegiance includes: "and liberty and justice FOR ALL."

  There was a newspaper article posted in this Conf. perhaps nine months
  ago which revealed that our second ammendment (I believe it is the 2nd)
  has been watered down somewhat.  I refer to the search and seizure ammend-
  ment; the one which many people believe is the primary differentiation
  between democracy and authoritarianism.

  The article went on to explain how in some cases it is legal for the govt.
  to invade a person's private residence if he is *suspected* of being a 
  drug dealer.  Among the examples was a man whose house was broken into
  at 3 AM.  He awoke to a SWAT team and instinctively reached for his handgun.
  He was sprayed to death by gunfire.

  My point is that this is a facet of today's government.  If I apply the 
  most typical symbolic meaning of the flag - the representer of the govt. of
  the U.S.A. as it exists today, am I to feel proud?  Am I to be proud of the
  fact that our politicians never seem to enunciate the reason why I have a
  right to bear arms?  Am I to feel proud that the Federal govt. legally 
  considers every citizen of our country to be an enemy of the state?  Am
  I to feel proud that Congress relinquished its resp. to print our currency
  and our govt. has allowed this resp. to be taken by a corporation whose 
  primary shareholders are foreign investors?  How about a social welfare 
  system to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars (that seems to me to
  be unconstitutional)?  

  I could go on and on.  My point is, what does the flag represent?  Does it
  represent the United States system of govt. in its present form or a 
  'utopian' form that we have largely trampled upon?  I don't even know!  Am
  I somehow morally evil were I to equate the flag to representing the govt.
  as it is today and to then have some disdain for what it then follows that
  it means?

  Another related point.  MAN looks on the outward act.  GOD looks on the
  heart.  Ought we not strive to do the same?  Is the outward act of (for
  example) not honoring the flag really so important?   What is the inward
  heart-response that is actuating the outward act?  What if the person
  was one who lost a person in Waco or one who lost a relative due to the
  erosion of our search and seizure ammendment?  What if its a tender heart
  in pain for how our country has deviated from its founding principles
  in such a way that tore at the person's insides by murdering someone 
  especially close?

  I do not mind getting radical, conspiratorial, and religiously fanatic.
  The mark of the beast is coming.  It'll be a worldwide 'fad' embraced 
  by all national governments including our own.  Should the flag symbolize
  the govt. as it exists and not the govt. as it should be (Constitutional),
  it represents a govt. paving the way for the eventual wearing of the mark.

  Is that something I am proud of???  No!

  To what is my response to one who says, "If you don't like it, leave!"

  I am a stranger and a pilgrim on this earth.  I already knew that.

							Tony

    
    	Are you for or against flag burning?
    

      re: -1
    
      Your question is so superficial that I almost don't want to answer
      it.
    
      I am all for a person's RIGHT to burn the flag.  The flag is a symbol
      of something FAR BETTER if it stands for a system of govt. that allows
      flag burning than if it stands for a system of govt. that disallows
      it. 
    
      I only know of one country that prohibited flag burning.  That was
      Nazi Germany.
    
      Your question is superficial because it looks to an outward act 
      instead of to the heart-status that actuates the outward act.
    
      My summary answer is that I am personally against flag burning, but
      I am absolutely convicted that any person should have the right to
      burn the flag.
         
      I am mainly personally opposed to flag burning because I don't want
      to make others feel bad (needlessly) and because I am open to the
      possibility that the flag represents Constitutional govt. even if
      we are far from that, imo.
    
    							Tony
    
    							Tony

    
    	You answered it like I thought you would.
    
    	I was talking of the act itself, and what you perceived others'
    	rights to be in that regard.
    

      re: -1
    
      Gee, now I'm sorry I accused you of being superficial!!!
    
    						Tony

      re: .29
    
      Hi Jim,
    
        I suppose that if I am to adhere to your reasoning, I must
        insist that Schindler honor Nazi Germany?  After all, Germany
        was oppressive and he was pleased to pocket a lot of German
        money.
    
        I guess I am saying that I see virtually no basis for your
        rationale.
    
    	But, if you want to illuminate me, go ahead!
    
    							Tony

    Tony, when you're right you're right.
    
    8^)

    
    	RE: Tony
    
    	I've been called worse, so don't worry about it.  8^)
    
    	No apology necessary.
    

      re: -2
    
      Where's Spiny when you need him?
    
