She didn't commit suicide, so it is not proper to say she killed herself. Also, substance abuse and addiction are not issues of bravery versus cowardice.

I don't know why people feel the need to go to such extremes in judgement. Basically, a talented person who gave much to the world, but who was also flawed (as we all are in some way) has died. Some people feel her beneficial contributions to the world outweigh her harmful flaws that affected her personal life. Some may disagree with that, but there is absolutely no cause to claim that honoring her is a dishonor to others.

There is no requirement to die for your country or to save others to be honored by flying a flag at half staff. Many people had the honor simply because of their political position, irregardless of their actual achievements.

First of all, I didn't say she committed suicide. I said that she killed herself, meaning she was responsible for her own death. That point you cannot argue.

I understand your opinion, and will not argue against it. I simply don't believe she's done anything worth flying the flag at half mast for. A national tragedy in which many people have died would be worth it. I.E. 9-11. However, I agree with nsaspook's point, in that flying the flag half-mast for a single drug-addicted, alcoholic musician seems to mock deaths of the thousands of innocent people who lost their lives in those national tragedies.

 

However, I agree with nsaspook's point, in that flying the flag half-mast for a single drug-addicted, alcoholic musician seems to mock deaths of the thousands of innocent people who lost their lives in those national tragedies.

That is because you chose to view the negative side, rather than the positive side. By that standard, no one deserves to have the flag flown at half staff.

The police officer who gives his life in the line of duty is not a saint. Do you really think we could not find cases of spousal abuse, substance abuse, police brutality or any other number of negative acts perpetrated by individuals who gave their life in sacrifice?

The soldier that fights and dies for his country is also not a saint. Do you think none of them struggled with substance abuse, or other flaws? Do we even ask the question? I don't, because it is irrelevant. The honor is for the good they did, and has nothing to do with their human flaws.

How many soldiers have fought bravely and eventually took their own life in suicide because of horrors they experienced? Does this make them unworthy of honors? Should we take away their purple hearts and congressional medals or honor? Do the honors given to them cause dishonor to others who were similarly honored and did not take their own life?

How are we to judge these things, and who are we to judge these things? Don't even try. Celebrate the good and accept the bad as part of the human condition.

 

Some prefer to look only at flaws, and not the whole person. I don't know that much about Houston's life, but to make over the top statements about drug use seems a little hostile. After all, the founding fathers used drugs, presidents and statesmen used drugs, pretty much someone from every occupation or organization we hold in high regards used drugs at one time or another. Steveb I find myself once again thinking you are a voice of sanity. Now, I've got to get back to watching "The Bodyguard"

OH BTW,

The soldier that fights and dies for his country is also not a saint. Do you think none of them struggled with substance abuse, or other flaws?

Yes definitely. Some who I served with did.

 

... you are a voice of sanity.

Well, I try to be more of a devil's advocate to balance out emotionalism. (but, thank you for the nice complement, even if I may not be worthy of it )

I think the issue here is more one about emotion versus logic, rather than an issue of sanity versus insanity. I believe I know what the underlying objection is, not only here in this thread, but with the public at large (66% of people polled don't like the Gov's decision). I think that on a deep unconscious and emotional level, their real issue is that they do not like to see an entertainer get an honor normally reserved for military, political and altruistic-life-sacrificing persons.

The obvious flaw in their logic is that they focus on and compare the worst acts of Whitney to the best acts of all the others. Hardly, seems fair, does it? What they really should be arguing is that an entertainer is not in the correct class to be considered for the honor. I could at least respect that argument, even if I don't agree with it.

I see this kind of thing in many of the off-topic discussions we have here. Often we have a deeply ingrained opinion about something and we feel strongly about it, even though we don't know why. We then (subconsciously) try to think up the good reasons why we should be correct in holding that opinion. Often we don't know what our real reasons are, even when they are good reasons. Since we can't think of the real reasons, and we don't want to change an opinion that we feel is right, we accept any reason that seems plausible and don't subject it to too much scrutiny. This all happens at a subconscious level and it is human nature (and by the way, I'm human too, despite the fact that neighborhood kids think I'm a robot from the future ).

