A “New Weapon” in the Flagger “Arsenal”

The Virginia Flaggers want you to know that they have “a new weapon in our arsenal” … a drone.

VF drone

That’s right, a drone, in white with Hathaway red striping.

With this drone, they say, they can take pictures … just like any drone can do. For those of you with Facebook access, here are some pictures that are supposed to be of Hollywood Cemetery, although they are better representations of the Richmond skyline.

From a press release:

The Virginia Flaggers are pleased to present the following photos, taken during research, development, and testing of drones that were acquired recently to assist in our heritage defense operations.

In addition to assisting in heritage defense projects, we are excited about the prospects for their use in capturing and recording unique images and video at Confederate Memorial Services, ceremonies, parades, protests, and other events, which would be available to participants and as media releases. We believe that the drones will also be helpful in scouting possible sites for additional Interstate Memorial Confederate Battle Flags, assisting with research on battle fields, and helping to record and research information from previously undiscovered or inaccessible cemeteries.

As we do with any operation, we are carefully testing the units and training operators, while researching all applicable laws and regulations to ensure we operate within the existing guidelines, and to secure the safety of our Flaggers, as well as the protection of citizens and property.

Ah, yes. Now we have the promise of aerial shots showing us how many times human Flaggers are outnumbered by the flags they bring to protests in Lexington and Richmond. It will be wonderful to have a new perspective on the paucity of participation. I’m awaiting use of the drone camera to record another Tripp Lewis arrest (complete with aerial confirmation of trespassing) or to document the location of Susan Hathaway, who will be nowhere near the VMFA.

The drone will be especially helpful in allowing us to see flag displays that are not visible from the ground. We can’t wait to see the research to be done on battlefields, especially since we’ve seen no evidence of previous research done by the Flaggers.

It’s especially reassuring to know that the Flaggers are making sure that they heed all laws, rules, and regulations. Who says Tripp Lewis can’t teach anyone anything? Note that they are interested in the safety of citizens, not all people. Then again, we know what “citizens and property” means to a fan of Confederate heritage, now, don’t we?

The Flaggers have yet to comment on a use for the drone recommended by one of their more level-headed supporters … namely, an inquiry into his private fantasy life fueled by his personal beliefs, although many Flaggers share them.

No word yet on whether the drone will assist in the preparation of endless book jackets in Florida, although rest assured that their creator will continue to drone on about her obsessions.

And as if that wasn’t enough, the Virginia Flaggers are now on Twitter! I believe I’ll enjoy that.

Make no mistake about it: these are tremendous achievements, telling us just how successful the Virginia Flaggers are in changing hearts and minds as they seek to restore the honor. No word yet as to whether the VMFA, WLU, or the city of Lexington will install ground-to-drone defense systems. There’s also no word as to whether Ben Jones, Chief of Heritage Operations for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, will sponsor a second Flagger drone, done up on orange with black and white trim, and bearing a Confederate battle flag … the General Lee 02.

71 thoughts on “A “New Weapon” in the Flagger “Arsenal”

  1. C. Meyer October 30, 2014 / 1:26 pm

    “The Virginia Flaggers are pleased to present the following photos, taken during research, development, and testing of drones that were acquired recently to assist in our heritage defense operations.”

    As if they designed, built and manufactured the thing…they bought it for $1100+ with donations form supporters. In essence, they bought Norwood Lewis a new toy.

    “As we do with any operation, we are carefully testing the units and training operators, while researching all applicable laws and regulations to ensure we operate within the existing guidelines, and to secure the safety of our Flaggers, as well as the protection of citizens and property.”

    Does that mean they have scouted out the toilet facilities of the places in which this drone can be flown? And does that mean the Virginia Flagger Drone Headquarters (VFDHQ) will be in a crapper somewhere in the Richmond area?

  2. Connie Chastain October 30, 2014 / 1:37 pm

    You’re tho jealuth — of the VaFlaggers’ popularity and my book-cover skills. All my covers, even the ones that didn’t get used, are better than any covers on YOUR books. Left any more fraudulent reviews on Amazon lately?

    • Brooks D. Simpson October 30, 2014 / 1:43 pm

      I am sure that I am not alone in expressing the hope that you seek the professional help you so desperately need.

      • C. Meyer October 30, 2014 / 5:17 pm

        I am waiting for the day she comes unglued and claims that Corey Meyer is an alias of mine.

