« Dee-fence! Dee-fence! | Main | Demons are resilient »
April 25, 2006
Sad but true
The half-mast decision makes a lot of sense to me. To undertake a mission like Afghanistan is to accept that you can't make grandiose gestures every time a casualty occurs. Some (probably excessively) blunt perspective is provided by the Globe & Mail's page 4 of Monday, April 23, 1917.
Those two little headlines in the right-hand column read as follows: "Military situation is encouraging"; and "Boy Scout movement continues to grow." The mind boggles. Afghanistan obviously isn't World War I, but the government should be steeling its citizens' resolve nevertheless, not jerking tears from their eyes.
Posted by Chris Selley at April 25, 2006 12:21 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/373
Comments
I agree - I read someone this morning say along the lines of "Canada didn't go through WWII with flags lowered, nor should it now". Besides that, I think there are better ways to show appreciation to the military.
Posted by: Jason at April 25, 2006 11:13 AM
On this day in 1915, 221 officers and men of the 15th Bn. CEF (48th Highlanders), answered a roll call after the battle of St-Julien. The previous day there had been 912. The others were dead, wounded, overcome by chlorine gas, or taken prisoner. It was the worst single day for casualties taken by any Canadian unit in the First War.
To the best of my knowledge, flags were not lowered.
Posted by: Jim Whyte at April 25, 2006 12:34 PM
A note of trivia for you all courtesy of my father (a former peacekeeper)
A flag on land halfway up the flagpole (or flagstaff as it used to be called) is at half-staff
A flag on a ship halfway up the flagpole mast is at half-mast
A flag cannot be at half-mast on land only at half-staff
Posted by: Blair at April 25, 2006 03:47 PM