To help prove the point - what if Whitney Houston were visiting NJ and noticed a fire in a building? What if she calls 911 and then rushes in and helps save 20 children and 30 elderly people? What if she then goes in to save more lives and the building crashed down on her and kills her? Now, if the Gov. then held the flags at half staff, not for the one day only (as in this case), but for one week in honor of her heroism, would there be anywhere near as much objection to the honor? I doubt it very much! I think people would completely overlook her flaws and focus on the amazing good actions.

So, compare good with good and bad with bad, and compare the nature of the acts that may trigger the honor. But, don't compare the worst of one individual with the best of all the others. That is not logical, nor is it fair.

 

That is because you chose to view the negative side, rather than the positive side. By that standard, no one deserves to have the flag flown at half staff.

The police officer who gives his life in the line of duty is not a saint. Do you really think we could not find cases of spousal abuse, substance abuse, police brutality or any other number of negative acts perpetrated by individuals who gave their life in sacrifice?

The soldier that fights and dies for his country is also not a saint. Do you think none of them struggled with substance abuse, or other flaws? Do we even ask the question? I don't, because it is irrelevant. The honor is for the good they did, and has nothing to do with their human flaws.

How many soldiers have fought bravely and eventually took their own life in suicide because of horrors they experienced? Does this make them unworthy of honors? Should we take away their purple hearts and congressional medals or honor? Do the honors given to them cause dishonor to others who were similarly honored and did not take their own life?

How are we to judge these things, and who are we to judge these things? Don't even try. Celebrate the good and accept the bad as part of the human condition.

You're entirely missing the point! Even if Whitney Houston wasn't an alcoholic, drug-addicted singer, she still wouldn't deserve having a flag flown at half-mast in her memory. If she did anything heroic and saved many lives as you suggest, then yes. She may very well deserve that honor. Her flaws aren't the point. That is not the purpose of my argument. My point is that she was just another celebrity. Celebrities are just regular people that society has turned into "gods", so to speak. They don't deserve that honor any more than an average person does. It is rare that the flag is flown half-mast even for one person who has sacrificed his or her life. It should be reserved for those who really deserve our respect and who deserve to be honored.

That is the last I am going to say on this subject. I can see that this is not going anywhere, so I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

It is rare that the flag is flown half-mast even for one person who has sacrificed his or her life.

That's completely untrue. We fly half-mast for former presidents, dignataries, ambassadors, politicians, sports figures, and so forth, none of whom necessarily sacrifice their lives. Most of the time, they did not.

But to the point that she wouldn't deserve being honored even for not the drugs. I do think there are some things worth honor, her charities, her benifit performances, her contributions to first responders, her mentoring other young performers, her honor to the anthem, her breaking through barriers so that other may follow, and etc. I believe, as Steve said, those things far outweigh the personal issues. I agree that honoring one person does no dishonor to others.

The obvious flaw in their logic is that they focus on and compare the worst acts of Whitney to the best acts of all the others. Hardly, seems fair, does it? What they really should be arguing is that an entertainer is not in the correct class to be considered for the honor. I could at least respect that argument, even if I don't agree with it.

You're a good man, Steve. You take the more difficult road. It's always cooler and considered more macho to rip and shread people in public. It's always harder to be positive and balanced.

...even if I may not be worthy of it

Well I stil think you are.

 

sad day for all who enjoyed her music..

 

There is nothing wrong with a emotional response to the careless destruction of a precious human life. By most definitions of honor she had little of it to show for a large part of her life. I wish her family all the best.

RIP Whitney Houston

 

Well, if you consider for example, that probably 99.99% of the people on earth don't even have the wherewithall to even be considered for any kind of benefit program or to put out any kind of product to benefit and honor heros or those who are in most need, then I would say but that virtue alone, she has at least as much to honor as the last .01%.

 

To understand this moment,you would have had to be in a club room of

a 100 or more to hear Ray Charles live. I have always been a little vary of

things,when Ray Charles started to play and sing I felted something that

was hard to describe.

 

To understand this moment,you would have had to be in a club room of

a 100 or more to hear Ray Charles live. I have always been a little vary of

things,when Ray Charles started to play and sing I felted something that

was hard to describe.

