|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
From Greg Moo
"Stuf4" wrote From Greg Moo Whether or not you are aware of it, flag protocol is explicitly specified by United States Code. According to this code, those who are to render a hand salute are military personnel, and that is *only* when they are in uniform. Actually the only reading I get of that is that applies during the pledge of allegience. If you are suggesting an open interpretation of this US code regarding flag protocol, then you are inviting a position that it is ok to do anything outside of these specified methods. That is the angle taken by lawyers of people who burn US flags. Umm, no, I'm reading the friggen code. Please show in that paragraph where it refers to any form of saluting, military or otherwise outside the recitation of the Pledge? Your reading a *part* of the code. It is important to note the distinction between a -reference- and a -source- document. That reference I posted *directed* you to the source of their information: "The laws relating to the flag of the United States of America are found in detail in the United States Code. Title 4, Chapter 1 pertains to the flag and seal, seat of Government and the States; Title 18, Chapter 33 pertains to crimes and criminal procedures; Title 36, Chapter 10 pertains to patriotic customs and observances. These laws were supplemented by Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations." (ref- http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/m.../flaglaws1.htm) To see more, just look up the source. An easy way to get to the source is to google ["us code" "title 36" "chapter 10"]. The very first hit takes you to this page: http://www.usflag.org/us.code36.html#36 .....where you can see that there's a lot more to flag protocol than the national anthem, Star-Spangled Banner, and the pledge of allegiance: __________ § 170. National anthem; Star-Spangled Banner. § 171. Conduct during playing. § 172. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery. § 173. Display and use of flag by civilians; codification of rules and customs; definition. § 174. Time and occasions for display. § 175. Position and manner of display. § 176. Respect for flag. § 177. Conduct during hoisting, lowering or passing of flag. § 178. Modification of rules and customs by President. § 179. Design for service flag; persons entitled to display flag. § 180. Design for service lapel button; persons entitled to wear button. § 181. Approval of designs by Secretary of Defense; license tomanufacture and sell; penalties. § 182. Rules and regulations. § 182a to 184. Repealed. § 185. Transferred. § 186. National motto. § 187. National floral emblem. § 188. National march. § 189. Recognition of National League of Families POW/MIA flag. ___________ .....just one more click takes you to Section 177: ___________ §177. Conduct during hoisting, lowering or passing of flag During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag or when the flag is passing in a parade or in review, all persons present except those in uniform should face the flag and stand at attention with the right hand over the heart. Those present in uniform should render the military salute. When not in uniform, men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Aliens should stand at attention. The salute to the flag in a moving column should be rendered at the moment the flag passes. ___________ Here we find the answer that best applies to the Apollo situation. The US flag was "hoisted". US code says that it is proper for astronauts to face the flag, stand at attention... Here there is divergence. Military officers in uniform are required to render the military hand salute. Civilians are required to remove their headdress and place their right hand over their heart. So did the Apollo spacesuit count as a military uniform? Since Neil and Jack were wearing the exact same uniform as the others, were they required to salute as well? (Being civilian, the impracticalities of them having to "remove their headdress" has been previously addressed.) .....or maybe all 12 of them should simply have stood at attention like Buzz did. This is what the US code says that "aliens" should do, and after all they were on the Moon. Ha! If you have an alternative explanation as to why there are no pictures of these two civilians saluting the flag, I'd be glad to consider it. Can't speak to Jack's case, but in Neil's, remember there's very few photos of him to being with. Excellent point. If Buzz had been more generous with his film, perhaps he would have captured an image of Neil popping to attention in front of the flag and giving a Boy Scout salute! ~ CT |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
From Jim Davis:
Stuf4 wrote: I do not hesitate to question the "popular" members here (such as Henry or Mary or Jim or...) if I see them say something I see as bogus. I consider everyone as friends (to include OM, etc) and I would prefer that we all stay open to criticism. And yet, Dennis, you've compared people who don't agree with you to the followers of Jim Jones. If you are guessing that my gender is male and that my name is Dennis, my response is that I have never disclosed such information on this forum and I have no current plans to do so now. If you'd like confirmation of anything, I'd be glad to give private answers through private email. One piece of feedback that I will give publicly here is that Jim Jones is not the "Jim" I was referring to. (Or perhaps I missed something in your meaning.) ~ CT |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
