Dead Soldiers Worth $20
This is the epitome of profiteering off of war tragedies. Forget Halliburton, forget defense contracts, whatever the left-wing blames the war for. This is about something else, something closer to my heart. It’s about veterans and service members KIA in war.
This story tells about Dan Frazier, a businessman in Flagstaff, AZ who is selling Anti-war T-shirts that have the NAMES OF SERVICE MEMBERS that have died on them for $20 a piece. There is nothing I hate more than a liberal or conservative or whoever that uses the deaths of soldiers and Marines for political statements. The utter disrespect for the sacrifice is appalling.
Arizona is trying to outlaw the sale of such a shirt, and Frazier is defending it as his First Amendment rights. This speaks of a larger problem with American society. People have lost moral sense whatsoever. They do not look at what is socially irresponsible or wrong, but just what is legal and illegal. And people are just looking to make a buck, regardless of the emotional or moral cost. I suppose that’s the downside of having a market-driven economy/country. Sure, Frazier might have the right to sell such a shirt (which he may not even, since I don’t know if the First Amendment applies to making profit). But does that fact that he is a shitbag and WRONG say anything to him? No.
The end of the article reaffirms all assumptions I made about Frazier: he said that any publicity is good because it boosts the sales of his T-shirts.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
This is so clearly covered by the First amendment that the conversation isn’t even worth having. If speech that was done to earn a profit wasn’t covered, any publication in the country would be subject to regulation, and that’s clearly not the case.
Both Reason and Volokh have more on the AZ proposal. Short version: clearly unconstitutional.
Maybe the guy is a fuck, maybe he isn’t, but that’s completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not some prig legislator can stop him from saying what he wants.
Please tell me you were high when you wrote this.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I definitely see no reason this should be illegal, even though I count myself among the ranks of those who find it appalling that the anti-war crowd feels comfortable appropriating the names (and, often, portraits) or war dead to score cheap emotional and political points.
Such antics merely go to show that this country has indeed forfeit common sense and perspective, but they are free speech.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I’ll pay $15 for a T-shirt if it’s really frickin awesome. $20 is exorbitant.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I still want one of those reasonably priced Sudsy shirts.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
If you are trying to say that our society doesn’t have an implicit moral code or sense of social responsibility, then you are wrong. What about hate speech? I can’t go around wearing a shirt that says N*gger on it.
I’m not trying to say that this is the same as hate speech, but I’m saying that there are regulations about what can or can’t be said BECAUSE it would hurt a particular individual or group, or that group would find it excruciatingly offensive.
I wasn’t high when I wrote that, and instead of ad hominem, maybe you could explain to me why what I said was so wrong or nonsensical. Maybe I’ll learn something new, and maybe we’ll get a little bit further than you just bagging on me all the time.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
What about hate speech? I can’t go around wearing a shirt that says N*gger on it.
Yes, yes you absolutely can. You’d be a pretty big dipshit, but you could do it.
I’m saying that there are regulations about what can or can’t be said BECAUSE it would hurt a particular individual or group, or that group would find it excruciatingly offensive.
There are things one shouldn’t do if one is trying to be polite, but there’s no “regulation” legal or otherwise that prevents people from being assholes. In fact, the right to be a total asshole is long established and, frankly, vital to the free exchange of ideas. To think there’s some line to be drawn about what is and isn’t a permissible form of speech is to tread a very dangerous road. The instant you concede that somebody has a right to draw that line some place you get sucked into a pretty difficult spot: basically anything anyone says is offensive to somebody, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have an absolute right to state your opinion. I’m not quite so extreme as to say there shouldn’t be sanctions for threats of physical violence or for things like libel and slander, but even those exceptions need to be drawn with an extreme precision lest anything you say about anyone is potentially actionable.
That’s the sort of reasoning that gets magazines like the Commentator up on the chopping block every time a new group of unprincipled and ignorant mongoloids moves into suite four. They think that because things the OC says or has said are offensive that there is cause to shut the thing down. There’s an absolute right to state one’s opinion, even to state one’s opinion in a patently offensive and impolite manner, and once any ground is given to the politeness cops it’s very difficult to draw a clear distinction as to whose offenses should be the final trump card.
The fact that some people are offended by this shirt is a completely irrelevant fact.
And what’s the alternative? Socialism? Being like Europe? There are a lot of places pretty free of markets (as opposed to possessed of relatively free markets, OOH PUN!) and they’re by-and-large pretty fucking awful. Yeah, one of the trade offs to being free is having to put up with things you find objectionable, so what? That’s life, and it really, really pisses me off when people would use the force of government to shut up opinions or speech they find annoying.