      He's been seeming awful BIG these days!!!   ;-)  ;-)

    
>        I suppose that if I am to adhere to your reasoning, I must
>        insist that Schindler honor Nazi Germany?  After all, Germany
>        was oppressive and he was pleased to pocket a lot of German
>        money.
 

        the difference, in my opinion, is that Mr. Basketball (forgot his
        name already) is free to leave this oppressive, tyrannical society.
        Those oppressed in Nazi Germany did not have that freedom.




   
    Jim

    
    <-------
    
    Excellent gun the Germans made.... wot???
    

      That's not enough of a difference Jim.  There is nothing wrong
      with a person making a living in a country that is oppressive.
    
      I fail to see how you reason that if a person perceives a country
      to be oppressive, it follows that he should leave that country.
    
      If I understand history correctly, people like George Washington,
      Thomas Jefferson, etc. felt their political conditions were
      oppressive.  They did not leave.
    
    							Tony

    
    
    Tony,
    
     I believe the gist of this is his hypocrisy...
    

      Hi Andy,
    
        I don't know his heart so I'll not judge, although I believe
    	there is a probability you are right.
    
        Neverthless, I think there is another 'gist' going on.  That
    	being a superficial and narrowminded sort of redneck stance 
    	of "If you don't like it here, don't make money here, and get 
        out!"
    
        This does not reflect the thought of our founding fathers.
    	They didn't get out.  Many made plenty of money and many effected
    	change from within.
    
        My apologies if the gist that I perceive is a misperception.  I
    	kind of think its a prevalent attitude and I really don't care
    	for it.
    
        (Not to say its yours or Jim's, but I think its out there in this
    	country.)
    
    						Tony

    Tony:
    
    I think you will find anamosity like this because we have family
    members who fought for these rights and died for them.  My uncle died
    in the Bataan death march and my father drove a tank in the
    Philippeans.  He was shot at and one of the bullets bounced around in
    the tank.  
    
    While I can understand somebody's anamosity toward the flag, at the
    same time they exercise this right BECAUSE of the sacrifice of
    Americans.  Therefore, an oppressed person is owed nothing and needs to
    deal with it!
    
    -Jack

>MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs."            14 lines  19-MAR-1996 17:52
    
>    I think you will find anamosity like this because we have family
>    members who fought for these rights and died for them.  My uncle died
>    in the Bataan death march and my father drove a tank in the
>    Philippeans.  He was shot at and one of the bullets bounced around in
>    the tank.  
    
>    While I can understand somebody's anamosity toward the flag, at the
>    same time they exercise this right BECAUSE of the sacrifice of
>    Americans.  Therefore, an oppressed person is owed nothing and needs to
>    deal with it!
 
    Jack,
    
    How do you know the basketball player's father/relatives did not
    fight/die in VietNam or Korea?  Why do you know so much about his
    background to _assume_ he hasn't earned (in your view) the right to 
    complain?   
    
    Chances are that his ancesters were brought to America against their
    will and treated as expendable property.  Chances are he has
    experienced racism in America first hand. Is it OK that he doesn't
    kow-tow to your beliefs because your father fought in the war?

      "Therefore an oppressed person is owed nothing and needs to deal
       with it!"
    
      What is the relevence of this to anything I have said?  Where did
      I say anything about any oppressed people being owed anything?  I
      don't understand the contribution of the above statement especially
      as it seems to be your main point.
    
      As far as being owed anything is concerned, I don't think the govt.
      owes us anything save the right to do whatever we want so long as
      we don't victimize anyone else.  I happen to be against any redistri-
      bution of wealth (read: pretty phrase standing for 'legalized' theft); 
      I guess I just might be a civil libertarian.  This means I'm not real
      fond of the idea of anyone having the right to be owed anything -
      much to the contrary of the ideals of our present socialist regime.
    
    
      I guess I am curious to know where I have stated that an oppressed
      person is owed something.  It seems to me that people that insist
      the flag must not be burned are the ones insisting on being owed
      something that is not rightfully theirs - that being the denial of
      someone else's right to express himself in a way that is protected 
      by our Constitution (the very document which I hope the flag stands 
      for as well as the very kind of government many have died for).
    
      Imo, our serviceman who have died in battle died to preserve the
      Constitution (in part) and thus died to preserve the right of others
      to do with the flag as they wish.
    
      Its a perversion to think that partial 'right response' to the death 
      of any of our citizens is a denial of any rights they fought to
      protect.  (I'm not saying you are suggesting this.)
    
      Anyway, Jack, feel free to cite where I intimated in any way that 
      oppressed people are owed something.
    
