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.

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.

HURRICANE ALFREDO DROPS THIRTY INCHES OF RAIN ON FLORIDA
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.

LAW SHOULD BE BROKEN TO PROVE THAT LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN
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.

300,000 KURDISH AND IRAQI DEATHS BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS WERE NOT CAUSED BY WMD
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.

THE 2006 ELECTIONS WILL GIVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONTROL OF CONGRESS
Not as long as their reality is so far away from the reality of general consensus.

The real effect of the Al-Zarqawi news

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, the architect of the "Golden Mosque" bombing, the man who personally beheaded innocent civilians in front of web-cams and video cameras--is dead. We can't yet know if it is a "major" victory--only history will be able to tell that--but it is a significant victory.
There will be someone in al Qaeda to take over the leadership of the terrorist group, but, whoever that is will likely not have the experience, charisma, and leadership qualities of al-Zarqawi, and that group, at least momentarily, will not be as effective as it has been in the past.
A significant aspect of the operation which killed al-Zarqawi is the participation of Iraqi citizens who have grown weary of al Qaeda in Iraq and al-Zarqawi's practice of pitting Iraqi citizens against each other, as well as the operations by the terrorist gang to undermine the economy of Iraq by sabotaging oil production facilities and pipelines. This signifies the growing trend of Iraqis to support their new, democratic government, rather than to join the insurgency. If, as expected Abu al-Masri, an Egyptian, takes over leadership of the organization, this will not bring any love by Iraqis toward al Qaeda.
The mission of al Qaeda in Iraq is to seize control of the country, which is why it fomented violence between Sunni and Shia, sabotaged the oil production, and attacked Iraqi policemen and police stations. All these actions were to maintain instability in Iraq, with the goal of al Qaeda being able to have its own country.
It now seems that al Qaeda's mission in Iraq is greatly diminished. Overshadowed by the event is another event of great significance. Newly elected Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki has filled out his cabinet, appointing ministers to the politically sensitive Ministries of Defense and the Interior. This was done with the approval of all three of the major factions in the Iraqi government. Pro democracy sentiments in Iraq are on the rise.
With all this good news, we cannot be too optimistic about our mission in Iraq. There is still the Saddamist/Baathi insurgency, and the Shia separatist movement that will continue, perhaps even step up their operations against the fledgling government. As much as we hope and pray that our forces be brought home soon, our support in Iraq will continue to be necessary until Iraqi democracy is secure and stable. If we pull support prematurely, we are in danger of being complacent in establishing another Pinochet-like, or Iran Mullah-like regime in Iraq, elements of our history for which we have been severely criticized. If democracy and freedom do not succeed in Iraq, everything up to this point will have been in vain. Now is not the time for defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory.

Undoubtedly, there will be those conspiracy theorists that will say that this was all staged to detract attention from the alleged Haditha incident, involving US Marines. However, it is very likely that there will be courts martials concerning the cover-up, and possibly, if the crime was committed, of those soldiers responsible. This is nothing to be celebrated, but it is nothing to be detracted from either. Such courts martials will still be heralded by the opposition as proof that "America is Evil." It is sad that this tragedy will be so exploited, in the wake of good news, but it is inevitable.

Senate Debating Inheritance Tax

I really do not think the government needs to tax inheritance. It has already taxed the same money as it was earned and invested. What for? More bureaucracy and useless spending bills. On the other hand, there were a 100% tax on inheritance all along, think how much better off the world would be: No Kennedys, Paris Hilton, George Soros, Move On.org, and John Kerry would have had to think of a different reason to get married twice.

