|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 3 users and 50 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 5:27am.
TJ Johnson just sent out on the OMJP listserv a document (I posted below) from Lakefair to the Port of Olympia, asking them to invite the USS Olympia and two Canadian war ships to Lakefair next year. This mostly speaks for itself, but I have a couple of observations. 1. Wow, doesn't it seem early? We were just talking about this. 2. Doesn't this put a new spin on the port elections? If you're anti-war, not only can you focus on using the port as a shipping point to Iraq, but this also now.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Or in other words:
Submitted by stevenl on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 5:39am.Worship the warship?
Submitted by Tschida on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 8:37am.One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.
Thomas Sowell
I am against the war
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 8:27am.yup
Submitted by Norm on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 8:54am.Bring On The Ships!
Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 8:40am.I'm all for it! They are not tools of recruitment, they are not loaded with nuclear bombs and they are not symbols of war. They are historical, iconic and loaded with men and women who protect our rights as Americans.
My guess is the request is being presented this early in hopes that when we finally get the knuckleheads off the current council and get some reasonable members who think logically this won't be an issue at Lakefair time!
"Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence." - Unknown
wait a minute...
Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 8:54am.If they are not symbols of war, what exactly is it that they're "iconic" of? They're big ole vessels capable of wreaking mass homicide. Am I mistaken, or are they not also known as war ships? In fact, one model even has the name "battleship."
Just because they're
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 9:12am.Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals.
Peter Viereck, Yale Professor
it's true
Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 9:38am.But I have a real problem with just labeling something "bad" or "good", life just isn't that clean. There has yet to be a war without the loss of "innocent" lives, without rape, without looting, etc., etc., etc. Here's a question, if these ships are not symbols of war and power, why do we park them off of the shores of country's we have political issues with? Is it really to show them that this is what freedom looks like?
As much as I am fascinated
Submitted by Norm on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 9:42am.As much as I am fascinated with them, as well as fighter planes, in my opinion anyway, they are tools of war. They are not recreational vehicles to play around with. They are designed to blow things up. They are symbols of military innovation and certainly military might.
That doesn't mean you have to agree with the current war though. Having them around doesn't mean we have to float them off the shores of country's we have problems with. They can still be looked at, again my opinion, as tools of war and a strong line of defense that any enemy has to get through to destroy us. They are truly impressive machines.
I'm mostly (if not
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 9:15am.I love ships, even battleships. I like everything maritime related.
Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals.
Peter Viereck, Yale Professor
As a child
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 9:51am.when I played around on my dad's M47 Patton main battle tank, I thought of it as his office, not a symbol of war.
Like art, symbols are not exogenous.
uh huh
Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 10:40am.And next you'll be telling me that bundles of sticks can be soldiers of Troy.
LOL
Submitted by Norm on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 10:41am.Some times
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 10:54am.what about...
Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 11:52am....if you equip that stick with night vision, a computer aided sighting mechanism, the ability to propel 50 caliber hunks of metal over 35,000 yards and assign a bunch of people the job of keeping it capable of doing these things, is it still just a stick?
I don't disagree with you on the fungible nature of symbols. It may even be in our lifetime that these things take on primary connotations of a crumbled empire, misappropriated funds and our societal inability to address the problems at home. But I still like Emmett's idea of inviting something like the USNS Comfort as an attempt to bridge the divide in our own community on this issue.
Or I could just sharpen a stick
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 12:01pm.I'd be with you
Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 12:21pm.if I didn't think the demonstrations would end in violence. I think there's too much tension in the air, and I don't trust the people on either end of such a demonstration to maintain the peace. Volatile and violent times we're livin' in...
So because people can't be
Submitted by Norm on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 12:26pm.Hmm...I haven't taken it
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 12:28pm.I haven't taken it quite to the extreme you have, but I am thinking that "the possibility of violence" is one reason cops and the government tries to suppress and oppress groups and gatherings.
Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals.