    						Tony
                                                         

    >>  in the Bataan death march and my father drove a tank in the
    >>  Philippeans.  He was shot at and one of the bullets bounced around
        ^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Hmmmm, Your dad was a christian soldier too?  Older than the hills to
    boot!
    

    I always get those Southeast Asian countries mixed up with those Greek
    cities!! :-)
    
    Sorry Tony, I started putting my own thoughts in there.  Didn't mean to
    imply you said that.  Mr Abugov, good point...I didn't mean to assume I
    knew this guys family background but I guess it came out that way.
    
    -Jack

>MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs."            14 lines  19-MAR-1996 17:52
    
>    I think you will find anamosity like this because we have family
>    members who fought for these rights and died for them.  My uncle died
>    in the Bataan death march and my father drove a tank in the
>    Philippeans.  He was shot at and one of the bullets bounced around in
>    the tank.  
    
>    While I can understand somebody's anamosity toward the flag, at the
>    same time they exercise this right BECAUSE of the sacrifice of
>    Americans.  Therefore, an oppressed person is owed nothing and needs to
>    deal with it!
 
  

Somehow I got a flashback to something that Archie Bunker said on "All in the Family".


>    I always get those Southeast Asian countries mixed up with those Greek
>    cities!! :-)
 

This has me convinced that this came from an "All in the Family" episode.



Is there an "Archie Bunker Award" note?

    You realize I was speaking of the city of Philippi as opposed to the
    Phillippean Islands...you realize that don't you!!!?

 >  You realize I was speaking of the city of Philippi as opposed to the
 >   Phillippean Islands...you realize that don't you!!!?




Are you trying to call me meat-head?

    
    you're a liberal PRM weanie, dave.  
    

    Dingbat!!! :-)

  
 >   you're a liberal PRM weanie, dave.  



    .vs a gun-toten, red-neckin, hill-billy, christian-valued from the RofNH

	.. You bettcha

    
    
    i don't tote a gun.
    
    

  ...i'm only considered liberal in this notes file

    
    re: .240
    
    >.vs a gun-toten
    
    

   kind'o toten leader.

      I'm curious.  The following is a little related.
    
      What do you guys think of people like George Washington,
      Paul Revere, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. who
      did not 'honor' the British flag?  What do you think of
      the fact that when they felt oppressed, they did not 
      leave?
    
      If any of you have no problem with what the above people
      did, what is the rationale for having a problem with anyone
      that does not honor the American flag on the basis that
      they feel the govt. is oppressive (and who also, like
      the above people, opt not to leave and even have the
      temerity to make money in the country within which they
      lived)???
    
    						Tony

    Good one Tony, and a fair question.

    Tony:
    
    If they were in England, I'd say...."there's the door!!"
    
    Let's assume for a moment that Puerto Rico, an American owned Island
    with a Primary to boot decided they wanted to break all ties with the
    US.  No military bases, no businesses, nothing!  Since I am a believer
    in sovereignty, then it is within reasonability for Puerto Rico to
    revolt against American interests.  If they win, then more power to
    them.  
    
    I see the above coinciding with Washington, Revere and others.  America
    was separate from England but under British rule.  Therefore, the FF
    were within their rights to revolt.  Anybody here...in the US who moans
    about the opression of the US may have the right to say it; however, it
    will most likely fall on unsympathetic ears.  I can understand
    Americans tendency to tell them to hit the pavement.
    
    -Jack

    
    .246
    
    well Tony, since George, Paul, Tom, and last , but not least Ben,
    can't slam from the top of the key, shoot treys with impunity, or
    no-look pass, it's pretty much a moot point. :-)

    
    	RE: Tony
    
    	George Washington, as far as I know, didn't sign a contract for
    	millions of dollars that included the phrase "you will stand for
    	the Pledge of Allegiance".
    

	In an act of truly unbelieveable stupidity, a couple of Denver
	talk radio hosts walked into a local Muslim Temple, during
	services no less, and played the national anthem on a trumpet.

	Last word I heard was they are now suspended from their jobs.

	I wonder if they were suprised by this?

Jim

    Unbelievable.

    Good thinkin', guys.
    
    Oh, waitaminute. This is america. They are allowed to be disrespectful.
    They were courageous, yeah, that's it, courageous to stand up for what
    they believe....

    re: .248
    
    In what way was America 'separate' from England???  I believe they
    were NOT.  They were recognized as a subset of the British Empire.
    The 13 colonies revolted FROM BRITISH RULE for one reason - they
    felt the govt. was oppressive, i.e. taxation without representation
    as one example.
    
