Vandalize a Town - Make Some Money!

Shoes over power lines and making a political statement are two very different things. Unless there was some political reference behind shoes events.

But wait! There’s more! BOP alert here, folks…

Once again, the Democrats are being singled out in this post, when the other people who bought the rest of those signs are not identified by THEIR political party.

Apparently it’s just too difficult to understand that you can’t legitimately demonize a political party by saying something as silly as,

….”X” number of people did this….and horror of horrors…HALF of them were Democrats!!!! Can you believe those dirty Democrats!!!! Shame on them!!!….

Yeah, well, clearly the other half of them were Republicans, but THEY aren’t being singled out as dirty, and shameful…nah…just the Democrats, in this here “equal opportunity” country of ours.

As my buddy Glenn Beck would point out…”I’m just sayin’…”

Maybe these kids were sick of their friends getting killed and being powerless to do anything about it.

Do you really think putting the word “war” under the word “stop” is equivalent to gangs marking drug turf? And who in this case made anyone take off their shoes?

This article seems like a poor excuse for trying to smear a political party you evidently don’t like and whine about a victimless crime. Life isn’t so simple.

Which is worse:

1) The Democrats supporting vandals

2) The Republicans supporting a war criminal in an illegal war?

well, let’s not forget, “T”, that it was the democratic congress which approved the declaration of war (the president cannot enact a declaration of war…..only congress can)…….

Crystal please stop filling up the discussion with pointless cut and pastes….we can all read the paper ourselves and it adds nothing to the discussion….thanks!

Idaho has a “Son of Sam” law that prevents criminals from profiting from their crimes. Seems to me this falls within it.

Crystal the link is good thanks. My preference is to read the actual link too since that way I know that nobody is slicing their own words into the post.

While I agree that the kids did something wrong, I also believe that they were protesting in such a way as to be heard. Society still tends to think that children should be seen and not heard. This appears to have been a way that they could stand up, make their message heard and hopefully get people to “think” as the article quoted them as saying. This took guts.

Herb Sewell, there were apparently more people in attendance than you noted. I too would have attended had I known in advance.

The article states that a couple of the people attending have been told by friends that they are not for our troops (not in so many words). I have been told this too and that is a far cry from the truth. What I am seeing is a lot of young people losing their lives, their families and friends grieving, and for what? A war that we are not only losing but a war that should never have been started. These young men and women had their entire lives ahead of them. It was cut short by our demonic president.

Hey, Larry Craig is still making his income off our tax dollars. It’s not right to profit from crime I agree, not in any way, shape, or form.

Congress was mislead, they were given false information with a carefully crafted series of lies and deceptions. Those who attempted to expose the lies were discredited and ‘outed’ (Ms Plame was exposed because of her spouse’s assertions about the African/uranium issues…)

Just because you’re not of the same party as the President, (and even when you are) if you are given multiple pieces of “proof” to support his plans, you will sometimes walk right down that primrose path as he leads the way…

I can forgive someone a mistake they made because they made it with good intentions, based upon the information that they had access to. I totally don’t believe that either the Prez or the VP had good intentions. I think they took advantage of a situation to put into place plans they had been cooking up all along. 9-11 fell into their lap (and conspiracy theorists assert it was part of their master plan, although I’m not willing to go there right now) and they made hay while that big old sun of terrorist hysteria was shining on our land.

Okay Anonymous, fine by me, you can believe whatever you want to about the origins of this war, I’m not here to convince you otherwise. I’m sure that talk radio and Fox give you all the fair and balanced truthiness that you can swallow.

I want to bring our troops home, because this “war” was poorly conceived/planned and mismanaged, bungled all the way. United States citizens are paying for this with billions of dollars in debt and even their lives.

However, Halliburton and Blackwater have made/continue to make millions and there are plenty more who profit from this. The area is less stable today than when we went there, in March 2003.

So I’m not seeing us leave anytime soon. I can understand frustration at the citizen level, and I am willing to join in an anti-war protest if one is organized in our area.

I never said I wanted the war to continue, Nemesis; I want our troops home, too….but everyone turns it into some “evil presidential conspiracy” that poor, innocent Congress had absolutely nothing to do with….and that is incorrect. Congress had access to all the information needed to make a decision about the war and voted to enact a resolution approving the war. Yet no one ever mentions the responsibility borne by Congress…….equally to blame…….

The only way to seriously discuss “bringing the troops home” is to take a look at how the members of Congress are viewing it……yet no one does. Everyone just mindlessly bashes Bush, which does no good and doesn’t address the issue of when and how the troops can come home…..

Why didn’t you address the Valerie Plame issue?

……..I also didn’t say he was innocent……I said that responsibility for the war should be shared by those who voted for it;

It’s not enough for some to now claim, ‘I didn’t have all the information’ …..well, Congress, that is your duty, isn’t it? we trust Congress to pass laws, for goodness sake: do they get to cry foul on those, too?