From Ami:
"Stuf4" wrote From Ami: We are in agreement that NASA was not a military agency. But unlike your highway analogy, notice that NASA *did* have many military personnel. We are? I was pretty sure that you were arguing otherwise. Clearly, NASA was created as a civilian agency. It was civilian in 1958. It is civilian today. The view I have been presenting is that NASA's mission of human spaceflight had, primarily, a military purpose critical to national defense. So we are mostly disagreeing about terminology. To me, national defense does not imply military. Military implies being under the control and oversight of the DoD. The TSA is not military, the CIA is not military, but both are vital to national defense. I would say that national defense does _imply_ military, but certainly is not necessarily military. For the USA, -military- not only implies DoD control and oversight. Here the relationship is necessary. By design, all US military is placed under DoD. Sure, but I don't think that "militarized" means what you think it does. It means "taken over by the military", or "issued arms". If anything, NASA "civilianized" military officers by including them in a civilian agency. I was saying that NASA took over military programs for human spaceflight. NASA could have done their own, starting from scratch. They didn't. The Mercury 7 could have been seven civilians. They weren't. Which indicates that the military programs were de-militarized. I agree with that! (Now if you were to say that NASA _totally_ de-militarized these programs, then I would point again to the strictly military elements within NASA.) And the fact that astronauts were given *military promotion in rank* for flying a space mission goes directly against your notion of having civilianized them. Not really. It has been common for military officers who supported civilian efforts to receive promotions in order to maintain their career path. A number of astronaut candidates were worried that they would spend five years in NASA, fly maybe one flight, and come back at the same rank, and never get their career back on track. Tying the promotions to flight was a sign by the military that the officers were accomplishing a mission important to the nation, and probably made more symbolic sense than just giving them a promotion when they got back. IIRC, Tom Stafford eventually made BG and commanded either a squadron or an air wing. Mary can correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't military test pilots who worked for NACA/NASA also get promotions? Yeah, Stafford made BG. ....and then he blasted right past that for two more stars! There's no shortage of astronauts who went back into the military fold to get promoted to general/admiral. As far as military pilots working for NASA, I'm now aware of *any* who worked for NASA in the same kind of permanent status that astronauts had. If anyone got promoted while working a temporary project at NASA, I expect that it was more a matter of coincidence than getting promoted *because* of anything they did while at NASA. Ham and Enos had the required skills to pilot a Mercury capsule. You, Ami, have the required skills. NASA had many thousands of non-military candidates available to them who could have done just fine. I do not have the required skills. For one, I'm too fat The key word is "pilot". Ham and Enos would not, even together, been capable of carrying out Gordon Cooper's mission. The goal was human space flight. Animal flights are limited excursions testing part of the vehicles capabilities. One of the purposes of Mercury (as it evolved) was to gain experience in human space flight, and to give humans experience in space flight, prepatory to Apollo. From "This New Ocean" http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...4201/ch5-8.htm, discussing the original draft civil service announcement for astronaut candidates: "Furthermore, the job qualifications required proof that applicants had demonstrated recently their "(a) willingness to accept hazards comparable to those encountered in modern research airplane flight; (b) capacity to tolerate rigorous and severe environmental conditions; and (c) ability to react adequately under conditions of stress or emergency." The entire set (a,b,c) were met by non-human primates. This is why I was certain that you have the -skills-, Ami. Physical dimensions aside, it takes very little skill to fly a capsule. They do a great job flying themselves. I agree with your point about Gordon Cooper. But Mercury was successful even without his flight. Notice how the Soviets flew a generally successful program in hiring someone who was a girl from a farm to fly their spacecraft. snip Since certain classified aspects would inevitably be involved, military test pilots could most conveniently satisfy security considerations." I have expressed dissent with that last statement in past discussions on this