    • Christopher Shelley October 30, 2014 / 3:14 pm

      You have no idea.

      Please do keep coming back and entertaining us with your…dialect? Is that lisp a regional thing?

      Seriously, these people are ten times better than reality television. These days I make sure I bring popcorn to the computer before setting down to check the blog comments.

      • Connie Chastain October 30, 2014 / 7:06 pm

        Mr. Shelley, you need to come visit me at Backass. Mr. Simpson doesn’t usually let my comments through. Oh, and the dialect … taken from a character in one of my novels. I’ll post about it at my blog so you’ll have the backstory.

        • Brooks D. Simpson October 31, 2014 / 4:04 pm

          Connie reminds us once again that her blog is “Backass.” She must be in league with Jerry Dunford, who’s very interested in those sorts of things.

          • Connie Chastain October 31, 2014 / 4:14 pm

            Not in league with Mr. Dunford, as far as I know. I don’t even know what his position is on anything, as I visited his blog once or twice, couldn’t see past the filthy language, stopped reading, never been back.

        • Mousy Tongue November 3, 2014 / 2:49 pm

          LOL, “taken from a character in one of my novels.”

          Once again Connie takes credit for doing something Daffy Duck is known for.

  3. John Kirn October 30, 2014 / 1:54 pm

    This is hilarious. Your best wit and sarcasm yet. In general, I’m bored with the Southern heritage posts and often skip them. As a professional historian (Ph.D. with Michael Holt whom you know well), I find the Flaggers’ repeated abuse and misuse of history grating and wearisome. I think you give them far more attention than they deserve and the debates have become more personal than professional. However, I’m encouraged now that the Flaggers are leaping into the future and embracing new technology. This indicates a willingness to grow, learn, and be exposed to new ideas. I hope that they can eventually shed their Lost Cause view of the Civil War and race relations that was born, nay invented, more than 130 years ago to help Confederates rationalize their defeat and the dishonor of their cause. There is no question that individual Southerners fought for numerous reasons, many of which had nothing to do with slavery. Nevertheless, there is also no question that the Southern states seceded primarily to protect their right to hold slaves. Slavery has been a fact of human history since the beginning of time. There is no shame in admitting that what we once thought was acceptable, North and South, is no longer so. It is encouraging that we, as Americans, have grown and embraced the anti-slavery cause. We still have far to go to eliminate racism in our society. But the Flaggers need to leap into the future and stop letting their personal attachment to their ancestors distort the clear historical record. They have a right to honor their ancestors; they do not have a right to distort our history in the process. Why is it that the Flaggers and professional historians can’t all come to the table and have an honest, invective free, discussion of these issues? Or have I missed it?

    • Connie Chastain October 30, 2014 / 7:04 pm

      I hear some of ’em’s gonna start wearin’ shoes and installin’ indoor plumbing in 2015…

      • Brooks D. Simpson October 31, 2014 / 4:06 pm

        More evidence of how Connie Chastain hates the South and evilizes southerners. No responsible person would advance such sectional slurs. Of course, she’ll now say she’s simply being sarcastic, but, as she knows what other people’s true motives are, I am simply returning the favor.🙂

        Of course, Connie Chastain also declares: “Only a fool would claim they know more about someone else’s experience than that person.” This would mean that she admits she’s a fool, because she does that all the time. She claims to know what motivates people. Now she admits that to pretend as much is to be a fool.

        See, she’s coming around. Self-awareness is a very good thing.

    • Brooks D. Simpson October 30, 2014 / 8:38 pm

      I see the Virginia Flaggers primarily as a source of amusement, a truly fascinating reality show rife with comedic moments. You need to embrace them on that level … your first mistake may be to take them seriously.

      However, as you work near where they live, perhaps you can volunteer to sit down with them and work things out. Get the drone to record the meeting.

      • John Kirn October 31, 2014 / 3:25 am

        I knew my words would come back to bite me. 🙂 I’ve often thought about organizing some type of event, but life keeps getting in the way. I’ll try to take your advice and see how that goes.

        • Brooks D. Simpson November 2, 2014 / 11:50 am

          Well, when you explore that option, understand that Ms. Chastain has decided to attack you on her blog. That’s why I think you will find this an uphill climb.🙂

          • Jimmy Dick November 2, 2014 / 1:15 pm

            I have not seen Connie over in Eric Foner’s Edx course on The Civil War. I haven’t seen any of the flaggers there or any of the other folks that post here in support of lost cause ideas. I find that to be very interesting. There is a free class taught by one of the finest CW history professors in the world and they didn’t take the time to take the class. The lectures are very good and address the lead up to the conflict.

