Protect the flag, but desecrate our constitutional liberty; I don't thnk so!
#---------------------------------------
Protect the flag; desecrate liberty
Thank you, Dianne Feinstein.
Composition teachers all over the country are indebted to the Democratic
senator from California for an editorial published Tuesday in USA Today.
Instead of tearing their hair out trying to instruct students in the
finer points of logic, rhetoric and critical thinking, teachers will
henceforth be able to simply pull out Feinstein's piece and say, ''Don't
do this.'' They will never find a better illustration of a bad argument
badly made.
Feinstein is co-sponsor of something called the Flag Protection
Amendment, the latest congressional effort to amend the Constitution to
protect the U.S. flag from ''desecration'' - an interesting word, given
its connotations of religious devotion.
Her editorial in support of the amendment certainly hits all the
patriotic sweet spots, invoking the image of Marines raising the flag on
Iwo Jima, reminding us that the flag is a symbol of ''our democracy, our
shared values, our commitment to justice, and our eternal memory of
those who have sacrificed to defend these principles.''
But there's more. Feinstein notes that Congress has power to protect the
Lincoln Memorial from defilement, so surely it should have similar power
to protect the flag, ''our monument in cloth.'' She denies the amendment
would infringe free speech, because, ''There is no idea or thought
expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed
equally well in another manner.''
As arguments go, this one has it all - pathos, tears, drama. Everything
except actual, you know, logic.
The comparison to the Lincoln Memorial, for example, might make sense if
the flag were a single iconic structure housed on federal land instead
of a banner that shows up on fanny packs, T-shirts, used-car lots and
suburban mailboxes.
As for the idea that anyone who wants to express an idea by burning the
flag can express the same idea equally well through other means, that's
not her call. Who is she to tell me - or you, or anyone - what means we
may or may not use to express a political opinion? If someone loathes
their country and wants to express that opinion, who is she to decide
what words, methods or approach that person is allowed to use? If free
speech means anything, it means that she doesn't have that right.
Feinstein, by the way, is reacting to a crisis that does not exist. You
know how many flag ''desecrations'' there have been this year?
Twenty-five, you think? A dozen?
There've been three. This is according to the Citizens Flag Alliance, a
group that ''supports'' the proposed amendment. ''Three.''
More people were struck by lightning. Heck, I bet more people
spontaneously combusted. So essentially what we have here is an effort
to amend the Constitution and abridge the First Amendment in order to
stop people from doing what people aren't doing. Am I the only one who
finds this more than faintly ridiculous?
The rapper Chuck D, among others, calls them ''weapons of mass
distraction,'' these periodic outbursts of noise and inanity whereby our
leaders attempt to hijack the public's attention, direct it away from
anything that means anything. As the use of those weapons go, this one
feels especially cynical, playing as it does on love of country and
respect for the sacrifices of forebears.
But maybe we should love the one and respect the other enough to stand
up for real American ideals and demand that our representatives do the
same, rather than play games of symbolism that solve no problems,
address no issues and insult our collective intelligence in the process.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. ''And''
to the Republic for which it stands. But there's a big difference
between honoring the flag and fetishizing it, especially at the cost of
doing violence to the Constitution.
Apparently nobody cares if we desecrate that.
http://www.reporternews.com/abil/op_columns/article/0,1874,ABIL_7981_4799970,00.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/naums
#---------------------------------------
Regards,
LelandJ
Michael Madigan wrote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00189#position
**** New Lower Prices *****
Horse Racing Photos at http://www.HorseRacingPix.com
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