Yes it is their duty. However, from what I have read, they didn’t know and yes Bush did send them down the primrose path. It is my understanding that Bush was fully aware of new developments that he didn’t share. I think Bush had an axe to grind. I fail to see why Osama ambushes America but we go after Hussein, I’ve never understood that. If the neighbor to your right abuses your child, do you go after the neighbor to your left? Oh yes, Osama is still in hiding, Hussein is dead. With the American public living in fear post 9/11, it was easy to do as he pleased. Bush a bumbling idiot? He was so hell bent on this war that he failed to plan properly. He wanted Hussein and would stop at nothing, including the lives of our young men and women….moot point to him, I call that evil. And for all those who are calling Clinton a chicken for evading the war, why aren’t they also referring to Bush as the same? I tire of hearing about those dang flaming liberals when placing blame on democrats merely avoids pointing the finger at themselves. Is there anything that goes wrong that the Bush has ever admitted to? He still cannot force himself to admit that we’re losing this war, that it should not have been started, and we need to bring our troops home.

well, that is kind of my point: if everyone insists on this Bush-as-evil-genius scenario, and that lily-white Congress had nothing to do with the evil war, that sets us up for failure on how to resolve this war; I still think if Congress claims they were led “astray” that indicates willful blindness on their part; they had access to all the info needed and if they chose to not take advantage of information needed to make an informed decision, shame on them, too.

To suggest that Bush and only Bush had some ax to grind (oil? Hussein? Haliburton? which is it??) will only hamper our ability to understand and resolve the war issue

I will agree to disagree with you about “I SPY” Valerie Plame and her “secret” identity.

If you need to win an argument, Anonymous, I already gave you the win about the one where Congress should have known better than to trust the President…

So, now that you’ve had your win, how about sharing with us your ideas on how to end this ‘war’ and bring our children home safely?

Since I haven’t been able to figure it out on my own, I’m open to others’ ideas in this area. I said I’d join the anti-war protests, but I don’t think they’ll do much good. Better to use our efforts to think of ways to end the conflict, and pass them along to our leaders They can use the help, it seems.

ha ha very funny, Nemesis! “better than to trust” the mad genius of George Bush…..(cue dramatic music)….not really a win but then this isn’t about “winning” an argument; I am concerned about the facts….

Or, at the very least, we need to get back on topic…

I have to add that it’s pretty scummy for “Blazing Mad” to end with this:

And I have to wonder, where were the kids parents in all of this?

Where were Blazing’s parents when he was supposed to be learning grammar?

Hey, Dan the Man, thanks for taking the time to set us straight! Except I still disagree with you about giving the signs to the boys.

Give them to a charity, auction them off to help the agency that pays for the stop signs, whatever works for that end of things…but don’t give them the signs as trophies for their little vandalism spree.

Now, as far as civil disobedience, I’m in agreement with you that our country sets a fine precedent for the acts of civil disobedience. Don’t know as either Mildred (who battled the ban on mixed race marriage) or Rosa (who sat on the bus, so you won’t be “standing with her” so to speak) committed local government property vandalism to get their point across to the federal government.

And our forefathers at Lexington and Concord were revolutionaries, involved with the overthrow of the government. So they were offering their lives in the fight and their cause was a little more drastic than that of the young men in our town.

Wasn’t your coalition formed to help the young men know how to channel their energies, to help them find productive ways to make their protests, to keep them interested and excited to continue the fight? If what they did was appropriate, you wouldn’t need to do any of these things, you’d only need to cheer them on…

Someplace else where I find common ground with you…those major players are war criminals, in my opinion. Any other country’s leadership that did these things, we’d have their heads on a platter (or breaking off during a hanging…)

Thanks for the website link, I’d like to know more about your organization. It sounds interesting.

Nemesis -

Thanks for your comments. I appreciated some of your arguments above, too. If you like discussions like this you should come visit Drinking Liberally. We meet every Thursday evening at Marcellar’s (7pm). The website link is actually a bit damaged. They just introduced a new website, and all our old content at http://idahofalls.drinkingliberally.org/ is gone. That will soon be fixed, I hope. But back to the topic.

There are legal issues involved that only a lawyer used to dealing with civic laws and regulations are equipped to comment on. For example, when we first contacted the head of the city’s sign department, offering to buy the signs at a premium from the city directly, he told us that he was not allowed to make a profit on the sale of city property. He could sell old signs only for the going scrap metal price.

Second, how many of us are aware of the legal precedent for situations like this? For all we know, it might be long-established case law that if you pay to replace property, you absolutely own the damaged property. A lot of people above are commenting on this in a vacuum, and are shining a light on their own ignorance more than the issue at hand.

Finally, I’m a bit confused by your comment in one respect - you seem to differentiate different forms of violating the law. Mildred Loving and Rosa Parks violated the law. So did the American revolutionaries. They were all very calculated instances of law-breaking, meant to highlight the injustices they saw (the Lovings decided to fight the law only after their conviction, of course).

I don’t see a difference. You could say that in the cases I cited, the violators were more direct - i.e., they broke the very laws that they wanted to change. And Alex and Craig violated different laws. But that’s not strictly correct. The revolutionaries violated many laws (e.g., against murder) in their quest. Also, many acts of civil disobedience are directed at different laws - e.g., chaining oneself to a gate at the entrance to a missile silo. So there is no “rule” that makes one form of violation appropriate versus another, just based on direct correlation.

Come on, people! We’re talking about stop signs here. You all act like the vandalism of property with a political statement is somehow so far beyond the pale. The boys made a non-violent statement regarding the horrible destruction of lives caused by our so-called president, and all Blazing and others on this forum can worry about is those poor stop signs.