            Let’s face it, they are afraid to do anything that might challenge their perceptions. Alvin Toffler was right. “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

  4. Jim Yates October 30, 2014 / 2:04 pm

    Lewis in the comments of the Style Weekly article/clickbait, under the handle conf3derate:
    “Ask Goad….I am not one to be messed with.”
    Threatening museum officials:
    “PS Hey Alex…How did you like those shots in the video…He will know what I am talking about…”
    Lewis shot that Pink Floyd from bid in Oregon Hill where the VMFA director lives. Basically saying “I know where you live” amirite?
    This guy is nuts and this should make for an entertaining winter.
    Here’s that article:
    http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/high-flying-confederates/Content?oid=2138444

    • Goad Gatsby October 30, 2014 / 5:56 pm

      If you ask me (which Lewis did say to do) he is someone to be messed with. But he does live in Oregon Hill. But Jerry Dunford’s post on Tuesday lead me to believe that it will be used for surveillance and not just heritage. I am just waiting for him to do something illegal.

  5. Jimmy Dick October 30, 2014 / 3:15 pm

    What good is a drone for a group that is trying to educate people about the history of the Confederacy? Isn’t the problem for this group in the first place their lack of ability to interpret the past using facts and to transfer that knowledge (I’m being nice) to others? How does a flying object that’s only use is to take visual images going to help them accomplish that? Let’s face some facts here.
    1. Their parading in farb gear with the confederate battle flag has failed to do anything but draw ridicule and scorn upon them.

    2. Their extremely bad history interpretations of the Civil War era fail to pass the scrutiny of the general public. If anything, their attempts to pass off the lost cause as real history are alienating the very people they are trying to gain support from.

    3. The erection of confederate battle flags along highways has had the reverse effect from the one they desire. Instead of educating people all those symbols do is embarrass the citizens in the region.

    4. The existence of the flaggers has been an absolute farce, yet they can’t understand that. The group appeals to a specific set of people whose grasp on reality is at times tenuous. When they do get positive attention it is usually to exploit them for political or financial purposes. The group fails to recognize that.

  6. Rob Baker October 30, 2014 / 3:51 pm

    Did anyone see South Park last night? The episode was about drones.

  7. Mike Rogers October 30, 2014 / 3:53 pm

    I thought this reminded me of something:

  8. Jessie Alan Sanford October 30, 2014 / 5:14 pm

    For the life of me I cannot understand why y’all hate the VA flaggers, Like me, none of y’all live anywhere close to them. I know y’all will say ” we dislike them because they don’t know history” and like all history it is open to interpretation right or wrong. What does it profit y’all? Dr Kirn is right on point. I understand how they feel, they are defending something that they have very strong feelings about. They are not trained historians and from some of the comments here I ain’t shore y’all are.

    • Brooks D. Simpson October 30, 2014 / 8:39 pm

      I am far too busy laughing at the Flaggers to consider hating them. They provide an endless source of amusement.

    • John Kirn October 31, 2014 / 3:15 am

      History is an interpretation of the past based on the evidence we have. The frustration historians feel with the Flaggers is that their interpretation of history is based on their emotional attachment to a mythical past rather than historical study. When they are interviewed, their ignorance about the Civil War era is funny–yet ultimately very disturbing, not unlike Jay Leno’s questioning of people on the street about the basic facts of American history. Ignorance makes for good comedy, but it really bothers those of us who take our research and teaching very seriously that Confederate heritage folks push their views on others without any regard for the historical truthfulness of their claims. I would bet that the vast majority of Confederate heritage folks read only the works of other Confederate heritage folks–that which confirms their own opinions.. They need to open their minds to alternative possibilities by reading the work of professional scholars. We grow by exposing ourselves to alternative ideas. But, perhaps as Brooks says, I need to lighten up and not take these folks so seriously. The problem is I care about the past as much as they do.

      • Jessie Alan Sanford October 31, 2014 / 10:32 am

        Dr. Kim
        First let me apologize for not getting your name correct. You make some valid points but I could also point out that there are many professional historian that disagree with many of the commentators views on this post.But you know most people couldn’t care less one way or the other.
        I always hear how the South went to war over slavery but seldom here why the Union invaded the South which was not to aid the slave. No one in that era holds the moral high ground and that is why I think the hypocrisy of trying remove flags and monuments and place names is just that hypocrisy . Also remember when you talk about the South and the Confederacy you are talking about our families.
        Thanks for your time.

