Student Choir Stopped from Signing the National Anthem @ The Wall

[Camp]

BTW:...is it ok for a choir to go to the Alamo and sing "Yellow Rose of Texas"?

Why wouldn't it be? Do you think all latinos are somehow sad that Mexico lost Texas or something? Hint: They aren't, far from it. They didn't have much use for Lincoln, either, for that matter, whether Texan or not.

Show Schedule

they didn't give a fig about 'The Slaves', either, nor did the native Americans in Oklahoma, or any other minority. They also aren't that fond of criminal illegal aliens, but Democrats ignore that and pretend otherwise.

Ever been to the Alamo? They require you speak in hushed tones, men remove their hats. The Daughters of the Lone Star or whatever they call themselves would beat you senseless with their purses.

(Note: this may have changed but it was certainly like that in the 90s last time I was there)

That's definitely my impression from talking to Texans --- they think of it like a religion, complete with their own Sharia.

I haven't actually been in the place. I'm pretty sure you have to go to confession first.

Read the book "Texas" by James Michener. He's not off on the Texas attitude in that book.

The Source and Chesapeake were the two I read, but The Bridge at Andau was the one I read at age 12 and turned me on to Michener.

 

[Camp]

There is nothing extreme about a group of citizens wanting to express their patriotism at a Memorial through the use of their constitutional free speech.
The "they" in my comment referred to the security and managers at the Memorial. They need to be put in their places and taught that they are not bosses over free speech.

There is no "free speech" issue here. Unless you want to argue that the regulation requiring a performance permit is, but then it ain't their job to enforce selectively depending on whether you or they agree with what the performance is. It's their job to enforce, period.

Alright. I agree it's not a free speech issue. The selection of song and the constitution of the choir make it easy to make this an 'emotional' argument. You are right that regulations are regulations and it is security's job to enforce the regulations, else mayhem and chaos could ultimately reign. BUT
I, alas, would be the security guard who said "Sure, go ahead" and would no doubt be out of job this morning, because there is nothing this chorus wanted to do that seems inherently harmful or an invitation to others to do anything harmful or disturbing. The kids probably thought of it on the spur of the moment, maybe on the bus on the way there or maybe once they had begun touring the memorial. It was their gift, their offering, to the victims and the country. It was one song, not an advertised 'performance' and took no skin off anyone's nose. That's what I hate about bureaucratic rules sometimes. They hire people who can think and use good judgment in a pinch, but then they aren't allowed to use it.

I don't disagree with any of that. My original question, really to the OP and anyone who agreed with his characterization, was why following an existing regulation should be deemed "shameful".

What I've been trying to get at the whole time is the concept of emotionality as a basis for judgment. Nobody wanted to grapple with that.

Shame is a subjective emotion. You seem to be seeking an objective explanation. People have differing opinions of what might be shameful and what is not.

Eggs Ackley. That's what I was going for --- exactly how they got to the term "shameful". I can only assume from the dead silence on that question that nobody wants to confront it because it would reveal too much. Too much that they prefer to hide from.

I was at a kids park, actually a toddler's park, and there were only two other kids besides mine that were playing. A load of kids showed up and were playing, maybe twenty kids, a big group. At the same time the parents were setting the pavilion up for some kind of party. Turned out to be a birthday party. So, when the party was ready the parents yelled "C'mon kids, time for the party". All the kids rushed to the pavilion for the party, but one parent informed the three "strange kids" that they were not invited. I told the parents they were shameless for not teaching their children a sharing lesson and being mean to three little kids. Maybe some folks would disagree with me. After all, it was a private party and why should those controlling the party be obligated to give away three little pieces of cake and three little scoops of ice cream.

 

[Pogo]

There is no "free speech" issue here. Unless you want to argue that the regulation requiring a performance permit is, but then it ain't their job to enforce selectively depending on whether you or they agree with what the performance is. It's their job to enforce, period.

Alright. I agree it's not a free speech issue. The selection of song and the constitution of the choir make it easy to make this an 'emotional' argument. You are right that regulations are regulations and it is security's job to enforce the regulations, else mayhem and chaos could ultimately reign. BUT
I, alas, would be the security guard who said "Sure, go ahead" and would no doubt be out of job this morning, because there is nothing this chorus wanted to do that seems inherently harmful or an invitation to others to do anything harmful or disturbing. The kids probably thought of it on the spur of the moment, maybe on the bus on the way there or maybe once they had begun touring the memorial. It was their gift, their offering, to the victims and the country. It was one song, not an advertised 'performance' and took no skin off anyone's nose. That's what I hate about bureaucratic rules sometimes. They hire people who can think and use good judgment in a pinch, but then they aren't allowed to use it.

