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

[sternel.livejournal.com]

Half-mast is at the discretion of the President, I believe.

Which should answer all of your questions, unfortunately.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I think you are right on target.

[lea724.livejournal.com]

I don't want to make it seem like a competition between Katrina vs. the Florida hurricanes from last year, but I don't remember any flags being at half-mast when Florida got hit last year (I live in Central Florida and got hit with three of those suckers).

But I also think that it being a natural disaster, they shouldn't be. If flags were put at half-mast for every natural disaster that the U.S. experienced, they'd always be at half-mast.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Even the greatest one in the past century?

[lea724.livejournal.com]

There are exceptions for everything, of course.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

If the flag is not lowered for those killed in all natural disasters in the U.S., I don't think it should be lowered for any. "Every man's death diminishes me," as the poet said; I don't think the scale of the losses should determine the respect paid.

[gamps-garret.livejournal.com]

I have to agree. I've always considered lowering the flags an act of acknowledging intent and the response to it, in terms of disaster. In wartime, in response to an attack on American soil or the American people (home or abroad), in recognition of the passing of a leader, in observance of memorials, etc. the statement seems clear -- we are mourning the loss of something great, that was taken from us against our will by other human beings. (Well, not the natural death of a leader, but that's another set of circumstances.) We can't claim that Mother Nature objectively attacked us.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

It's not appropriate, says the Flag Code.

I certainly have an emotional belief that our flags were lowered in tribute to the victims of 9/11, but I have no proof. I am certain they were lowered for the death of the Pope recently; I commented on it at the time. The salute is for a dignitary, generally. The governor lowering the flag in MN for a dead soldier seems well-intentioned but misguided.

K.

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with law. In the event of the death of a present or former official of the government of any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the Governor of that State, territory, or possession may proclaim that the National flag shall be flown at half-staff. The flag shall be flown at half-staff 30 days from the death of the President or a former President; 10 days from the day of death of the Vice President, the Chief Justice or a retired Chief Justice of the United States, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives; from the day of death until interment of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of an executive or military department, a former Vice President, or the Governor of a State, territory, or possession; and on the day of death and the following day for a Member of Congress. The flag shall be flown at half-staff on Peace Officers Memorial Day, unless that day is also Armed Forces Day.

But this is a minimum, obviously. The President can call for a time of mourning whenever he wants, and he has chosen not to in this instance. I imagine he'll get around to it when the public wakes up as you have.

On the flip side, I've seen Flag Code commentary that suggests that private citizens have the right to fly their personal flags at half staff whenever they wish. Perhaps if the people lead, the leaders will follow.

[dreamcoat-mom.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmm. I remember there being an ENORMOUS LJ brouhaha over the president's decision to lower flags to half-mast for the victims of the tsunami - lots of bitchy twaddle about how we lower the flags for EVERYTHING now, and the symbolism has lost its meaning, yadda yadda yadda. Bush is stoopid, stoopid, stoopid...etc.

Here we are again.

I don't like Bush - never have - but for heaven's sake - I have a sneaking suspicion that if he'd ordered the flags lowered there would be more of the same. Instead there's this. In the interest of fairness, I feel like I have to point it out - it this REALLY something people feel strongly about, or just more ammo for unhappy voters at a REALLY inappropriate time?

Personally, I feel that the flags SHOULD be lowered - and that they probably will be. Right now, the nation hasn't reached the point at which it can indulge in the luxury of mourning its dead - we are still trying to save the living.

Bush's performance here, as always, has been less than stellar - and while I agree that he should have responded MUCH faster and with MUCH more urgency, there was NO WAY to prepare for the scope of this disaster. They were interviewing the NOAA last night, and the core of engineers stated that they have been predicting for years that New Orleans was not constructed to withstand more than a category 3 storm - whether the levies had been reinforced or not. They were not designed to cope with winds of that speed.

What's disturbing to me about this latest gripe is that it illustrates a rather sinister trend. It has become a nasty habit on both sides of the political arena to finger point in the wake of tragedy. I actually read a comment on my flist that pointed the finger at the Clinton administration for setting up an unmanageable bureaucracy that Bush now has to cope with, and THAT's why the response was so slow. No, no, no, no, NOOO! The bottom line is that we, as a nation, got caught with our pants down. Republicans, Democrats, rich, poor, brilliant or stupid - doesn't matter. Mother Nature got the drop on us. I should think that the partisan potshots could at least wait until the survivors are safe and the dead have been laid to rest.