        • Jimmy Dick October 31, 2014 / 4:29 pm

          Oh, we talk about how the North used military force to keep the Union together. We don’t use incorrect terms like invade or invasion because they are not a correct depiction of what actually happened and why.
          Plus, you can compile that list of professional historians and publish it because I think the two words won’t apply to many on the list.

          • Jessie Alan Sanford October 31, 2014 / 5:40 pm

            Jimmy why in 1860 was it so important for the North to preserve the union? Could it have something to do with money?

          • Brooks D. Simpson October 31, 2014 / 11:07 pm

            Nope. After all, the tariff was levied on imports, the majority of which came through northern ports.

          • hankc9174 November 5, 2014 / 7:18 am

            tariffs raise prices across the board.

            imported goods cost more and the tariff revenue goes to the taxing authority.

            domestic producers tend to match the new price and the consumer cost rises whether import or domestic.

            tariff protection benefits particular industries and regions but where tariff revenue is generated tells little…

          • Brooks D. Simpson November 5, 2014 / 9:28 am

            But that’s why the notion that Lincoln went to war so that he could collect the tariff falls short. He should simply have declared the ports closed.

          • hankc9174 November 5, 2014 / 3:10 pm

            declare the southern ports closed?

          • Brooks D. Simpson November 5, 2014 / 6:57 pm

            In Lincoln’s mind, they are still US ports, so yes.

          • hankc9174 November 6, 2014 / 7:50 pm

            but the ports *were* blockaded.

            what am I missing?

            perception vs. reality?

          • Brooks D. Simpson November 6, 2014 / 8:03 pm

            A “blockade” has meaning in international law … and declaring a blockade allowed other powers (read Great Britain) to accord the Confederacy the rights of a belligerent. Declaring the ports closed would not have left that option. However, Lincoln was afraid that closing the ports might have had more dire consequences.

            Read this.

          • John Foskett November 5, 2014 / 3:39 pm

            Guess the danged feller just weren’t too smart. All that ballooning of the then-miniscule federal budget, imposing an income tax, raising hundreds of thousands of troops, suspending habeas corpus, issuing emancipation – just to collect customs revenues. I see a new book from DiLorenzo here.

          • Christopher Shelley November 1, 2014 / 9:08 am

            Mr. Sanford, the reason Americans were will to die for the Union was because the Union represented freedom to them. That may sound corny today, but it’s true. Representative government under popular sovereignty–the rule of the people–embodied the idea of liberty. Secession in 1860 happened because a minority lost an election, and rather than abide by that election, they chose to leave the Union. Lincoln and millions of other Americans rejected that idea. After all, if a minority can flout the will of the majority, it can be well and truly said that democracy doesn’t exist. Democracy was sacred to most nineteenth-century Americans (except, of course, the aristocracy of the South Carolina low country, who despised democracy in all its forms).

            So preservation of the Union meant preservation of popular government–a government that created conditions where the lowly-born (like Lincoln) could rise as far as talent would take them. That just didn’t exist anywhere else in the world. Secession, then, was a denial of democracy and that Constitution that they held dear.

          • Jessie Alan Sanford November 5, 2014 / 2:49 pm

            I would agree with you if the South had tried to overthrow the duly elected US government but they did not they exercised their right to develop their own government that they felt would better serve their interest. The North would not have been harmed by letting the Southern States go in peace unless it was about money and then they would have a lot to lose. A union held together by military force is no union at all and it sure is not democracy.

          • John Foskett November 5, 2014 / 3:34 pm

            “A union held together by military force is no union at all and it sure is not democracy.”

            That’s an interesting observation about something that has now lasted 150 years and counting with no end in sight. Other than a few isolated individuals who insist on living in 1861 and massaging historic facts to suit their emotional needs, the vast, overwhelming majority aren’t girding for insurrection. So what’s the explanation for this non-union/non-democracy surviving since 1865, including countless elections, two world wars, economic crises, etc.?

            By the way, what happened in 1860-61 was an “insurrection”/”rebellion” against the duly constituted government of the United States. That is the essence of attempting to “overthrow” the government. If you need a visual, picture some insurrectionists firing artillery at a U.S. military installation or seizing other U.S. military installations.

