Thursday, June 15, 2006

Ammendment a bad idea

The American Flag is a very important and very dear symbol to me, but I wonder if a constitutional ammendment banning flag burning is wise or necessary. The flag stands for freedom, and such an ammendment would restrict the freedom it stands for.

I find the act of flag burning despicable--an extreme form of hate speech--and those who have been reading this blog know that I detest both hate speech and extremism. I have as much a right to express myself as does the protester who would be stupid enough to desecrate the flag. I would want the freedom to express my opinion of that idiot who saw fit to burn the flag.

An anti-desecration ammendment could open up a very large can of worms. For example, during the 2004 Super Bowl half time show--yes, that one--Kid Rock displayed his profound, and sincere, patriotism by wearing an American Flag. I am sure that by cutting a hole in the flag, so as to wear it poncho-style, he had no intention of showing disrespect for the flag, and that he was unaware that he was desecrating the flag.. The proposed ammendment would have allowed law that would have put him in jail for a spontaneous demonstration of patriotism and support for the troops. Even President George H.W. Bush's literal wrapping of the American Flag around his body in 1992, while he rendered a speech supporting a constitutional anti-desecration ammendment, was a violation of the rule that the American Flag "shall not be worn as an article of clothing."
Most communities have statutes against burning anything in public as a form of expression. These laws are usually enforced. Any official in America who would issue a permit allowing a demonstration which included desecration of the flag would not stay in office very long. There are also laws against inciting a riot, and against self inflicted harm, which is what a person burning the flag in my community would be guilty of, as the demonstrator would quickly have the burning flag stuffed into one of that person's orifaces. My community is known for its militantly patriotic Harley riding veterans, by the way. It should be noted that any public demonstration desecrating the flag usually has the affect of causing resentment toward the demonstrator, and increasing feelings of patriotism and love for the Flag and what it stands for.

At 165,000 dollars a year per congressperson, the debate over the ammendment is an unwarrented waste of time and taxpayers' money. It is nothing more than a demonstration of members of a political party attempting to justify that salary. At the time of this writing, there are not enough votes in the Senate for the measure to pass. The ammendment, if it does pass the Senate and the House, would more than likely fail to be ratified by the required two-thirds of the states. In case you haven't noticed, at least fifty percent of the states are following a trend toward protecting what little sovereignity they have left.

Freedom of expression is sacrosanct in this country. It is perhaps the greatest freedom in differentiating between our constitutional Republic and the old Soviet Union. I am as strongly against any restriction of that freedom as I am against those who would abuse that freedom.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Alternative "News" On The Rise

Unbelievably, none of this "news" is from The Onion, or any other satiracal "news" source. This is from actual quotes, as seen on several different television news programs.

According to Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, speaking at a liberal conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, "Global Warming has a name. Hurricane Alfredo threatens to drop thirty inches of rain on Florida."
Meanwhile, Tropical Storm Alberto hit Florida's Gulf coast. with winds of less than 50 mph and rainfall of less than three inches.

NY senior Senator Charles Schumer, commentating on Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's decision to not bring charges against Karl Rove in the alleged CIA "leak" case, said, "It is obvious that something bad, probably illegal, has happened, and someone has done something wrong. The Special Counsel is obligated to write a report on what evidence has been found in this case."
It is illegal to reveal evidence or witness testimony used in a Grand Jury investigation.

Senator John Kerry, speaking at the "Take Back America" conference in Washington, DC, denounced his own belief in "misleading information" that there were WMDs in Saddam's arsenal.
Meanwhile, Democratic Party apologist Nancy (not Jane) Skinner, in a debate on Fox's Your World with Neil Cavuto, declared that the over 300,000 bodies in mass graves found in Iraq were not caused by WMDs.
Most of us know that Saddam did have a WMD program, and there have been accounts by such eyewitnesses as former Iraqi Air Force Vice-Marshall Gen Georges Sada, and by others in Saddam's government, as well as witnesses and victims to the attacks by Saddam on his own people, to show that there were, indeed, biological and chemical weapons in the Iraqi arsenal even up to the time of the US invasion. Just because such weapons have not been found since the US has been there, doesn't mean they never existed.
However, there are some, including Kerry who expect us to believe that it was all a lie.

Not as long as their reality is so far away from the reality of general consensus.