Sorry, Peg - but I'm just so sad for our country right now. Yes, we have a bad administration, but stuff like this isn't helping - it just distracts from the real work that must be done.

[akamarykate.livejournal.com]

The natural disaster/act of war distinction was the "or" my brain couldn't cough up last night. Okay, I do get the difference, and of course the victims of this disaster don't deserve more respect than the victims of any disaster. From a standpoint of when to officially raise or lower the flag, I do understand what's involved, and thanks to everyone here who's chimed in.

I have to say from an emotional standpoint, it still *feels* strange to be out and about and not see any public sign of grief (the flag at half staff is one of the usual ones around here, for everything from 9/11 to the deaths of firefighters a few states over to, in one case, the death of a local business magnate, but that's more a case of personal choice than government declartion). I'm sure those signs of mourning will emerge as the scale of the devastation becomes more and more apparent, and once those who can be rescued are saved.

Thank you, Peg, for posting about it--you reach a larger audience than I do and it's been really helpful to read these responses.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Technically, the flag should not be flown at half-mast because of Katrina. Whether it actually should or should not is another question entirely.

B

[pinkfinity.livejournal.com]

I posted the same thing this morning. What is wrong with the government?

[pinkfinity.livejournal.com]

Locally, they lower them for police officers killed in the line of duty all the time so it seems the rules are more like guidelines.

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

That might be true. What's to stop it from being down at Baseball and Football Stadiums? Or at a local business or home? Would that be considered unlawful since it wasn't directed from a 'higher' authority, but was an individual decision?

[pameladean]

I just deleted a comment about the idea that we shouldn't "take partisan potshots" right now, as being too long and contentious. I'm about to post it on my own journal.

P.

[pixisity.livejournal.com]

All good points, but I don't happen to buy into the 'not a good time for partisan pot-shots' claptrap. If not now, when? This is the perfect time, because it's now that the errors and mismanagement are at their most apparent. Where the actions or inactions are seen for what they are.

The facts pretty much speak for themselves. They knew this was coming for almost a week. Maybe a little less. They had all that time to prepare EVERYONE for this, and somehow they never had an evac plan? An emergency/hospital preparedness plan? It almost seems as if they were deer caught in a hunter's headlights, unable to decide what to do and that's just as disastrous as what's happened.

I am not stupid enough to believe this isn't all about race/gender/physical status. That part of the South, as far as I am aware is primarily black, primarily poor. And the sick, infirm and elderly? How could they NOT have something planned for them? It just boggles my mind, it really does.

I'm sorry this seems a bit contentious from a complete stranger but it's just too much. There are just too many questions, too much inept mismanagement from all concerned, from local on up to federal levels. Maybe it takes an outsider without any vested interests (if there is such) to tell it like it is....(I'm not American BTW)

[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.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Why don't you pose those very good questions to one of the organizations that interprets the flag code for us members of the general public and report back on what the answers are?

K.

[morganmalfoy.livejournal.com]

I went to a state park today and the american flag and florida flag were at half-mast.

[dreamcoat-mom.livejournal.com]

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.

I fervently hope that it will be, Peg. I too will be disappointed if it's not. And you're right - it's very hard not to watch that devastating footage and not feel the urge to rage at the ponderous response. There is just so much venom on both sides in the last few days that I was reminded of an incident that occurred when my son was three and playing T-Ball. A rare fly ball made it out of the infield and into the outfield where my son and his buddy Mitchell both went after it. They were both concentrating so hard on making the catch that they collided. Both little boys got up hopping mad, and proceeded to throw down their gloves and start fighting. Meanwhile, the kid who'd hit the ball was leisurely rounding the bases while the ball lay forgotten at their scuffling feet. Both little boys began to cry brokenheartedly when the coach broke up the fight and gently pointed out that the other team had scored while they fought. Nationally, I can't help but get the feeling that hatred and bitterness scores while the horror and devastation lies temporarily ignored at our scuffling feet.

There were some very angry entries in response to mine, and I'm so sorry for that, Peg. I know that you more than most, always have your eyes on the human factor, and I never meant to imply otherwise. I'll probably be quite vocal about the government's response when the situation is analyzed later - but in response to those angry entries I'll contend that the time is not yet upon us for casting stones.

[akamarykate.livejournal.com]

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.