          • Christopher Shelley November 5, 2014 / 3:58 pm

            But that’s the whole point: by illegally seceding, the Southern states were by definition trying to overthrow the government duly elected under the Constitution. The North might not have been harmed directly, but the Constitution would have been effectively destroyed. So money didn’t enter into it. preservation of the government did.

            They had no right to exercise as far as setting up own government. There is no right to secede because the Union was designed to be permanent.

            Military force was only necessary to defeat the insurrectionists, who themselves were a minority of a minority. Most Southerners did not wish to secede in 1860, but were dragged or goaded into it by the slave-holding oligarchy.

          • John Foskett November 6, 2014 / 8:03 am

            Somebody should help Jessie read a letter written by a Virginia father to his son in January, 1861 regarding the real definition of “secession” as it was being practiced by the Southrons. The father’s name is Robert E. Lee. He said it better than any of us could have.

          • Jessie Alan Sanford November 6, 2014 / 4:42 pm

            Well, John why don’t you help me read, oh wait, shucks I can read, you just don’t like that I don’t come to the same conclusion about the War of northern aggression that you do. I do know that my ancestors believed in what they were fighting for was just and right regardless what all the learned men on this blog claim to the contrary, and to call them traitors is biased and not founded on facts.And Jimmy you can save your time, I am well aware of your position.

            “Most Southerners did not wish to secede in 1860, but were dragged or goaded into it by the slave-holding oligarchy.”
            Mr Shelley
            I was once told no self respecting historian would use terms like most, some ,nearly all , etc., to make their point. There we only about 50 thousand or so southern unionist that joined the Union army, I don’t call that most.

            PS:
            John hindsight is a wonderful thing. I am glad the US have survived these 150 years and pray for hundreds more but remember those Americans who helped to rebuild this country after a terrible war, were also a lot of Southerns.

            Thank y’all for your time.
            Jessie Sanford

          • Michael Rodgers November 6, 2014 / 7:41 pm

            Conscripted.

          • Jimmy Dick November 5, 2014 / 4:16 pm

            Again, I point out that the South started the Civil War with the attack on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln had allowed the seven lower south states to make their mistakes and find out that life was better in the Union. That plan was working, but Davis and the slave owners could not answer the questions from the people who wanted to return to the Union.

            A section of the country that violates the Constitution of the United States by illegally forming a new government is fomenting rebellion and domestic insurrection. They do not have the right to form that new government. When a section of the country breaks off and uses military force to illegally seize federal property it is acting against the laws of the United States of America. The people responsible for that action are rebels and traitors to the US.

            The South was the section that stood to lose financially, not the North. The North grew stronger as the result of the Civil War while the southern states failed. Let us also not forget that well over a third of the people living in the south opposed secession and that third does not include the slaves.

          • Michael Rodgers November 5, 2014 / 4:54 pm

            The people of the USA decided that indeed they would be harmed by letting the secessionists take some of the slave-holding states away from the USA. The union is not held together by military force because all states are on an equal footing in our federal system.

          • hankc9174 November 5, 2014 / 9:03 pm

            The United States acquired all the deep south, first-to-secede states, except South Carolina and Georgia, by either treaty or direct purchase, and you expect them to be allowed to ‘go in peace’?

          • Jimmy Dick November 1, 2014 / 2:45 pm

            Why would it be money? Surely, you aren’t going to try to trot out the old tariff argument are you? That’s been destroyed several times in the last few months on this blog alone. You may have noticed how no professional historians bring up the tariff as the cause of the Civil War. That was a Beardian idea that went out the door with Kenneth Stampp.
            You should be looking at the role of American Nationalism as one of the major reasons why so many people in the South opposed secession and were willing to fight for the Union against the confederacy. This was a major force in the American growth as a nation before the war. Was the American nation going to continue to grow as a free labor system or a slave labor system? American Nationalists generally opposed slave labor’s expansion.

          • Jessie Alan Sanford November 1, 2014 / 4:06 pm

            Jimmy
            Why did the Union need the South to be able to continue to be a viable country? As we both know the sons of Yankee farmers did not go to war to free slaves so why did they fight? Because of money, they did not want the competition from slave labor. If Lincoln had let the 7 slave States go maybe he could have contained them without so much bloodshed and destruction. “so many people in the South opposed secession and were willing to fight for the Union against the confederacy” I don’t think this is an accurate statement from what I have read only about 500 Mississippians fought for the Union, don’t know about the rest of the CSA . I am very familiar with your position on why the South went to war and I do agree the expansion of slavery was at the top of the list but that does not explain why the Union invaded the South.