I have to agree with Idahogie. I think Blazing Mad’s article was more to protest that anyone was protesting. Far worse has happened in this community than what he/she writes about. The boys were trying to make a statement, they weren’t just spraying local businesses for the joy of spreading grafitti. I don’t think vandalism is the right way to go about it, but I can see far more destruction with the actions of our government officials than with spraying (Stop) War on stop signs. The article merely detracts from the blatant wrongdoing already in progress. Bush is sure profiting from crime with our tax dollars. He’s killing thousands of our young men and women as well as innocent Iraqi civilians with his crime.

As far as Blazing Mad’s comment about where were the parents through all this, it sounds like he/she has never had nor been a teenager or perhaps, is just living on fantasy island. Good luck (really) knowing where they are and what they’re doing 24/7. I sure gave it my best effort.

Idahogie, I’ve yet to read anything you’ve written that I didn’t agree with. And it does sound to me as if the boys paid for their “crimes”.

I think you really miss the point, Dan. It’s not the political protest that bothers us. We support political protest, and we understand civil disobedience (and the political/legal implications).

It’s the giving of the vandalized property to the students, who can then sell it to others, that seems wrong (because the only reason those signs have much value is due to the vandalism).

That eagle statue (in fact, the whole fountain formation) at Taylor’s Crossing is very appealing to me. I could spray paint or carve some political protest words on it, and voila! I can end up with it as my prize (albeit at a steep price, but hey, right now it’s not for sale in any way at any price…)

It seems wrong to allow someone who has committed a crime of vandalism to be “rewarded” for that crime by being given the property they vandalized. If that’s long established case law, it’s true, we certainly weren’t aware of it.

This is not a post about political protest, it’s a post about vandalized property being given to the vandals. Let’s discuss political protest at your meetings, or in another post altogether.

I disagree Nemesis. You say that the issue is limited to the ownership of the stop signs (I addressed that in post #39, by the way). But Blazing’s post was full of other stuff too. That particular issue may be the part of Blazing’s post that you are most interested in, then that’s not the only part.

Again, I’ll listen to somebody who knows something about the legal precedents and case law on this. But all of us are speaking from ignorance, basically (myself included). To me, it seems reasonable that if I pay to replace something, I should have the option of owning what I replaced. Let’s say that I hit a stop sign with my car by accident. If I pay to replace the damaged sign, shouldn’t I have the option of keeping the old sign? Is the difference intention? Because that is enormously hard to determine in many cases.

(Conservatives would say that intention in this case matters. That the boys should be denied ownership of the stop signs because they intended to damage them, and we should not “reward” them. However, when it comes to hate crimes legislation, they argue that intention is too hard to determine.)

“Vandalize a town, make some money”

What the hell do you call manufacturing and selling arms that destroy whole towns, poisoning the water and killing and maiming people on both sides?

You want to see vandalism, why don’t you go to Iraq?

Effect of the Gulf War on infant and child mortality in Iraq from Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1513350?dopt=Abstract

“To me, it seems reasonable that if I pay to replace something, I should have the option of owning what I replaced.”

I don’t understand…re: comment #45:
Is Dan/Idahogie saying if someone hits another person’s property (say, their 1907 antique car) and then they pay the replacement cost, the person who hit it should have the option of also keeping the antique car?

Doesn’t Idaho own a bunch of radioactive sand?

Very true Guest, good points. I still can’t help but think this article was a blazing mad diversion article against democrats, rather than against crime. I prefer to vote for the person not the party, but it’s this type of thing that gears me more and more towards the straight line democratic party vote.

I’m glad this article was written.

Thank you, BlazingMad, for the information about the Bonneville County Democrats, Drinking Liberally, and the Snake River Freedom Coalition.

Good things CAN come from bad writing.

It is my opinion that this article is a fine example of bad writing, and I refer to the writing itself, not the author’s expressed opinions.

so you think calling it “bad writing” was “polite and on topic” (Rule #1, above) and not a “put-down” (Rule #4, above) ?

hmmmm…..interesting.

Most of you are probably too young to remember the late 60’s and early 70’s. We had real protests then. Remember the civil rights marches, Woodstock, Kent State, Vietnam protests. I could go on and on. I guess I think that painting the word War on a few stop signs pales in comparison. My first reaction when I saw those signs was “Yeah — I couldn’t agree more”. I didn’t see a safety issue with it. I still knew it was a Stop Sign even if it had the word War on it. And if the law says that the kids get the stop signs after they have made restitution, this is surely not the kids fault. Didn’t some of the kids do some jail time also?

Were there really 179 stop signs painted? I live on the West side of town, and I never saw any over here.

I figure the politeness of the thread is set by the original poster. Crystal has been far more polite than Blazing.

Or is it impolite to point out that observation?

Enough already. Haven’t you all beat this topic to pure death?

It really isn’t about “those kidz” and their stop signs–it’s all about all of your needs to pontificate about Iraq, Bush, war and what not. Give it up.

No one danged thing you say will change a thing. And to whoever has responsibility for this forelorn website, do you have a freaking clue as to when to pull the plug on a topic and substitute something a tad more….whatever?

At least can you pull this topic down to #2 or do you just want people to stew, stew, stew in their own juices until their points are pickled?

I’ve given up checking this list on a regular basis. I check it maybe a 2-3 times a week. When I see topic like this getting absurdly long in the tooth I just say, “well, the owner has lost touch.”

Get a grip, Joe Eagle, lots of people I talk to won’t even click on this website anymore. They view it as a fringe website.
Frayed fringe, if this topic is any indication!

Another Blazing Mad. I agree Nemesis.