topic. The argument is that it is far from -convenient- to take an exceptionally qualified person out of the small pool of test pilots for the reason of satisfying security considerations. It is far more convenient to take a person with a security clearance who's loss from their current job will have minimal impact. A military presence was deliberately infused into NASA's most visible roles, even though it was totally unnecessary. It was not totally unnecessary. It was expedient to go ahead with a pool of candidates who were, by their profession, already relatively qualified. This was back in the 50s, when issues of "equal opportunity" hadn't yet caught on. The White house, with (at times grudging) NASA acceptance decided against an open audition, and limited the initial astronaut candidate set to those with test pilot experience. (There were a total of seven requirements.) It may have been unnecessary, but, given that the program had National security implications, this seemed the cheapest, fastest, and most efficient way to get the job. Unless there had been an ideological component to the selection saying "we must have civilians", why not go with a pre-selected small pool? Remember, this was not today's society. Proof that the Mercury requirements were over-specified is the fact that they were not even met by those who were hired! Case in point: John Glenn not having a college degree. I maintain that -test pilot- is an overspecification. Even -pilot-. Even male. I'm tempted to add -human-, but I won't go that far because the goal was human spaceflight. So this is the only _necessary_ qualification that the chimps didn't meet. There were plenty of civilians who, like military test pilots, *already had their clearance*. That Right Stuff story does not hold water. But were they otherwise qualified, and was there the capacity to screen for them? Remember, the selection process as actually implemented started with screening a known and bounded set of records (service pilots) versus a civil service application. I see no reason why it would have been overly difficult to screen civilians. There was lots more going on to tell them that their primary mission was thermonuclear power projection. Khrushchev boldly stated in public that his cosmonauts could just as well have been warheads. I provided links to that NORAD slideshow equating Vostok to a nuclear onslaught. There have been hundreds of posts on this forum discussing the overt signs of how the purpose of NASA was nuclear deterrence. Mostly by you. The vast majority of info in those posts was merely pointing out information that has been available the whole time. A messenger/message type of issue here. Power project does not mean technology demonstration. Besides, many of the pilots had wartime experience, or had served in active fighter wings, including some with nukes. It probably didn't bother them. Power projection means flexing your muscles. And if those muscles happen to be new technological muscles, then yes, it does encompass technology demonstration. What do you think Sputnik was? As far as the pilot's views, I agree that these aspects didn't bother them. I expect that they were all extremely proud of the part they were playing as Cold Warriors. A question that I would be very intrigued to hear them field is, "What connection do you see between Apollo and the nuclear arms race?" I would be interested in seeing what they would say about that as well. The results are likely to be suprising to one or the other of us. Actually I would not be surprised if none of them admit to seeing any connection. I'm sure that they'd all prefer to be remembered as having peacefully served all mankind, instead of bio-placebo warheads along with the astrochimps. But how does Apollo, divorced from Gemini and Mercury, have anything to do with nuclear warheads? Not all of the cold war was about nukes. A lot was about showing how your superpower was a worker's paradise, or that your country had the best technology, so you should buy our tanks/fighterplanes/political ideology. I think that the later part of the space race, especially the lunar programs, was more general. Both sides had already demonstrated the theoretical ability to place nukes anywhere they wanted. They were playing the moon race not for each other to see, but for the rest of the world. I disagree. Ability to nuke was only the ante for the game. Once the cards were dealt, both sides had to play their cards in a skillful way that convinced the other that they were overpowered and outclassed. It was not enough to have a good hand. You had to communicate that you had a *better* hand. The nuclear ante started with Hiroshima. The Soviets matched. The stakes were raised up to H-bombs. Matched again. The USSR raises with Sputnik. Ike sees the Sputnik and raises a Mercury. Up and up the nuclear pot grows. JFK cranks it all the way up to the Moon. The Kremlin hesitates. Will they fold? Will they call? It's an unusual play. They don't match 1-for-1 the huge raise that JFK made. Instead, they slide a space station into the pot and make the claim that it is worth the same as a Saturn V. The game cools off for a bit as the players argue their cases. The US decides to throw in a shuttle along with the Moon rockets. USSR matches once again. And then comes the decisive moment. Reagan decides to not only match their station... Instead of piddling around, he decides to go ALL IN! Star Wars. The biggest bluff in human history. But it worked. The Kremlin worked up an intense sweat, but in the end they decided to fold. Yes, the rest of the world was intently watching this game. But they were on the sidelines the whole time. There were only two players at the level of this game. ~ CT |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Stuf4 wrote:
If you are guessing that my gender is male and that my name is Dennis, my response is that I have never disclosed such information on this forum and I have no current plans to do so now. A simple case of mental crossed wires. I was posting from work and was interupted by a call from someone named Dennis. I have no idea of your identity. If you'd like confirmation of anything, I'd be glad to give private answers through private email. Not necessary. I apologize for the annoyance and confusion this might have caused you. Jim Davis |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... You write really well You don't, dumbass, because if you did, you would have *trimmed your quotes*. For someone who knows "all about the Internet" you sure as hell don't show it. You yourself said that it's necessary to follow protocol, you flame NASA for not following it. If it was bad for NASA to not follow protocol, why isn't it bad for you to do likewise? |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Jun 2004 20:01:25 GMT, Jim Davis
wrote: Stuf4 wrote: If you are guessing that my gender is male and that my name is Dennis, my response is that I have never disclosed such information on this forum and I have no current plans to do so now. ....Coward. A simple case of mental crossed wires. I was posting from work and was interupted by a call from someone named Dennis. I have no idea of your identity. ....Well, CT *is* a menace, so perhaps the name fits. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
From Jim Davis:
Stuf4 wrote: If you are guessing that my gender is male and that my name is Dennis, my response is that I have never disclosed such information on this forum and I have no current plans to do so now. A simple case of mental crossed wires. I was posting from work and was interupted by a call from someone named Dennis. I have no idea of your identity. If you'd like confirmation of anything, I'd be glad to give private answers through private email. Not necessary. I apologize for the annoyance and confusion this might have caused you. Thank you for clearing that up. With those crossed wired, I hope you didn't call that guy on the telephone a *troll*! Hee hee. ~ CT |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
From Pat Flannery:
Andrew Gray wrote: I feel obligated to mention the National Strategic Helium Reserve here, but for no real reason other than that I like saying National Strategic Helium Reserve. Um... anyway... It's a gas to say, isn't it? When I was working as a weather observer, we got our helium for the balloons from the "United States Government Helium Mines" down in Texas. I always pictured these big burly miners in some sort of strange gray uniforms swinging pick-axes, and talking in high falsetto voices as they struck a rich new vein of helium. If Amarillo's Helium Monument would get as many visitors as their Cadillac Ranch, then more people would know about such things! Photo: http://www.blm.gov/nhp/300/wo310/hlmday.jpg Ok, for anyone who wants to play, here's a trivia question... Where was helium discovered? (I have two answers in mind.) ~ CT |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
From LaDonna Wyss:
You write really well--you don't happen to write for a living, do you? Thank you. I did have a job once working public affairs where I had by-lines published in the local media. It was short-lived. And my editor reworked my articles so much he might just as well put his own name to them. That's the closest I've ever come to writing for a living. Another writing story... Way back in the 7th grade I wrote an essay on the Statue of Liberty and the meaning of Emma's poem. Our teacher graded them and handed them back. After class, he called me to his desk. He said that he thought it was an excellent essay and he asked me where I had gotten it from. I was a bit slow to catch on before I realized that he thought that I may have plagiarized it. I was upset about it at the time, but I look back at Mr Sweetland's feedback as the highest compliment I have gotten for my writing. ~ CT |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Mar 19 | Stuart Goldman | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | March 20th 04 03:20 AM |
Good news and bad about Mars rover... | Steven James Forsberg | Policy | 2 | January 26th 04 11:12 AM |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Jan 9 | Stuart Goldman | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | January 10th 04 02:34 AM |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Sep 12 | Stuart Goldman | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 13th 03 02:45 AM |
news flash! Rutan drops the shapceship! | Rand Simberg | Policy | 3 | August 8th 03 11:14 PM |