As an aside: I used to be good at two things: drinking and bagging on people. Now I’m only good at one.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Well, when speaking of market-based economies, I never did state that I am generally for them. I am econ major, also, and have studied socialist societies that have tanked because the economy doesn’t recognize or play to incentives.
As a whole, market-based economies work, but they do not have a place for morality or social responsibility, especially in this case where there is no economic or financial incentive to exhibit such responsibility. We know it’s wrong, but we can’t do anything about it.
As for hate speech, try walking around with a shirt that has racial slurs on it.
But if I implied that I am talking about free speech issues, I made a mistake. Don Goldman was out in the amphitheater every day, yelling his lungs out badmouthing the military and veterans, but I never thought anything more than “He’s a dick, but he has a right to his opinion, and as reluctant I may be, I will defend that right for him.” And everyone of my friends that are or have been in the military echo that sentiment.
Free speech aside, what I initially wrote the blog post about was my disgust at people exploiting and making profit off of the deaths of service members.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Well, I don’t need a swift ass kicking, and while nothing says “kick my ass” like pantaloons, a racist shirt might be a close second. Especially in a town where I can’t read half the restaurant menus.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
On something of a tangent, and speaking of “hate speech” or “hate crimes,” does anyone else find it somewhat ironic that the Eugene Weekly Brigade is all up in arms about the terrorism enhancement being added to the sentences of those “eco-saboteurs”, especially considering the EW Brigade and their like-minded comrades are inevitably the first ones in line to support “hate crime” legislation?
July 13th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Vincent: Heh, that is a little hilarious.
Sean: Now that I’ve slept, I think we probably have a disagreement over the moral difference between just using folks KIA to make a political point and using them to make both a political point and a buck. I actually don’t think there’s much of a difference. Of course, I don’t really think the military is any more or less respectable than any other profession because, like other professions, it’s voluntary and the people who signed up pretty much knew that their job could turn out to be getting shot at by jerks in some other country. On the whole is it kind of a dick move to use dead folks as a political club? Probably, but I don’t think it’s more of a dick move if you sell a shirt or give it away.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:17 am
You have a different interest in the issue than I do, then. I’m deeply involved with veterans and applying for programs in the military. I like to think that what I’m doing is a little more than just any other job, because frankly, I don’t have to do this.
But you’re right in the sense that most people initially join for reasons economic, or for lack of direction, or ‘nothing better to do.’
However, if you’re saying that what they DO in the military is the same as any other profession, well, that’s like saying working at Starbucks is the same as being prepared to die for others. By others, I mean those in his/her unit, etc…
Note that I did not even mention ‘defending your country’ or ‘dying for freedom’ because those are more abstract, vague, and more debatable causes given today’s situation.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Oh, sure, I wouldn’t equate one job with another, but in the sense that it’s completely voluntary, I don’t see it as any more important/noble than going to work serving coffee. It certainly takes a different set of motivations and priorities to want to make getting shot at your profession, and I’m damn glad we have an all volunteer military staffed by people who want to be there, but I’m unconvinced that it’s more important than other jobs that need doing and I don’t have any particular interest in.
But, I agree that the military likely does lend itself to a deep sense of commitment to one’s peers that, frankly, is unlikely to develop slinging lattes or ginning up ridiculous reports. Both of which are much more likely, I think, to help one develop a deep commitment to getting one’s peers to shut the hell up and leave one alone.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Mr Jin,
When the Arizona legislators passed the law, they did so knowing full well that it was unconstitutional. Think about that for a minute, or two. State lawmakers conspired to violate the Constitution of the United States. In what moral framework does that make any sense at all? If you argument against the t-shirt is based on morality, you haven’t made your case.
Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, General Electric, and many others have made billions off this war. How much respect do they have for the military? Remember that Halliburton’s former president “had other priorities” when his turn to serve came up. KBR continued to do business in Iran, even knowing it was illegal. The current US administration is pressuring the Iraqi government to pass a law that would guarantee foreign oil companies access to oil contracts, even though that proposed law is a major source of sectarian violence. So if your argument is based upon a rejection of dishonorable profit motives, you have not made your case.
The only case you have made is that what Frazier is doing is something you find offensive. Fine. How about printing a bunch of t-shirts that say “Dan Frazier is a jerk” and giving them away for free. Or selling them for $20. Whatever will make your point.