I want to thank Anonymous in Comment #54 for responding to my question in #51.

Regarding the stop signs, I think the city should have retained ownership. Whether it is stop signs or something else, I think it is wrong to deprive the original owner of his property twice, first through damage, and again through a replacement claim.

If something can be abused, there are people who will do it.

Sorry it’s early. If the sign had been made unrecognizable and the potential for an accident was there, that too would have been a big deal.

(Make that comment #72. You’re right, it’s early.)

The only thing that makes sense is that the original #54 was totally removed by the moderator. And Anonymous, therefore by implication, is the moderator, or since anyone can post as Anonymous, the moderator was posting as Anonymous this time. I have not seen any comments on this post (and I just doublechecked) by the screen name of the person that I believe to be the moderator, so that seems reasonable to assume.

(I had signed in once recently and was dipping into the various pages, and happened to see one that named a moderator…and I was not surprised to see who it was. But I don’t know that this person is the only moderator, and when I tried to find that page view again later to see if others were added, it was no longer available for me to access).

As far as spam blocking, if someone tries to comment using a registered name, they must be on their own computer to do this, where the ‘cookies’ live. Otherwise, they have to sign in to use that screen name, or it will be blocked as spam. That happens for the chatbox, too.

One one computer I have the original Comment #54 credited to Anonymous and on another computer (same IP address) I have the ‘other’ Comment #54 credited to Guest. How’s that for the X Files? With incredible catlike wisdom, I copied down the original comment in case it later disappeared (and because it answered my question.) If all parties involved do not mind, I will resubmit it:

“439.2 - Basically, yes. I was making a counter argument to the many people on this site who have expressed confusion about why the boys should be given the stop signs at all. My point is that it makes perfect sense. They were ordered to buy replacement signs. In fact, they had to buy replacement signs that were better than the ones they had painted. So I made the argument if they paid for the replacements they should get the old signs.

In your example, to make it pertinent, you’d have to stipulate that the 1907 antique was demolished, and the original owner had gotten a replacement that satisfied him. In that case the one who caused the damage owned the wreckage. I believe this is how it actually works with insurance companies. If my insurance company buys you a new car to replace one that I totalled then my insurance company owns your original car.”

NOTE: If the original Comment #54 was deleted due to moderator judgment, then this one may be deleted also with my permission, although it might be cooler to black out portions like the FBI does!

Gato, I didn’t say it wasn’t similar, I said this wasn’t a big deal until it was made to be one by the author. I just think the article was more about those darn dems than about giving the kids a sign.

de nada

Both quotes from Comment #45: “Again, I’ll listen to somebody who knows something about the legal precedents and case law on this. But all of us are speaking from ignorance, basically (myself included).”

“(Conservatives would say that intention in this case matters. That the boys should be denied ownership of the stop signs because they intended to damage them, and we should not “reward” them. However, when it comes to hate crimes legislation, they argue that intention is too hard to determine.)”

I’m the poster child for speaking from ignorance, so bear with me. I usually do not express myself as well as others, so I don’t like to comment that much unless I can be laid-back/shallow in most of my responses. As you may have noticed, a written format lacks some of the nuances that enrich the spoken language, so often, the actual meaning of what was intended may be misconstrued.

To stay on topic and try to answer your query, my analogy may or may not have been a good one; I was wondering if a person might not start using the ability to ‘own the damaged property’ after paying for it to obtain something that had more value to the original owner than what the item was actually worth. Maybe a person has something that was passed down from generation to generation, brought from other continents, went through hardships that only add value to the item because of the family history of it. Then one day, some yay-hoo decides he wants it…. so he ‘accidentally’ damages it, pays for it, and also now owns it, depriving the family of their heirloom. (As for the 1907 antique car, why wouldn’t the insurance company keep it and recoup their losses?)

I just don’t think the person who caused damage to another person’s property should receive that property as part of their restitution.

Does the property have to be considered a total loss? Does property exclude livestock? Where does one draw the line? I don’t know if this explains much and I’m sure there’s many things I’ve overlooked, but this was my thinking.

(Ack! Look how much you caused me to write! I’m going to need therapy!)

Gato, I agree with Nemesis, you should post more often. And I thought of your comment too. That would be classified as a big deal (to me at least) too. I just don’t think a stop sign is worth any sentimental value to anyone, or maybe I just hope not I also doubt the city needed it, the police didn’t need it. Nobody from what I can see, needed a stop sign and it wasn’t harming anything to give it to the boys. I guess that’s why I don’t think it was a big deal until the author made it a big deal.

Anonymous #88,

Still, nobody has been able to say why it’s wrong for them to own the signs or to sell them.

What if a church group had gone out in a fit of misguided yet good-intentioned public-spiritedness and added “to pray” to a bunch of stop signs. Assume they were caught or realized their error, made the situation right, and were granted the stop signs.

Is it your opinion that the only two things they could do with them is either store them in the basement forever or send them to the dump?

They sure couldn’t sell them to fund their other activities, for that would be “profiting from their crime.” They couldn’t even give them away, because that is also a form of trade, wherein the return is spiritual rather than monetary.

I can’t help but think that the people objecting to the boys’ selling of stop signs is related to the message. They don’t like it that the boys’ message is so popular that people are willing to pay for them.

Please prove me wrong.

#88,

Your comment looks more and more ominous all the time.

What the hell does “to certain groups” mean?