I don't disagree with any of that. My original question, really to the OP and anyone who agreed with his characterization, was why following an existing regulation should be deemed "shameful".

What I've been trying to get at the whole time is the concept of emotionality as a basis for judgment. Nobody wanted to grapple with that.

Shame is a subjective emotion. You seem to be seeking an objective explanation. People have differing opinions of what might be shameful and what is not.

Eggs Ackley. That's what I was going for --- exactly how they got to the term "shameful". I can only assume from the dead silence on that question that nobody wants to confront it because it would reveal too much. Too much that they prefer to hide from.

I was at a kids park, actually a toddler's park, and there were only two other kids besides mine that were playing. A load of kids showed up and were playing, maybe twenty kids, a big group. At the same time the parents were setting the pavilion up for some kind of party. Turned out to be a birthday party. So, when the party was ready the parents yelled "C'mon kids, time for the party". All the kids rushed to the pavilion for the party, but one parent informed the three "strange kids" that they were not invited. I told the parents they were shameless for not teaching their children a sharing lesson and being mean to three little kids. Maybe some folks would disagree with me. After all, it was a private party and why should those controlling the party be obligated to give away three little pieces of cake and three little scoops of ice cream.

Well I'd readily agree that's selfish and arrogant on their part. Not the same thing as the example here though.

 

[CremeBrulee]

BTW:...is it ok for a choir to go to the Alamo and sing "Yellow Rose of Texas"?

Why wouldn't it be? Do you think all latinos are somehow sad that Mexico lost Texas or something? Hint: They aren't, far from it. They didn't have much use for Lincoln, either, for that matter, whether Texan or not.

Show Schedule

they didn't give a fig about 'The Slaves', either, nor did the native Americans in Oklahoma, or any other minority. They also aren't that fond of criminal illegal aliens, but Democrats ignore that and pretend otherwise.

Ever been to the Alamo? They require you speak in hushed tones, men remove their hats. The Daughters of the Lone Star or whatever they call themselves would beat you senseless with their purses.

(Note: this may have changed but it was certainly like that in the 90s last time I was there)

Daughters of the Republic is what you are looking for. It is now controlled by the Texas General Land Office and, yes, you still have to speak quietly.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

I was at a kids park, actually a toddler's park, and there were only two other kids besides mine that were playing. A load of kids showed up and were playing, maybe twenty kids, a big group. At the same time the parents were setting the pavilion up for some kind of party. Turned out to be a birthday party. So, when the party was ready the parents yelled "C'mon kids, time for the party". All the kids rushed to the pavilion for the party, but one parent informed the three "strange kids" that they were not invited. I told the parents they were shameless for not teaching their children a sharing lesson and being mean to three little kids. Maybe some folks would disagree with me. After all, it was a private party and why should those controlling the party be obligated to give away three little pieces of cake and three little scoops of ice cream.

I don't blame you for getting on to them people. If they wanted a place all to themselves for the party, they should have had the party at place that they could get their hands on in such a way. The cake may have had their child's name on it, but that park y'all were at most definitely did not. That is what I would have said if it were me in the spot that they put you and your children in.

God bless you and your family always!!!

Holly

 

[Camp]

I was at a kids park, actually a toddler's park, and there were only two other kids besides mine that were playing. A load of kids showed up and were playing, maybe twenty kids, a big group. At the same time the parents were setting the pavilion up for some kind of party. Turned out to be a birthday party. So, when the party was ready the parents yelled "C'mon kids, time for the party". All the kids rushed to the pavilion for the party, but one parent informed the three "strange kids" that they were not invited. I told the parents they were shameless for not teaching their children a sharing lesson and being mean to three little kids. Maybe some folks would disagree with me. After all, it was a private party and why should those controlling the party be obligated to give away three little pieces of cake and three little scoops of ice cream.

I don't blame you for getting on to them people. If they wanted a place all to themselves for the party, they should have had the party at place that they could get their hands on in such a way. The cake may have had their child's name on it, but that park y'all were at most definitely did not. That is what I would have said if it were me in the spot that they put you and your children in.

God bless you and your family always!!!