Yeah, free speech can be a pain in the ass sometimes, Probably all freedoms can be a pain in the ass sometimes. But the alternative is worse.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
That’s my point, the Constitution doesn’t make any provisions for moral judgment. So violating the Constitution, in a time like this, is setting moral framework. It does not mean that I am advocating legislation that go against the Constitution, though. But it is just about rights and freedoms, what you are allowed legally to do, not what anyone should or shouldn’t do. This is with good reason, but there are times when something completely legal is just WRONG.
Here’s another pet peeve of mine: People equating supporting a war with supporting the men and women of the service.
I suppose I was wrong being pissed off at people that exploit the freedom of speech. The ones that don’t care, or give a rats ass about others, and just want to make a buck.
I didn’t bring up Halliburton, oil companies, defense contractors, or any of those companies profiting off of Iraq. But you’re right, they don’t help the problem. However, does their presence make Frazier’s actions better?
Everyone may have proved me wrong in asserting my point, and I’m definitely fighting a losing battle. You have the Constitution, the corporate argument. All I have is the fact that what he did is utterly disrespectful and offensive.
But one digresses, for one must cut one’s losses and run.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
“You have the Constitution, the corporate argument.”
Yikes, dude.
“This is about something else, something closer to my heart…. This speaks of a larger problem with American society.”
Alas, we all tend to find it a bit too easy to get from the first of these statements to the second.
These names are a matter of public record. I reckon Frazier could probably mount a coherent (moral) defense of his shirts without the need for any anti-Halliburton pabulum; the “political message” they send isn’t necessarily anything more objectionable than “these people died, that sucks, and I blame Bush”. It’s not hard to think of shirts that would really cross the threshold of bad taste (and probably get Frazier lynched) but this is not the situation.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:19 am
I was at a U-Haul once, when I saw desert camo wristbands (ala Livestrong) with “pray for our troops” emblazoned on them. I asked how much they were, and the clerk said $3, which was more than I wanted to spend. The clerk told me he’d sell me one for $1, but I only had a $5 bill on me. “No problem,” he said, as he opened up the register, took out a dollar for himself and gave me five dollars back. U-Haul lost $6 on the deal, the clerk got a buck, and I got a free wristband and a healthy respect for the ethical complexity of “support our troops” memorabilia.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Nowhere are ethical questions more nebulous than inside a U-Haul branch.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:57 am
If an SUV with a “Support the Troops” ribbon is crushed by a tree after running over a mime in the forest, does anyone care?
July 16th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
I did my time in the Army. I may not like this guy’s shirts using dead soldiers to make a profit, especially since there is a nonzero chance that somebody’s name I know is on the shirt. However, as the latter part of the quote commonly attributed to Voltaire goes: I would defend to the death his right to say it. Including on a T-shirt.
You have no right to not be offended by speech or print in this country (despite what certain people think), which is good, because finding offense at mere words is largely subjective.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
So I know I’m a little late on this, but come on, Tim:
“Oh, sure, I wouldn’t equate one job with another, but in the sense that it’s completely voluntary, I don’t see it as any more important/noble than going to work serving coffee.”
I think it is pretty damn noble that people like Sean want to serve their country. Sure, it is voluntary, but aren’t you getting a little childish with that kind of argument? That is like saying it is just as noble to watch as someone drowns in the river than it is to jump in and save them, because hell, it’s all voluntary. The fact that military service is voluntary is what makes it so noble, as the people who serve this country do so knowing full well that they can spend years away from their friends and family, and always live with the possibility of coming home in a body bag.
A very close friend of mine served in Iraq, during the push to Baghdad. He didn’t join because he was some psycho who wanted to shoot people. He joined before September 11th so that he could learn a skill to bring into the civilian world. He was told he could even choose his own job in the Marines, but as soon as he joined, he was assigned a job, and eventually sent to Iraq. Sure, he knew of the possible consequences of his actions, but seeing that he did not feel ready for college, he wanted to learn a trade and be eligible for the GI Bill after serving for four years.
He was one of the lucky ones, as he came home without a scratch. One of my old classmates died while serving in Iraq, leaving behind a wife and a small child. He may not have even believed in the mission, but he served his country in the best way he could, which was fighting in the Army. For others, this may take shape in volunteering for local charities and public service groups, while for others it may be partaking in intellectual discourse and research so that we may better understand our place in the new world order. And hell, for some it may be caffeinating our workforce at starbucks.