    However, to be entirely generic, they were a part of a 'country', were
    under the jurisdiction of the govt. of that country, felt that the
    govt. was oppressive, opted not to leave, and some made some good
    money in the country (which I assert was PART and not SEPARATE in any
    way from the British Empire).
    
    My reasoning is that with the judgment *some* make against some who do
    not honor the flag, their basis applies quite accurately to our founding
    fathers.  The context of our political system is that perceived by our
    founding fathers and thus it follows that many of those who have a problem 
    with those who do not honor the flag and whose position is that they 
    should leave ARE ACTUALLY SUPPORTING A GOVERNMENT QUITE UNLIKE THE
    GOVT. CRAFTED BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS.
    
    I believe they are actually supporting one much more oppressive than
    that envisioned by our founding fathers.
    
    I personally espouse the one more to the liking of Jefferson than the
    one implied by people who exclaim "Hit the pavement!"  Such people
    are, in effect, supporting a much more tyrannical, liberty-threatening
    system of govt.
    
    
    re: .250
    
    I in no way meant to link this with Abdul Rauf.
    
    							Tony

re .251

That certainly would qualify them (in Massachusetts) for prosecution
under the Massachusetts "interrupting religious meetings" law.

Does Colorado have a similar law, and will they be prosecuted?

/john

             <<< Note 680.255 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>Does Colorado have a similar law, and will they be prosecuted?

	There has been talk of prosecutions, but with everything
	that has been going on (wrong) I haven't caught up on 
	all the news.

Jim

    That's just harrassment...serves no purpose.

    
    	I'm wondering how they both played the National Anthem on 1
    	trumpet.
    

    I don't think people should stand for that.

      Jack,
    
        You're invited to explain to me how it is the 13 colonies
        were separate from the British Empire.
    
    						Tony

    Mad king disease.

    Tony:
    
    I read what you had said and it made sense.  I always thought of
    America as an entity under England as a territory.  Much like Guam is
    to the United States or Puerto Rico.  The difference was the American
    colonies were forced to pay taxes without representation whereas Guam
    and Puerto Rico are not taxed.  Therefore, Washington, Jefferson et al
    certainly had a motive for revolt.
    
    -Jack

    
    .251
    
    Took a lot of balls, or stupidity.

    Stupidity, definitely.
    
    -Stephen

    both.  

      re: .263
    
      OK Jack, then to be totally generic, they had a problem because
      they thought the govt. was oppressive in some way.  Why did you
      favor a different response for them, but not for anyone today?
      For them you seem to say, "It was OK for you guys to STAY and
      to make money and to even revolt", but for someone who thinks
      the govt. is oppressive today, you seem to say, "Leave the
      country then!"  Aren't you being inconsistent?
    
      Or does it come down to assessing the validity of the claim that
      either govt. is oppressive?
    
      You mentioned taxation without representation.  I think there are
      some people here that could demonstrate that our present tax system
      is a deceitful farce.  That its really voluntary.  I believe we are
      taxed by deception.  There may be representation, but is taxation by
      deception any better?  And what of how the search and seizure ammend-
      ment has been watered down?
    
      Why do you have a double standard?  (Correct me if I'm wrong.)  Why
      do you seem to evaluate Washington, Jefferson, etc. with a different
      measuring stick than someone today who sincerely believes the govt.
      is oppressive?  What is your basis for different standards???
    
    						Tony

    Tony:
    
    Again you make valid points.  I am playing devils advocate in trying to
    determine why others may say don't like it...leave!  I have no problem
    with others freedom of expression unless it poses a threat to our
    current national intersts.  In other words, I will defend the
    Constitution of the US, and I will fight for our sovereignty.  Is there
    a cancer in our system...Yes...there is.  That's why I said above our
    current national interests and our government has already pushed the
    envelope.
    
    I believe our government has run amuck.  But I also believe the best
    way to fight oppression is through the ballot box...which again is why
    I believe voting age should be raised or young voters should prove
    their qualification to vote by some other means test.  Eighteen is too
    naive and young an age but that's another topic.
    
    As far as the founding fathers, G Washington and company were under the
    auspices of King George...a tyrant.  What I am comparing to todays
    system is a current system of checks and balances verses a tyranny with
    a heavy thumb.  Therefore, Washingtons revolt is far more
    understandable since their system was based on a monarchy.  No checks
    and balances.  Our present system offers a republic where we have
    representation...accountable to the electorate.  Is it corrupt...yes
    and it needs to be fixed.  
    