Holly

They should not have invited all the kids to the party and then changed their mind. Like I said, the three extra kids were three- year-old toddlers. How much cake and ice cream could they have eaten
It worked out OK. There was a convenience store across the street and I went over and bought about 15 Crispy Cream donuts, a big bag of Dorito's and a half gallon of apple juice and plastic cups. We had our own party in the other pavilion and invited the new arrival kids to the park as they entered the park with their parent. We called it a special Park Day party and had enough donuts for all the kids who showed up. The Doritos ran out, so one of the mom's went back to the store and got chips and more juice. Every kid at the park had a party that day.
I only brought it up as an example of how "shameful" is a matter of interpretation.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ I hope that whoever was in charge of the original party saw what you did.....and learned from it.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Performance definition, a musical, dramatic, or other entertainment presented before an audience. See more

They were not performing before an audience. I understand your point, but a sad point it is, and they asked first. One allowed it, another didn't.

We get upset when Obama ignores our Laws and signs illegal orders so it would be hypocritical for us to say a regulation can be ignored because someone in authority says you can.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Read the book "Texas" by James Michener. He's not off on the Texas attitude in that book.

. Your comment reminded me of this.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

There is no "free speech" issue here. Unless you want to argue that the regulation requiring a performance permit is, but then it ain't their job to enforce selectively depending on whether you or they agree with what the performance is. It's their job to enforce, period.

Alright. I agree it's not a free speech issue. The selection of song and the constitution of the choir make it easy to make this an 'emotional' argument. You are right that regulations are regulations and it is security's job to enforce the regulations, else mayhem and chaos could ultimately reign. BUT
I, alas, would be the security guard who said "Sure, go ahead" and would no doubt be out of job this morning, because there is nothing this chorus wanted to do that seems inherently harmful or an invitation to others to do anything harmful or disturbing. The kids probably thought of it on the spur of the moment, maybe on the bus on the way there or maybe once they had begun touring the memorial. It was their gift, their offering, to the victims and the country. It was one song, not an advertised 'performance' and took no skin off anyone's nose. That's what I hate about bureaucratic rules sometimes. They hire people who can think and use good judgment in a pinch, but then they aren't allowed to use it.

I don't disagree with any of that. My original question, really to the OP and anyone who agreed with his characterization, was why following an existing regulation should be deemed "shameful".

What I've been trying to get at the whole time is the concept of emotionality as a basis for judgment. Nobody wanted to grapple with that.

Shame is a subjective emotion. You seem to be seeking an objective explanation. People have differing opinions of what might be shameful and what is not.

Eggs Ackley. That's what I was going for --- exactly how they got to the term "shameful". I can only assume from the dead silence on that question that nobody wants to confront it because it would reveal too much. Too much that they prefer to hide from.

I was at a kids park, actually a toddler's park, and there were only two other kids besides mine that were playing. A load of kids showed up and were playing, maybe twenty kids, a big group. At the same time the parents were setting the pavilion up for some kind of party. Turned out to be a birthday party. So, when the party was ready the parents yelled "C'mon kids, time for the party". All the kids rushed to the pavilion for the party, but one parent informed the three "strange kids" that they were not invited. I told the parents they were shameless for not teaching their children a sharing lesson and being mean to three little kids. Maybe some folks would disagree with me. After all, it was a private party and why should those controlling the party be obligated to give away three little pieces of cake and three little scoops of ice cream.

The party planers lack of generousity was shameful. At a minimum they could have given them some cake and punch without inviting them to sit with the other children.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Daughters of the Republic is what you are looking for. It is now controlled by the Texas General Land Office and, yes, you still have to speak quiet

Even in the basement?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Read the book "Texas" by James Michener. He's not off on the Texas attitude in that book.

. Your comment reminded me of this.

To me, that is one of the best parts of the film!

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[CremeBrulee]

Daughters of the Republic is what you are looking for. It is now controlled by the Texas General Land Office and, yes, you still have to speak quiet

Even in the basement?

No. But Pee Wee is the only one allowed down there.

 

[my2¢]

Idiots but lesson learned. Next time: flash mob!

I think it would be even better to have the kids spread randomly apart and without the choir director flapping any wings. The performance would totally spotlight the kids singing and the security guards would be out-flanked.

 

[depotoo]

I would imagine they did not study the regulations before they went and relied upon the guard saying whether they could or not.

Performance definition, a musical, dramatic, or other entertainment presented before an audience. See more

They were not performing before an audience. I understand your point, but a sad point it is, and they asked first. One allowed it, another didn't.

We get upset when Obama ignores our Laws and signs illegal orders so it would be hypocritical for us to say a regulation can be ignored because someone in authority says you can.