Yes, we have the freedom to say what we want, but we have that freedom because of people who were brave enough to fight for it.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Almost nobody joins up because he/she wants to shoot folks, which is why that’s not a claim I made. In fact, last I checked, all of the branches tried to weed those sorts of folks out because they’re bad soldiers.
My point is that I think it’s a little suspect to equate signing up to do what the government says with serving the country in the sense of being useful to one’s countrymen. If you think that one has a positive duty to the state, then okay, it makes sense to equate joining the military with serving the country. I don’t think anyone has a positive duty to the state, so I don’t see carrying out the state’s wishes* as particularly noble or ignoble, it’s just another job to be done by somebody. I reject the notion that the state is the equivalent of “the country” or “the people.” I have a lot of reasons for that, all of which I’m willing to explain at great length with run-on sentences and over use of semicolons. Maybe you don’t share that view, or as extreme a view on the matter as I do, which means we’re basically at an impasse.
And let me be perfectly clear, it’s not that I think joining the military is morally inferior to any other job out there that isn’t as hazardous and doesn’t involve getting shot at, I just reject the claim that it is somehow morally superior. That said, I hope that everybody currently deployed gets home safe. And I hope anybody who wants a successful military career can find one, if it’s what people want to do they should and best of luck to them.
*When undertaken for a relatively benign state voluntarily. There is an obvious difference between, say, folks who REALLY LOVED being in the Red Army and folks who’ve signed up in the modern US. There’s also a pretty obvious difference between volunteers and conscripts, I mostly pity the latter (as in feel badly that they were treated in such a manner, not to imply that they’re particularly pitiful or something) Being coerced into state service is probably the most disgusting practice I can imagine aside from chattel slavery. Really, it basically is chattel slavery.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:53 am
“I reject the notion that the state is the equivalent of ‘the country’ or ‘the people.’”
Is it necessary to accept that notion, in order to accord some measure of honor to people who voluntarily risk their lives in jobs that all but the most ridiculous libertarian has to admit are legitimate, necessary functions of “the state”? We’re not talking about venerating the employees of the Consumer Products Safety Commission here.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Michael, you hit the point on it. That is what I respect and admire about all veterans and servicemembers, they (usually) have the perspective to say they will defend people’s rights to say what they disagree with. I suppose I ‘forgot where I came from’, for lack of a better term, but you have to understand that I found it disturbing that someone would even consider selling such a thing.
But like I said above, I kind of realized where my arguments and such were wrong.
And again, like you said, I don’t like the fact that someone is using that shirt to make a profit.
But I DO have a right to be offended, just as he has the right to sell that shirt.
What I realized through this discourse is that it sucks and I can’t do anything about it. And probably with good reason, too.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:32 am
One small response:
“I don’t think anyone has a positive duty to the state, so I don’t see carrying out the state’s wishes* as particularly noble or ignoble, it’s just another job to be done by somebody.”
I can see how taking orders from the government does not seem that noble, especially if you are not one to support many government functions which play a role in your life. You have the freedom to make that choice and speak freely about it. But like it or not, those freedoms spawn from the same system that you feel no obligation or duty towards. Others feel differently, and some are even willing to put their life on the line to defend that kind of freedom, as they feel that those freedoms exist because of the men and women that came before them that were willing to fight for/defend those rights. It is a personal choice, and one that I know I would never be brave enough to make.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Danimal: To a certain extent, I think it is. The point I’m trying to make, maybe badly, is that I don’t think that signing up to perform one of the state’s legitimate duties is any morally different from signing up to perform any number of other legitimate duties. And, again, in a country with a relatively benign state those jobs are legitimate and respectable, and people who do a good job of them are praiseworthy, but I don’t think it affords people any special status. Just joining the Army doesn’t make a person a hero, is my point, although heroic acts while in the Army certainly do. Maybe I’m looking at things from the wrong angle here.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Looks like Dan Frazier has sparked more controversy than I had initially imagined. Who knew that an offensive shirt would spark a debate on the ideologies of state, country, and military service?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Sean: I’m going to guess not that guy. :-) I’ve been talking to another friend of mine and it seems like if pretty much everybody disagrees with my position that members of the service don’t deserve any special respect above that granted to everybody, there’s a good chance I’m wrong.
The thing is, I’m not coming up with any reasonably good criterion for who gets respect+ and who only gets regular respect. My buddy suggested positive externalities from the work, but that’s so broad a category that I’m not sure it’s useful.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Some things elude criteria, Tim.