    -Jack

      Jack,
    
        OK and thanks for clarifying yourself.
    
        I actually am beginning to believe that our govt. is getting
        REALLY bad and that there are even forces out there with the
        eventually aim of nwo and total rescinsion of constitutional
        rule.
    
        I am pretty sure I am going to choose to have the flag symbolize
        Constitutional rule and thus personally have the utmost respect 
        for what it stands for...even though I believe the govt. has, in
        effect, done far worse to the flag than burn it.
    
    						Tony

    <--- The saddest part (and the reason why things keep getting worse) is
    that the people no longer have a clue as to what "freedom" means, nor
    what the flag is a symbol of.
    
    True Constitutional law is a thing of the past, though many do not
    realize this- and probably never will.  The flag, to me, represents the
    embodiment of what our FF created, and the true freedom built into our
    system of self-government.  It represents what many men and woman have
    fought, and died, to preserve.
    
    I find it an insult to these men and women that we have allowed the
    American dream to die, and freedom to be only something granted to us
    by the federal government...and on a limited basis (the power to tax is the
    power to control).
    
    
    To conclude on an ominous note...  8^)
    
    I think the final sign of our inevitable future will be the United
    States falling from grace as the world's only super-power.  The vacuum
    of power [as we go bankrupt...this is a foregone conclusion, IMO, based
    on the unwillingness of Congress/President to do anything of substance
    to avoid this most obvious looming crisis] will certainly create some
    interesting world history.  It is a shame, as this financial crisis is
    obvious and preventable, yet no one seems interested in fixing
    anything.  It is easier to "feel our pain" and campaign for votes, than 
    it is to make the tough decisions that are necessary for the financial 
    survival of the US in the coming years.
     
    
    
    -steve

    Did anybody see the academy awards last night? (I did not have
    possession of the controller.)
    
    "Why's he talking about that HERE?" you may ask.
    
     Somebody won an award for something, I think it was a documentary, and
    the guy took an older woman up to the podium with him. She had survived
    the holocaust. In any case, after the guy gave his acceptance speech,
    the band started to play and they were going to whisk them off the
    stage. But the woman stood at the podium, prepared to speak. The band
    stopped, and the woman gave what I considered to be the most impressive
    speech of the evening. She spoke about how "winning" for her during her
    6 years in the concentration camps was getting a crust of bread and
    living another day. And what magic it was to be able to spend a night
    at home in your living room doing absolutely nothing. She spoke about
    how lucky we are to have freedom, and how we ought to learn to appreciate 
    it and to give thanks for it. As indifferent as I was to the program
    itself, I was riveted to her speech. It was perhaps the most
    significant 60 seconds I spent all day.
    
    Now do you understand why I put this here?

    RE: .271  The Doctah

    > Somebody won an award for something, I think it was a documentary, and
    > the guy took an older woman up to the podium with him. She had survived
    > the holocaust. 

    Thanks for mentioning this - this HBO documentary was about her own
    experiences surviving the Holocaust.  The program was her story
    entirely, actually.  (She was a teenager who worked in a concentration
    camp until the Nazis marched the prisoners hundreds of miles across
    Europe during the winter before the liberation.  Most of the prisoners
    - young women her age - died along the way.)

    > In any case, after the guy gave his acceptance speech, the band started 
    > to play and they were going to whisk them off the stage. But the woman 
    > stood at the podium, prepared to speak. The band stopped, 

    I really wanted to hear what she had to say and I was sorry when the
    band started playing (because they usually don't stop if someone tries
    to speak.)   This is the first time I've seen the band stop and the
    microphone turned on again because someone kept trying to speak.

    > and the woman gave what I considered to be the most impressive
    > speech of the evening.

    I agree.  It was the best speech of the evening.  I'm glad she stood
    her ground to give it.

    You should see the program about her.  It's also very impressive.
    It appeared on HBO - now that they've won an Oscar for it, I'm
    sure they'll air it again.

re: .217 (Mark)

>    Now do you understand why I put this here?
Because you think one size of patriotism fits all?

Because you think if one person is happy with the status quo, there's
nothing to complain about?

Because you think if one person thinks the US is the best, it's that
way for everybody?

Why not tell us why you put this here.
\john

    
    Sheeeeeesh!! \john...
    
    
    You in need of getting laid too???
    

    
    	I think he was trying to say that he didn't care if the govern-
    	ment took his guns away, as long as they provided him with some
    	crusts of bread and water.
    