Could you make a list of the unacceptable groups for us, so we’ll all know what’s OK?

Thanks.

It is my understanding that a vandalized sign can be resurfaced with a machine that the City uses to reapply the reflective decal that was originally defaced, so the City could have reused signs, but because of the sheer number of signs that were vandalized, it became more cost effective to sell them as scrap metal. However, they are now going to the new owners.

For hmm’s comment #87, I knew college kids that would steal street signs just because they thought it was cool to have what not many other people had; they hung them in their dorm rooms. You can imagine the grief if the missing sign caused an accident before it was noticed & replaced.

idahogie, comment #90, gatos don’t know much about insurance and legal matters. Ask me about flavors of mice.

Nemesis, I perceive the silver tongue resides within your own articulate lips, for your gracious and greatly encouraging words were as gentle, soothing balm upon my chaotic and fearful frame. Sie haben meine Dankbarkeit.

Kat (Katze?) Ich bin froh, dass es, haben Sie mir, auch.

Idahogie…hey, I hope you know we’re many of us fighting on the same side here. There’s just one part that seems very wrong to some of us. In #90 when you were discussing the insurance analogy you say:

“You can’t say just because the boys were committing a crime, because the above analogy could have been a crime.”

Vandalism (even in the name of political protest) is a crime. And when a crime of vandalism is determined to have been committed (in this case, the boys admitted to the crime and were sentenced), I feel it’s wrong to give the criminals the vandalized item(s). It’s supposed to be a punishment to pay for the items, they shouldn’t get to have the items to sell to offset the punishment.

If the city felt the repair was too difficult, and decided to replace, the city had other options as to what to do with those signs. They couldn’t really sell them (probable legal issues as another has alleged) but could they have donated them to a non profit group (such as the one that came into being during this situation) ???

Although given the “anti” anti-war beliefs of some, such a donation would draw fire, too.

So maybe there would have been no resolution to the disposition of those signs that would have been appreciated by everyone.

Nemesis -

I’m sure it’s the case that many here who have trouble with the stop signs being given to the boys also oppose the war. I’m sorry if I implied otherwise.

I do feel there is a strong corrolation between strict “law and order” types and people who hold a conservative world view. And conservatives tend to support Bush’s War in larger numbers than the population as a whole. Still, that’s two assumptions that should not be used to make blanket statements about people posting here.

The insurance issue seems to be derailing the main point. I only brought them up because it proves that the party that pays the restitution has a legal right to the destroyed property. REGARDLESS OF MOTIVE.

Our legal system is over 200 years old (and the Magna Carta’s almost 800 years old). I think this issue is probably well settled. I assume that the decision was made not by the judge or the city, but by long-established legal precedent.

Why this seems to be so hard to grasp is perplexing to me.

I sure wish my teen was politically motivated by or even fully aware of the civil war we have created in Iraq to due something like paint stop signs. In a conservative, pro-war town like IF sometimes it takes extreme measures to lt the get the word out to the general population that some of us are ashamed this war and thought Bush was a bumbling idiot from the get-go.

Hello, Dan??? Why isn’t your organization building a float? Don’t depend upon the city to do this.

Your organization sprung up as a result of these boys’ situation, and you have every opportunity now to further their cause.

In fact, I’ll help with the float, if you just let us know where and when you’re building it. I can donate time toward building the float. You bought one of the “stop war” signs, you can display it proudly.

By the way, thanks for sharing that quote. I’m glad the boys had some positive impact on some who saw the signs.

i have only read a couple of the other comments, but what those boys did was defacing public property. It doesn’t matter if there is a war. That was an excuse, also don’t compare vandalism with the revolutionary war or Rosa Parks. That sounds just like the logic of PETA when the compare the cruelty of animals to the Nazis persecuting Jews. I am disguisted if they receive any awards or positive encouragement for what they did.

Has anyone seen those yellow signs with the man on them that people has spray painted penises on. Should we encourage those people if they were making a statement about the sex education taught in our schools and abstinence.

No, the simple fatc is it destruction of property and doing so infringes on the rights of others. I dont why they were given the signs or what their punishment was, but celebrating a destrustion of property is teaching them the wrong lesson.

In my opinion I would rather have the shoes being thrown over the telephone/electric cables as long as it wasnt destructive, but it is and shows a disregard for others and community.

If those boys arent punished by people/their parents/the law, then karma will punish them

Today, Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba said this:

After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes.  The only question is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”

What does it take for somebody to be so indignant about a few pieces of property, given that our country invaded and currently occupies a country that was no threat to us, where over 100,000 people have been killed in our name? When an American citizen has been taken off the streets of Chicago and held in solitary confinement and most likely tortured for over 3 years without being charged? Where foreign citizens have been tortured for years, then released because no evidence of guilt was ever found?

We live in a community that voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2004, when all of this evil was plainly happening, and many refused to see. Sometimes we all need a smack upside the head. What the boys did was a huge wake-up call, and for that, we should be thankful.

Of course, some will continue to be small-minded and petty, so intent on “law and order” (or so defensive about their support for GOP policies) that they forget what is important.

Pity them.

Anonymous -

They are high school kids, growing up in a very conservative area, with conservative parents. I would have liked for them to admit their actions up front, but they did admit their guilt and take their punishment.

Besides, as soon as you have the courage to sign your posts, then I’ll listen to your opinion on courage.

yeah, I guess Idahogie is YOUR real name ha ha.

very hilarious.