Thank you, this is just what I was trying to get around to with my questions. I wasn't trying to point any fingers; I honestly wanted to know what the protocol is. Knowing it now, I still don't believe it would be wrong to lower the flags, and I'm surprised more businesses and indivuals haven't done it, given their penchant for lowering the flag for other reasons, though I understand where a government instiution might have to wait for official word.

For me, it's much more an emotional quesiton than a political one (and I still stand by what I said at first, that it is admittledly a very small thing)--people are grieving, and it's very strange not to have that reflected in some concrete way.

[pokeystar.livejournal.com]

I think multitasking got this country where it is - I believe that you can help and criticize - especially constructively - at the same time.

plus, If Bush lowered the flag for the Pope, who was not an American government official (and I am absolutely sure that he did - a co-worker was hopping mad about the flag code not being followed) then he can do it for this.

[volkhvoi.livejournal.com]

I think, on the whole, I would prefer to see substantive help, over symbolism, however meaningful, from the governments.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

The two should not be mutually exclusive.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

When a firefighter dies in the line of duty here the flag at all of the firestations is flown at half-mast and the home station of the firefighter is decorated with black bunting.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Since the general idea of the flag code as I've read and understood it (since I'm a patriotic pinko left-of-center feminist queer person) is that it says "you should lower it for this circumstance and this circumstance and other circumstances at the discretion of the president," well, I think this is a circumstance that warrants it.

But that's not quite the point. The point being is, 9/11 had an aftermath where the perception was that The People Responding did the /right/ things. This, the perception is that /nothing/ is going right. And we need to be able to mourn. (Eventually.) This process is just making the mourning more difficult.

[callunav.livejournal.com]

I'm coming to this late, after lots of discussion and your edits.

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.

I've been thinking about this.

I think it's true. But I think that it's important to understand what's a 'potshot' and what is legitimate rage.

Natural disasters happen. I grew up in tornado and blizzard country; in fact I never knew anyone, even remotely, killed or homeless or otherwise damaged by the disasters while I was a child - my home town lies in a peculiar topographical dip which shelters it from most severe weather - and yet I grew up with the constant awareness that these things /could/ happen at any time. I knew what to do if our car went off the road in a blizzard, from the age of 5 or so. I knew what to do in case of a tornado. The ability of the land to suddenly lift its hand and destroy anything or everything was never too far away, never forgotten or discounted.

If everything had been done right - if the past several administrations, not just this one, had put the money into the levees and the other preparations that every engineer could see was called for, if the fact that huge parts of the population who would be affected had no cars had been taken into account and effective major evacuation plans had been put into place before the hurricane ever hit, if all the information that was readily availble - to the public, much less those in charge - had been acted on promptly and intelligently--

--there would *still* be an enormous, unimaginable, crushing loss of life and city. Conditions would still be desparate for great numbers of people. And I'd still be grieving.

Natural disasters happen. They happen everywhere, and all the time, and we all do our best, and grieve.

This is something different.

This is betrayal.

No, /don't/ let's say, "It's not important, compared to helping people." Don't let's be good troopers. I'm not a trooper of any kind. Our nation's resources have been misused and misapplied, and every abuse of power is counted out in bodies. I'm not a trooper, I'm a voter. I'm an angry voter.

In the Declaration of Independence, it says, all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Especially when we are shocked, frightened, grieving, and overwhelmed, though there's an instinct to find someone to blame in superficial ways, there's a deeper instinct to convince ourselves that what has happened was unavoidable, that there's no point in being angry. It's one way of starting to accept the unacceptable, the unavoidable.

This is what allows power which betrays its constituents to remain in power.

This isn't about being bitchy. This isn't about potshots. As you yourself have said, the lowering of the flag is symbolic - one of the most purely symbolic things we could imagine. To be angry about the flags isn't being petty, it's being angry at what that symbol seems to be telling us.

I'm not telling anyone *else* to be angry, I'm talking about why I'm angry, and why I don't consider noticing and speaking out about the unjustifiable actions and failures to act of the administration to be taking potshots.

You said that lowering the flags and providing substantive aid don't need to be mutually exclusive. Neither do providing aid and being angry.

I've just applied to the Red Cross to go down to one of the Gulf state regions to provide whatever kind of relief work I can. I'm terrified of going, but if they'll take me, I'm going to go. If they don't need me in the Gulf area, then I can and will volunteer here. Providing aid to people in need is absolutely the first priority.

And just as important is not forgetting why so much aid is needed.