You are sometimes accused of being too obscure in your statements. But, very often you clearly convey volumes with a handful of words.

 

Last year I attended a show that was performed by a very old musician from the 60's and 70's. He was one of my favorite performers when I was growing up. Here is this old man ambling about on the stage, but the moment was nothing short of magic. The music was hard to describe. He managed to keep his old style but added more slick instrumentals so that the music could remain relevant. It was like witnessing genus on stage. There are few moments in my life I'll remember as long as I will remember that performance.

Thinking about some of the comments on here, I might be able to understand some of the harsh words people have for celebrities. The feeling is, perhaps, we tend to put too much emphasis on worshiping the celebs, and largely ignore every day heroes, those who do the tough grunt work or risk their lives to make the world a better place. To that point, I do agree. It would be good to be able to take the time to honor those who really do sacrifice to make the world a better place. It often seems like a case of misplaced priorities.

Unfortunately, life is lived within limits. We can so honor but a few individuals. Even among the celib category, few are as widely admired and honored. More often than not, we show our appreciation for those who are deserving as a group, as we do on Veteran’s Day, but honor the few individuals who exemplify the values and attributes that we admire about the larger group, as we have honored Eisenhower and so on.

To the point of Whitney Houston, she did some good thing, but struggled with some personal issues. Some want to focus on the good stuff and others want to focus on her personal demons. Reading a little more about her life, it's clear she touched millions through her art and through the exposure brought about by her art. Her's is a case of rising above the usual superficial 'celibrity' status, as there is actually something real. And that's why I think she is being honored this way.

Now, I really wasn't a fan and I can't say I was touched by what she did. What I can say is, I do understand how people can be affected by her art, just as I was on that one special night I described at the beginning of this post, and as our friend described about the night he attended the Ray Charles event. I can understand if millions have similar experiences when they experienced her art, that they would believe there was something special about the artist. They weren’t looking for a perfect person, but for a perfect moment to treasure. I can respect that.

 

And then there are those relatively unsing musical prodigies that only ever seem to gather a cult following, despite having accrued truly awe-inspiring catalogs of work.

Anyone who enjoys phenomenal jazz or rock guitar videos on Youtube should take another listen someday to Stanley Jordan's sublime instrumental rendition of Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" , played in that inimitable "tapping" style, where both hands fret chords and lead solos, with independent harmonies woven so sinuously together as to make lesser guitar players feel like hanging it up.

If career success was attainable stricktly as a function of musical virtuosity, Staney Jordan should be one of the best known names in music, yet he has languished in obscurity for decades, playing to small venues totally under ther radar of mainstream recognition, while far less talented "musicians" make a killing playing utter crap.

/Rant over

 

That remindes me of a couple stories. The first relayed by my brother, who heard it somewhere. As the story goes, Les Paul heard Jimmy Hendrix playing guitar in a club. When Paul returned to the club and asked about the musician, the owner informed him that the guitar player had been fired, because "...he wasn't any good." The second story occured at work. One day I was playing a Miles Davis CD in my cube. One of my co-workers stopped by to inform me that is the worst trumpet playing he ever heard, and it sounds like the guy never even took a trumpet lesson

If you post some links, I'll take a listen.

 

BlackEyes Peas, I gotta feeling.

 

Donald MacPherson.

 

Loosewire,

Here's the video for the Peas ... I got a feeling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSD4vsh1zDA&ob=av2e

 

Thanks,Joe

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...uted/2012/03/22/gIQAtalFUS_story.html?hpid=z2

Coroner’s spokesman Craig Harvey says cocaine and its byproducts were found in Houston’s system, and it was listed as a contributing factor in her death. He says the results indicated Houston was a chronic cocaine user.
Coroner’s officials said they also found traces of marijuana, Xanax and benadryl in her system.

 

The fact that people continue rolling the dice with an insidious poison like cocaine, which is capable of inducing fatal siezures with a SINGLE dose, speaks to the all-consuming power of its addiction, which for many, leads inexorably to the graveyard, or, if they are very lucky, a strait jacket in the loony bin.

Sadly, for most still trapped in the throes of cocaine addiction, Ms. Houston's death will impart NO lessons at all.