Hey Nemesis,

I meant to add in my #102 comment that I appreciate your suggestions and enthusiasm. Somehow I forgot. If you’d care to visit us some Thursday evening at Marcellar’s, I’d love to meet you.

Dan, I appreciate the invite, can’t make it tomorrow but I’m definitely looking forward to meeting you and your group members.

I may not agree with you on this issue but I have been appreciative of your activism in other things.

And, it’s time that I got my creaky old body off my duff and become active again.

(I was a charter subscriber to Mother Jones back in the 70s…that should tell you something about me…)

Years ago I read an article in the Ensign about “The ill winds of Gossip.” That article stood out and I will always remember it.

I’m sorry to read comment #114, and hope it isn’t really so.

I guess I don’t understand why you keep trying to pick these kids apart Anonymous. Were you the perfect poster child? And what difference does it make if Dan has any stake in it? Clearly he believes in the cause which is why he bought the sign.

Some people just cannot be reasoned with.

um, is any moderator reading this post? post 118 is using some of the same allusions that crystal used in the chatbox………shouldn’t that be deleted???

I am not “picking” anyone apart. Danhogie suggested that the kids were “brave” in their act of vandalism and I am simply still waiting for an answer to my question: did these “brave” kids commit their vandalism in the open or did they do it covertly and not even own up to it until they realized they were “caught” and then conveniently turned it into an act of patriotism? Simple question but no answer yet.

His attempt to justify the purchase of a vandalized sign as some act of patriotism or courage, is definitely one rationale for Idahogie’s position on the matter. Always nice to know one’s basis for a position.

where do I say it is a waste of time? don’t put words in my mouth……….still no answer to the question, BTW

So Anonymous and Volunteer are the same person? Or did you misread who my comment #122 was addressed to?

I noticed that too Idahogie.

Disagreeing if fine and some posters are offering good discussion whether or not they agree. It’s okay to disagree but at least one seems to just be badgering others, both here and in the chatbox. Time to ignore.

If a person posts a comment without entering a username, the default username is Anonymous. I found this out by accident. It does not necessarily mean someone is sock-puppeting (although maybe they are.) In my case, I was at work and did not want to leave my home username on the screen. (I later found I can delete it.) Beginner’s discoveries! (BTW, I’m not any of the Anonymouses that have posted above.)

And, rule #1 satisfier: In the future, I hope those boys use their artistic talents for non-vandalizing purposes.

how is it a no-no? what rule would it violate, oh mighty idahohogie?

btw, I am NOT “volunteer”; I simply misread who you were ranting at…..but hilarious to watch you two get all upset about (gasp) anonymous internet postings!! like Joe already told you, anyone who chooses not to pick a fun screen name gets posted as anonymous….Joe himself did in his post 129……

Regardless of whether or not Volunteer and Anonymous are the same person, it does look like baiting.

Anonymous,

I’m not sure what your point is. You sure are getting aggressive, though.

There is a community here, and I’m sure that most of the participants, and Joe as well, want a decent conversation. That requires us all to observe some basic rules of civility. You seem to be failing to observe many of them. Here’s a selection of your actions:

You asked for an answer all day yesterday to a question that I’d answered within 10 minutes

You haven’t answered any questions from me (e.g., what would that hypothetical church do with its stop signs)

You made a lame “gotcha” joke about me being hypocritical with respect to anonymity, when my name is in the original post - you have yet to appologize

You were wrong about the definition of ‘restitution’

Volunteer writes over 200 words about how we’re all “self-gratifying” here (#118), yet you call my calm response of less than 30 words (#122) a “rant”

You respond to a comment that wasn’t directed at you, demanding that people not put words in your mouth, and then you come back, not with “sorry, I made a mistake” but with an aggressive and insulting comment (#131)

You willfully misrepresent my position on anonymity (I’m fine with it - what I don’t like is someone who uses anonymity but demands courage in others)

Now you’re expressing confusion about what’s so wrong about sock puppetry

Seriously, Anonymous, I fail to see what you really want here. All in all, I think it’s a good thing that you have chosen to remain anonymous. I wouldn’t want to be associated with the list above.

I read the posts (DISCLAIMER seems to be necessary these days!: I am neither volunteer nor anonymous) on this issue and I have to say, I didn’t see an answer to the question of whether or not the “vandals” (not U of I ha ha) committed their crimes publicly or not. I did see, idahogie, your mention of IF being a very conservative place, which is true. But did these kids publicize their “protest” in any manner before they were caught?

I also fail to see any aggression; I have noticed everyone on this site is getting easily offended; that didn’t used to be the case (look at the global warming post, for example or the original food stamp post) and I also note a LOT more “anonymous” posts, which also tells me there is a high degree of . . . unfriendliness, for lack of a better word, to people who disagree with the more frequent posters.

Just some thoughts of someone who has periodically visisted this site over the last three years. Maybe we could all relax a little, stop jumping on people who have an opinion different than yours and maybe just try to be a little friendlier to each other?

Thank you Alex. I’ve thought all along that it’s not the offenders’ fault they were given the signs even though they did pay for them. I don’t know for sure but It was probably some darn republican appointed judge that was responsible.

While I am not condoning vandalism it would not have made as much of an impact for these young men to conduct their protest publicly and immediately turn themselves in. 179 signs makes a lot bigger statement than just one.