    	I'm getting pretty good at deciphering these things.
    

re: .274 (Andy)

>    You in need of getting laid too???
    
No.  You in need of a few extra IQ points to help you put
together a reasonable reply?

\john

    
    
    >No.  You in need of a few extra IQ points to help you put
    >together a reasonable reply?
    
    No... I was trying to lighten things up a bit, seeing as how you
    obviously woke up on the wrong side of your cage today...
    
    FWIW... I believe Mark Levesque entered that because it struck him as
    very poignant...
    
     It was a re-telling of events by one individual, whatever her
    patriotism should happen to be.
    
     You decided to take off with it and subtley lambaste Mark, and
    frankly, it looked nothing more than you wanting to pick a fight...
    
     I never saw what this woman had to say. I do know that people who have
    witnessed, experienced seen things you or I cannot even imagine in our
    wildest nightmares, do tend to have a different outlook and a stronger
    feel for "patriotism". 
    
      I know my parents have that sort of outlook, being guests of the
    Russians In Siberia during WWII.. 
    
     Maybe I do need some more IQ points... but I do think what you need is
    to take that foolish dunce-cap off... it might make folks listen closer
    to what you have to say...

re: .277 (Andy)

Can you read and comprehend no deeper than the plain glow of the
phosphor on the screen?

THINK about WHERE Mark posted this note.  THINK about HOW this was
meant to be interpreted.

THINK about WHAT point he might be trying to get across.

THINK about WHY it's unreasonable to use this event as a "data point."

THINK about WHY I posted a reply asking those pointed questions.

My cage is fine.
My sex is fine.
My health is fine.

Now THINK about WHY your replies lack significant content.

HTH, BID.
\john

    I'll bid $5 for the cage!

>THINK about WHAT point he might be trying to get across.
    
    Good thing you put in the conditional, or you'd have had an o-fer.
    
    You seem to have COMPLETELY missed the intent of my note. And here I
    am, too tired to go through the effort of explaining it to you. We'll
    just chalk it up to a miss, and hope that somebody got something out of
    it. If not, hey, NMFP.

    
    And YOU talk about "sniping" in note 14?????
    
    I do "THINK"...
    
    I saw the point Mark was trying to make. 
    
    
      It was... now get this...
    
    
        An "E X A M P L E".... or better yet... an "A N E C D O T E"...
    
     You have your "opinion" of why he posted it, I have mine... 
    
     To me, it was certainly apropos, to you, it was cow-dung. To each his
    own...
    
     I'll let you go back to taking manners lessons from Mr. Bill...
    

    I don't get why it was posted in this note, either.  The moment on the
    Oscar telecast was remarkable, I agree.
    
    -Stephen

    \John:
    
    Are you having your period today?

    sexist swine!

  since the doctah made such a big mystery out of why he put the
  note here, no-one can be blamed for speculating.
  it sure seemed to me that he was trying to make a point not
  unlike those offered up as possibilities by john.

    
      The NBA is a ritual - every step from when the player enters the
     building to leaving it, is choreographed by the front office.  A
     player can be suspended for failing to meet reporters after the
     game, for wearing other than sanctioned items, for bad language,
     for any behavior not in the best interests of the league.
    
      Though less strict about it, the NBA also restricts its players'
     private lives beyond the restrictions of the law.  Being in the
     NBA is not compulsory, but it is very lucrative.  If you want the
     money, you have to do what they tell you, and there are dozens
     of people more than eager for your place if you don't want it.
    
      bb

re: .283 (JackM)

>    Are you having your period today?

No.

Dealing with people who put as much energy into their replies as they
do into farting sure puts me in a bad mood, though.  This means you.

Glad to explain.
\john

    Grunt

    
    Isn't it time for John Harney to go back into MOD/ONLY until the next full
    moon?

    
      First he has to complain about disk space.
    
      bb

    
>    Isn't it time for John Harney to go back into MOD/ONLY until the next full
>    moon?

	let's hope not.

    
>Dealing with people who put as much energy into their replies as they
>do into farting sure puts me in a bad mood, though.
    
    	Some of us have more pride in our farting duties than others,
    	so there IS some real effort involved.
    

RE: 680.292 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "The Recall of the Wild"

Yea,  like a high school buddy that could say "hello".  That takes
"effort",  practice and "skill".


Phil

    
    far be it from me to comment here, but me thinks everybody's undies
    are a bit tightly bunched.

    
    	That's the ONLY way to correctly sing The National Anthem.