          • Michael Rodgers November 2, 2014 / 6:49 am

            Lincoln’s July 4 message to Congress answers your good and sincere question (I’m interpreting invaded as engaged militarily). Succinctly, the people didn’t want to let the secessionists remove any state from the USA. See also this post at cwmemory.

          • Jimmy Dick November 2, 2014 / 7:12 am

            Why did the South want to secede? Lincoln was allowing the lower south to make a decision, but the attack on Ft. Sumter started the actual war. You remember that? The decision made by Jefferson Davis to attack a United States Army installation? That’s an act of war and rebellion, not the action of a group of people seeking peace. Slave labor was not going to expand no matter what the slave owners wanted. If anything, the slave owners panicked over their looming loss of money from the competition from wage labor and sought to protect their system which was the basis of their political power. If you are looking for a money answer, look to the slave owners who started the war, not Lincoln who was acting within the Constitution in preserving the Union from domestic insurrection.

        • John Kirn October 31, 2014 / 10:23 pm

          Jessie,
          My name is no problem. You had it right originally: KIRN. Oftentimes, the R and N merge together and look like an “M”.

          To be honest, I don’t think there are too many professional historians out there who embrace the Lost Cause explanation of the Civil War as many Confederate Heritage folks do. Virtually all academic historians argue that slavery, in its various forms, was the fundamental cause of the Civil War.

          As for your last comment, the Lower South seceded to protect slavery. They went to war because the Lincoln administration refused to let the Lower South secede. The North did not adhere to the Compact Theory of the Union that the Lower South used to justify secession. The North felt that the Union could not be broken up at the will of individual states and went to war to enforce that view. When the Lincoln administration called for 75,000 volunteers after Ft. Sumter to put down the rebellion, the Lower South states of VA, NC, TN, and AR seceded because they were not willing to contribute soldiers to put down their sister states in the South. So to answer your question, the North invaded the South to maintain the Union. The best work on why this concept of Union was so important to the North is Gary Gallagher’s The Union War. As the war progressed, Lincoln eventually issued his Emancipation Proclamation, which he justified as a war measure designed to reduce the Confederacy’s ability to wage war. This made the abolition of slavery a secondary goal to maintaining the Union. In this regard, the North clearly did have the high moral ground. But I always distinguish between why the South seceded (to protect slavery) and why individuals fought and there the motivations are many and some have nothing to do with slavery.

          As for removing flags, the Confederate flag has been used and abused as a symbol of racial oppression in the South. It is highly offensive to many people. It’s going to have to be retired as a public symbol just as the Washington Redskins will eventually have to come up with a new name.

          And yes I fully appreciate that these are your ancestors we are talking about and that’s why I’m so concerned about having a respectful dialogue between historians and Southern Heritage folks. They fought for the society they knew and believed in. However, it’s the judgement of history and our nation today that slavery and racial oppression was and is wrong. And so I would say of my Southern ancestors if I had any, that they fought for what they believed in, but in retrospect, they were mistaken in their desire to protect their right to hold slaves. That’s not disparaging. It says that we as a nation have grown and our views have evolved–and while it’s unfortunate that it took a Civil War to abolish slavery that was certainly a beneficial outcome of the war. I’m sure you and I hold some views today that we regard as reasonable, but later generations will find indefensible. That’s life. That’s the way it was always been. I’m not going to single out Confederates as evil people–they were a product of their culture and time, but were simply on the wrong side of the world-wide trend toward emancipation and greater human equality which is still working itself out today. If I’ve erred in my analysis, let me know. It won’t be the first time. But I’ll bow out of this discussion for now as I focus on some other issues.

    • A Neighbor October 31, 2014 / 4:55 am

      I live across from the museum and am sick and tired of them clogging the sidewalk and having to duck under those flags when walking by. It’s like a gauntlet of hate. They are absolutely intimidating to many people I see it every day it is not just me. Also sick of hearing people shout obscenities at them as they drive by!

      • Jessie Alan Sanford October 31, 2014 / 10:08 am

        When you post without using you name I question your veracity. If what your are saying is true then please provide proof i.e. camera footage of them harassing you or anyone else.’They are absolutely intimidating to many people I see it every day it is not just me” How so and can you name the other injured parties? Do they shake the flags in your face and shout obscenities at you? If so and you have positive proof I will also denounce them.But if you are just making false accusation then there is something wrong between your ears.