Comment #129 was not posted by Joe. I posted it as an example about people letting the default name of Anonymous confuse them with a username of Anonymous. I’m sorry if that caused any grief, as it wasn’t meant to.

“Comment # 130 by idahogie on June 19, 2008 @ 8:49 am: #129 - That’s true, but this particular Anonymous responded….” You understood, idahogie, and I agree it can be hard to follow when there are so many default Anonymous names. That’s why referring to the comment number and responding to the words written there seem to work better for me than answering a ‘name’ that could be any number of users. I don’t know why anyone assumed comment #129 was written by Joe.

And, again, a rule #1 satisfier: “STOP signs are meant for stopping traffic, not Wars.” Don’t vandalize them.

impressive young men…….who vandalize traffic signs potentially impeding public safety.

okay.

would rather see a group of “impressive young men” who create a positive slogan for change and inspire others to follow their example (a peace rally, for instance, or a car wash)…anything “positive” rather than destructive.

Hope you don’t see any “aggression” anyone.

Anonymous please let it go. What are you trying to prove?

I answered your question for you. If they had only painted one sign in broad daylight and then turned themselves in, we wouldn’t be discussing the issue right now, would we?

I’m very relaxed, anonymous. You seem to be the angry one - even others see that you are baiting.

#89 had the church question.

#91 has another question that you’ve failed to answer: which groups could buy the stop signs.

And in #135 I listed 8 things that you’ve done to create a less civil atmosphere in this conversation. I haven’t seen you address anything substantive on that either.

Honestly, the question that you keep demanding an answer to is so simple - I’m not sure why you’re pressing for it. Here’s what I wrote in #107:

I would have liked for them to admit their actions up front, but they did admit their guilt and take their punishment.

A careful reading indicates that the boys did not admit their actions up front, because I express the opinion that I would have liked them to do so. That’s fairly easy to interpret, actually.

Later, Alex himself answers your question in #138.

So it seem that you’ve had your question answered twice, while avoiding answering several points.

This is amazing. It’s a fact that some of these long term posters have gone after newbies who disagree with them and anyone who denies that is in a severe state of denial. Civility would be a nice thing to see amongst adults. Or did the junior high school class join us and I hadn’t heard about it yet? Quite honestly, that’s what Anonymous sounds like. Not you Find Humor, but the other Anonymous. And thank you for pointing out that it was you in that post.

Easterner, they did not impede public safety as has already been noted.

And Idahogie, I wouldn’t want to be associated with all those posts either if I were him/her acting in such a childish manner.

I think Idahogie has offered great debate whether or not anyone agrees with what he’s had to say. Why Anonymous and Volunteer can’t give a civil debate back (such as Nemesis and Gato did) escapes me.

Alex, thank you for posting. I appreciate you standing up for what you felt was right! I also appreciate your courage (yes, courage) to come into this maddening thread and post your thoughts. Just no more stop signs okay? I would like to see you in the July 4th Parade. That would be cool, I’d go cheer you on!

Anonymous,

So, I use the word “stupid” twice in a single comment three days ago, and your comment today is “relax dude.”

And now you’re misrepresenting your own words. Here’s what you said:

the bigger issue in this case, IMHO, really, … [was] the fact that they SOLD them at a substantial profit, to certain groups…..

You very well did say that it botherd you that “certain groups” bought them. If you meant only “the signs shouldn’t have been sold at all,” you would have left off the “to certain groups……”

The point of the church analogy is that you allow for only two possibilities (since you don’t really mind the fact that the boys got the signs as much): keep them forever or scrap them. I wondered if you’d feel the same if the message was benign.

Apparently you still don’t get the difference between anonymity and pseudonymity. My name is in the post itself. People are calling me Dan. You know my identity. I am identified by the name ‘idahogie’ just as much as by my full name. In fact, on the web, I am more identifiable by ‘idahogie.’ Just Google it. So I am hiding nothing by using ‘idahogie.’ You are hiding your identity. Which would be fine, but you are also questioning the courage of others.

If you had courage, you’d stand behind your words.

Finally, you don’t offend me in the least.

??? I never asked if I offended you………

glad you know better than I, what I meant when I wrote…..that’s quite a trick!!!

.again, I was referring to the original poster’s notation of the groups who actually bought the vandalized signs….sorry you misunderstood me.

I am assuming crystal and hmmm are one and the same.

LOL crystalhmmm you are funny!!!

I suppose it could be because we both agreed with Idahogie. Wow, I guess there couldn’t possibly be more than two democrats in this town.

Is Anonymous beating a horse with no name?

Anonymous - it’s time to give it up. You’re just not able to follow the conversation. Even your own parts of it.

Original post: “And one was bought by Dan Henry…”
idahogie #34: “I’m part of the subject of this post,…”
Nemesis #37: “Hey, Dan the Man,…”
Gato #51: “Is Dan/Idahogie saying”
Anonymous #109: “yeah, I guess Idahogie is YOUR real name ha ha.”
Anonymous #148: “You accused me of hiding behind a screen name; I simply pointed out the fact that you did the same.”

