Why aren't the nation's flags at half-mast?

[pegkerr]

akamarykate raises a good point.

Why aren't the nation's flags at half-mast? She wrote this on the tail end of one of her entries here:

While I was out today I started feeling like something was off. And then it hit me: not a single flag was at half-staff. It's a little thing; certainly compared to just the generosity coming out of this city financially and otherwise it doesn't matter at all. It's just a bit of symbolism, after all. But it felt wrong. It felt really wrong, the more I noticed it. Are they waiting for some kind of official declaration? Because that sure wasn't the case the morning of the London bombings. I wonder if people are just so stunned they aren't thinking of the ceremonial stuff.

I replied:

The flags are at half-staff in Minnesota, because we had another soldier killed in Iraq. I remember hearing it on the radio: "Minnesota is lowering the flag for private so-and-so." And I heard that, and I thought, (no disrespect to private so-and-so) WTF, we're losing more people than we've lost in a natural disaster in over a century, since the Galveston flood, and this may be worse. And one dead private outweighs all those THOUSANDS of black folk down South? I mean there was no question about every flag going down on 9/11, right?

She replied:

Wow--this is just baffling.

I mean there was no question about every flag going down on 9/11, right?

And rightly so. So why not this? How can anyone who's paying attention at this point not understand the extent of this? I don't know if people are afraid to start mourning, because once we do I'm not sure when it's going to end, or--I'm not sure what the "or" is. But when the flags on fire stations aren't down, when the flag at the #@!*! Shell station is whipping around at the top of the mast while they raise the cost of gasoline every hour, it seems more than a little callous.

So how about it, folks? Should the flags not be at half-mast because this is a natural disaster and not an act of war (other than the man-made disaster of our government's screw ups, of course). SHOULD THE FLAGS BE AT HALF-MAST, and if so, WHY AREN'T THEY?

Edited to add: minnehaha K. pointed out that according to the Flag Code, the flags do not have to be lowered for a natural disaster. dreamcoat_mom had a thoughtful response here that I recommend. She has a very good point, too, that the partisan potshots should until the survivors are safe and the dead have been laid to rest. (And she's saying this as someone who does not support Bush and is genuinely sad for our country.)

I'm sorry. It is so so hard for me. I always thought of myself as being a pretty rational person about politics, but it is so very hard, when I see what is happening in the country, not to scream in rage at the radio. I just about lunge to turn it off when I hear Bush's voice because I'm so angry at so many things he has done. So it is hard to evaluate this objectively.

I just thought about it, though and realized I can honestly say this: even if we had a President I really really liked, I would still be disappointed not to have the flags lowered. Formal flag code etiquette, phooey. This nation is in mourning--or it should be--and with the scale of the loss being what it is, I think that it should be acknowledged with our national symbols.

Edited to add: Never mind. Now that Rehnquist has died, they'll probably lower them for him.

Comments

[bookshop.livejournal.com]

I agree. Even though it's not a military loss or a governmental loss, there is still one other formal loss to observe, and that is that one of our country's grandest cities with one of its richest heritages may be completely destroyed.

I mean, you'd think that if the thousands upon thousands of lives lost don't matter to the people making the decisions, the fact that New Orleans is completely underwater would at least call for some sort of public observance of loss.