        • Andy Hall November 1, 2014 / 11:22 am

          The Virginia Flaggers actively encourage drivers to honk their horns as a show of support — they even put out printed signs that say so. That in itself is pretty asshole-ish, to expose the VMfA’s neighbors to that, week in and week out, for years. Will you denounce that? Of course you won’t.

          • Jessie Alan Sanford November 1, 2014 / 1:05 pm

            That Mr. Hall is were you are wrong if people are passing by and honking their horns and the flaggers are encouraging that then yes I do condemn them for that and they should stop asking people to honk their horns. Do you have evidence of constant honking? Why didn’t you condemn Goad for playing load rap music(That in itself is pretty asshole-ish, to expose the VMfA’s neighbors to that, week in and week) was it not? For my part I am going to contact VA Flaggers to get their side.

          • Andy Hall November 1, 2014 / 2:08 pm

            What do you mean, “if they are encouraging that?” You don’t know?

          • Andy Hall November 1, 2014 / 3:55 pm

            It would be a good idea to find out. It’s not difficult to confirm that, in fact, they do encourage passers-by to honk in support.

            As for Goad, yeah, that’s pretty annoying. But the Flaggers’ boorishness is not really mitigated by someone else coming along later and doing the same thing.

          • Jessie Alan Sanford November 3, 2014 / 12:40 pm

            Mr Hall I talked to the flaggers and they assured me that they were not having problems with the neighborhood. If people drive by and honk their horns so much as to be a nuisance then the flaggers must have a lot of support.

            “As for Goad, yeah, that’s pretty annoying. But the Flaggers’ boorishness is not really mitigated by someone else coming along later and doing the same thing.”
            So two wrongs make a right?

          • Andy Hall November 3, 2014 / 1:10 pm

            “I talked to the flaggers and they assured me that they were not having problems with the neighborhood.”

            I’m sure they did.

            “So two wrongs make a right?”

            No, they don’t. But you were the one who brought up the subject of Goad’s loud music.

            And I will say this for Goad — at least he lives in the neighborhood. I’m not sure any of the prominent Flaggers do.

        • A Neighbor November 2, 2014 / 7:06 am

          I won’t give my name because I have seen the flaggers do “research” and go after other people online. I’d rather not have them know my real world address across the street so no thanks.

          To your other questions, I’ll try to boil it down, for example: For people of color, groups of white men of waving that flag , armed even, is frightening. Period. For other groups too I bet. Also, like the other gentleman pointed out, the honking is too much.

          • Jessie Alan Sanford November 3, 2014 / 12:52 pm

            OK I understand you not wanting to give your name but have you talked to these folks? Why not talk to the young black woman that shows up on occasion with her CBF if you are afraid of white men. I’m sure if you had a discussion with them and told how much the honking bothers you they might just stop asking people to do that.

          • Brooks D. Simpson November 3, 2014 / 1:54 pm

            My understanding from people in the area is that the Flaggers are not always polite to people with whom they disagree. However, several of these complaints had to do with Susan Hathaway, who’s noticeable by her absence at the VMFA nowadays. Those people are worried that the Flaggers will show up outside their houses, as they have with several people in the past.

            Personally, I have no beef with the Flaggers’ protests. That’s their right.

  9. Jim Vines October 31, 2014 / 5:35 am

    Looks like many of their proposed uses may be illegal.
    http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/06/24/332771.htm
    “The FAA’s standards closely follow those by the Academy of Model Aeronautics, the largest group representing such hobbyists in the U.S. The group’s safety code says pilots shouldn’t fly unmanned aircraft over “unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures.”

    In addition there are individual states with additional restrictions.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/25/state-legislation-governing-private-drone-use/

  10. jarretr October 31, 2014 / 10:40 am

    Eh, that thing still probably couldn’t find Stuart at Gettysburg.

  11. Michael Rodgers November 2, 2014 / 7:02 am

    The strategy plan concept logic theory scenario they and others like them attempt is: Fly it in people’s faces until they like it.

  12. John Heiser November 6, 2014 / 8:18 am

    Isn’t that the DJI Phantom 2 Quadcopter manufactured in… you know… Hong Kong? Hardly a loyal purchase from a southern manufacturer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s