Anonymous #88: “the bigger issue in this case, IMHO, really, … [was] the fact that they SOLD them at a substantial profit, to certain groups…..”
Anonymous #148: “I didn’t state that “certain groups” should be banned from buying the signs”

Anonymous #104: “idahogie, did these peopel of “courage and integrity” (the kids who defaced the signs) do so proudly, during hte day, in full public view?”
idahogie #107: “I would have liked for them to admit their actions up front, but they did admit their guilt and take their punishment.”
Anonymous #121: “…and I am simply still waiting for an answer to my question…”
Anonymous #123: “….still no answer to the question…”
Alex #138: “Either way, if you want my opinion, we never intended to be courageous.”
Anonymous #144: “you still haven’t answered the question”

idahogie #122: “Seriously, Volunteer, this is the second time…”
Anonymous #123: “where do I say it is a waste of time? don’t put words in my mouth…”

Anonymous #148 “Dan, I simply don’t understand why you are so offended that I don’t agree …”
Anonymous #153: “??? I never asked if I offended you………”

Anonymous has yet to acknowledge anything I listed in #135 as being his fault, and hasn’t apologized for any of them.

This is pathetic.

crystal,

if you feel anonymous’ posts are so pointless and “beating a dead horse”, um, why do you keep inserting yourself into it and posting more?

how does your cut and pasted (sigh) definition of “malignant” add anything to the conversation? how is that not a “personal attack”?

I said recently that this site was more tame than ones I’ve been to elsewhere, but I’m wondering, should I rethink my position?

This post has degenerated into a sad imitation of a jr high school fight. Name calling, finger pointing, and snide accusations abound. Normally reasonable people on both sides are becoming shrill and defensive.

But wait! School IS out for the summer, so maybe my assessment is correct, and we have been overrun by the junior varsity.

I’m not asking for kumbyah choruses, here…but a return to a more civil debate would be welcome.

Hmm #168, I have commented on other posts when I felt what I was reading constituted bickering. It has nothing to do with any of the particular commenters.

I respect Idahogie for the passionate pursuit of his political beliefs.

I respect Crystal for continuing to comment here even after she got off to a rough start and has been vilified by many other commenters.

I can’t say I respect Anonymous because anyone and everyone can post comments as Anonymous and there’s no way to say which comments belong to one person vs another.

But many of the comments on this post have just been bickering…personal attacks back and forth, sometimes while writing a defensive comment about one attack, the person has gone on the attack themselves.

The post has devolved into a squabble between commenters. And just because someone else “instigated this little war” does not mean the rest of us have to continue to fight it…(wait! where have I heard this concept voiced before, recently?)

I agree it’s time to move on.

Please don’t clarify. That is a perfect example of dragging out a stupid online catfight. This thread makes me want to slit my wrists!

On Topic:

I have to wonder if the people who got their undies bunched up over these kids selling a few stupid stop signs got their undies bunched up just as much over Haliburton and friends keeping the billions of dollars they overcharged our government in Iraq?

How else are we seeing perverted American ethics defined by our national government and being then at local levels? Monkey see, monkey do.

thanks hmmm, I do appreciate that.

Craig, thanks for taking the time to write. We appreciate your viewpoint. However, I feel you need to distinguish between the author and the commenters on this site, we all have different viewpoints, too.

You made your choice of action, and you take your consequences that go with it. That’s life. Sometimes life isn’t fair, and sometimes it’s overly generous. You’ll get to experience both sides as you go through it, and you’ve already gotten both extremes just in this one act and the resulting attention.

On this site, it appears you feel vilified by people whom you believe to be equally imperfect. That’s likely to be the case that we are all imperfect, but not all of us commenters have broken the law, or stood up for our political beliefs in a public way, and finally, not all of us said bad things about the “vandals”.

Many of us are commenting on the concept of the dispostion of the vandalized signs. That part has everything to do with our sense of justice, and nothing in particular to do with the actual people who vandalized the signs.

I hope you are able to learn from this whole situation and move on. You should know that it will follow you (an arrest record if nothing else will) but you can make it a positive learning opportunity if you choose to grow stronger from the sum total of your experience and not focus on the inevitable negative aspects, such as anonymous folks making public opinion comments.

After all, wasn’t there a whole group of people who formed, just to support you and help you find ways to exercise your right to make political statements? What a wonderful thing!

I wish you peace.

Hi Craig;

I think it took a lot of courage for those of you involved to post here. I agree that “people like to make crazy thoughts and ideas” about virtually anything that gives them a feeling of superiority over another. I appreciate you acknowledging your mistake. There are those who truly seem to believe that acknowledging and taking responsibility for a mistake and paying the price, is not enough. Again, I believe others often feel a sense of superiority if they can rub your nose in it without ever acknowledging or accepting that they too, may be wrong in many areas. It’s far easier to make another out to be the big bad villain.

I am also sorry that your were treated so poorly when you were already going through hell with the recent surgery. But again, I do believe people take great pride in kicking others while they are already down. If you are at your most vulnerable for whatever reason, it makes it easier for others to do this.

You got the blunt of the media because you were the “adult” and they cannot mention names of minors. You have to understand that people can be quite mean and it does most often serve to cover up their own wrongdoings and mistakes.

I am with Nemesis in that I hope you find peace with this, learn from this, and have the ability to hold your head up high, and move forward with your life. At one time or other in our lives, we are all targeted by other’s cruelty. Sometimes we at least in part, bring it on ourselves and it’s blown into a far bigger mess than it was to begin with, while at other times it’s out of our hands and we are left to simply wonder what went wrong.

Thanks for writing.

I’d sell the signs if they were given to me. Regardless of involvement in the crime, it was a good business decision to sell the signs to pay for fines and any necessary court costs.

Can’t knock them for paying up, that’s a lesson in and of itself.