Peter Viereck, Yale Professor
yeah
Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 12:38pm.It seems like this nasty self-perpetuating cycle. The cops are worried about the protests turning violent, so they dress up in riot gear and prepare for greater levels of violence. The protesters are worried that the cops will turn violent so they get more nervous and jittery and they prepare for greater levels of violence. There are going to be people prone to overreact to stressful situations on all sides...after all, there will be people there and that's what some people do. All it takes is one over anxious person worried/afraid of the unknown to make a mistake, to tip that first domino. It doesn't really matter which side this mistake comes from, the end result is violence and dehumanization.
the argument works both ways
Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 12:42pm.We've entered into no-win territory here, I think. Should we push aside the half of the community who wants to host military ships? Or should we push aside half of the community who is morally opposed to hosting the military ships? The situation sucks. I'm with Emmett, I think we should have a very public and mediated discussion in which our community goes into it looking for a compromise.
No, no compromise. Either
Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 12:54pm.No, no compromise. Either they come or they don't. That's my vote. I vote bring 'em.
Why no compromise?
Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 12:55pm.I guess I'm feeling a little
Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 1:08pm.I guess I'm feeling a little slighted over the last ship ordeal. I also believe we can coexist while still having our differences. Many people in our community are somehow affiliated with the military and still have a lot of pride in the military. Compromise seems like giving in. I'd rather give up than give in to a compromise that's not really a compromise. The appeal for me is that it is a warship and I served on a warship for 4 years.
Good luck convincing Lakefair they need to compromise (I'll bet $100 it's all or nothing for them as well).
If the ships aren't welcomed I won't be crushed, but I would like to see one instance where moral opposition doesn't result in some organized effort to take away from another's experience.
EDIT: By the way, I'm still working on that for you - even though we have our differences!
Amen
Submitted by Norm on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 1:09pm.I've never been on a snubbed
Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 1:15pm.I'd like to see both. Yes, I
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 1:57pm.Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals.
Peter Viereck, Yale Professor
hey no worries
Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 1:20pm.I was just genuinely asking, not looking for trouble. It's difficult for me not to see how compromise isn't better in this situation but, of course, that's because it's how I see it. So really I just wanted to know why compromising on the issue doesn't seem like an option to you. And now I know. And that's a G.I. Joe reference. So in the end it all comes back to the military and its public relations.
I could tell you were asking
Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 1:24pm.I could tell you were asking and not poking, that's why you got an honest, I don't hate you, answer!
Well, maybe we caught this
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 12:27pm.Well, maybe we caught this one early enough that we can actually have a public process in public before it seems like the sides are all chosen up. Maybe we have a chance at a compromise like a USCG cutter or the Mercy.
After discussion in public the protests we all know are coming will be less tense.
Why would we need to
Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 12:38pm.Why would we need to compromise? I'm not understanding how compromise is a benefit for all.
If it's an attempt to appease those who find the ship to be a symbol of destruction, no thanks, I'll pass. Man, oh, man, it's always got to be about them.
Thirty minutes by water and you can look at warships all day long. I guess thirty miles isn't in our community so no big deal.
Why deny access
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 2:14pm.I'm more about the prioritization
Submitted by curveball on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 5:05pm.So as a taxpayer, my taxes fund city services. Is it more of a priority to pay for the extra hours/service that the city has to provide for security for the ships than it is to put that money towards new sidewalks? reclaimed water? park maintenance? traffic calming programs? fixing potholes?
That's where my deal is. I understand some people like the ships. I don't. Not my cup of tea and I don't generally get drawn into the 'ship as statement of war' thing. Yeah, some people like them cuz they get all patriotic, but many like them just cuz they're feats of engineering, or interesting to tour.
So you know, it's all well and good that Lakefair is putting their request on the table, we'd like this much money allotted for this purpose. The real meat of the matter is when that money in question is debated in the budget cycle as to whether we have it or not, and if we have it, what we're choosing not to fund instead. it's all about priorities and opportunity costs, baby.
I hear you. No money has
Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 6:03pm.I hear you. No money has been requested at this point. The letters were to Commanding Officers and Fleet contacts. Lakefair, as far as I know, hasn't asked the city for anything. No doubt they will.
On the same note, $25,000 + travel expenses for pundits to talk about global warming seems excessive to me. I'd much rather they get 'real' experts (read: scientists) from local institutions (TESC, UW, University of Oregon) to discuss our potentials for a third of the cost.
I heartily second that. I'm
Submitted by Meta Hogan on Wed, 09/26/2007 - 9:25am.uss olympia was commissioned
Submitted by Wilum Pugmyr on Thu, 10/25/2007 - 8:07am.