Something to Think About

Imagine what would happen if, for the sake of argument, a candidate standing for the creation of a theocracy in the United States were to be elected President. I'm talking about one of these "God Hates America" folks, such as Fred Phelps or Jimmy Swaggart. Homosexuals would be among the first to start disappearing, followed by journalists, bloggers, and others who offer dissenting opinion. And, it would all be "legal." America would be dotted with interment camps, Gulags, if you will, and people who are against the theocracy would have no legal recourse.
Or, imagine an anti-Capitalist president, a militant Atheist president, or any ideological extremist finding his or herself to the oval office. Those who disagree with the administration could be designated "enemies of the state," and "disappeared."
Not that I'm trying to cause hysteria, or be an alarmist, because the chances of this happening would be very small. There are checks and balances that would negate any of this type of behavior under the Patriot Act. But, it could happen.
The Patriot Act, so far, has been an effective tool in blocking acts of terrorism in the United States, and, coupled with alleged NSA programs, has caught some bad guys. In fact, the Congressional Members who were briefed on the NSA programs have announced that it is legal, effective, and a good idea.
However, what would happen if the law were to become a tool of an extremist administration. Even if it only took two weeks to release innocent prisoners, by order or action of the Legislative or Judicial Branch, or by the Citizen Militia, that would still be two weeks of atrocities.
It is because of this possibility, of misuse of the Patriot Act, that a "Sunset Clause" must be written back into the legislation. Somebody should think about it, because there is always the possibility of an extremist abusing the power of office.

Justice Served For Enron Victims, But, Where's Mine?

I sympathize with the victims of the Enron fraud. They basically had their livelihood taken away due to fraud and market manipulation by Ken Lay and Jeffery Skilling. The former employees of Enron Corp have, with the convictions of Schilling and Lay, achieved some closure and vindication. They more than likely will not, however, be able to recover the part of their lives which was taken from them.
I sympathize, because I, too had a lucrative career and pension which I was deprived of due to a combination of asbestos litigation and NAFTA. In a way, I am a victim of asbestos poisoning, though I was never exposed and have not become ill from it. Nor am I a perpetrator of any asbestos related crime, as I never used nor advocated the use of asbestos in ship and structure construction.
In the 1940s, the Department of the Navy required that asbestos be used in the construction of their ships. Eagle-Picher, the company I worked for in the 80's and 90's, had been one of the companies contracted to build ships for the Navy. Apparently, in the 1940s and 1950s, the dangers of asbestos were not widely known. In the late 1960s, when people began getting ill, and the illness was attributed to asbestos exposure, trial lawyers everywhere seized the opportunity to fatten their wallets by claiming "punitive damages" for the victims of asbestos exposure. The ensuing litigation, which continued for twenty years, eventually bankrupted Eagle-Picher, even before any verdict or settlement was reached, due to legal fees. Interesting to note, no charges were ever brought against the administrations of FDR or Harry Truman, or the Department of Defense, for advocating, and requiring the use of asbestos.
Eagle-Picher possibly, even likely, could have recovered from bankruptcy. Businesses, individuals, and corporations have often done so. The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, proposed by Ronald Reagan and signed into law by Bill Clinton, tilted the playing field toward those manufacturers which practiced outsourcing of jobs and product or parts manufacturing to Mexico and Canada. Eagle-Picher was priced out of the market, and many career employees, such as myself, lost their livelihood and their pensions. Furthermore, I have been unable to find a job in my chosen profession, for jobs in my area of electronics skills have been outsourced to China, India, and other countries where labor is cheaper and less taxed than in the United States. No charges have been brought against the government concerning market manipulation.
There could have been some closure concerning the trial lawyers. Legislation which would have established an Asbestos Victims Fund, to be funded by companies which exposed employees to asbestos, does not pay any fees to the trial lawyers. The money would have gone to the victims or their survivors, and none of it would have gone to the lawyers. It would have been a minor victory, but it was defeated in the Senate last February.
I am happy for those former employees of Enron, who, at least, seen justice served. But as I go to work at an American sweat shop, where workers are deprived of dignity, encouraged not to feel good about their job, not even given a "well done," and basically treated like human scum, I can't help but to wonder, "Where's mine?"

Not Amnesty? You Bet Your Sweet A## It's Amnesty!

Once again, the Philosophical and the Pragmatic Libertarian sides of me are at odds with each other, and, once again, the issue is the immigration reform legislation.
If a person has to pay a fine for entering the country illegally, and has to pay back taxes, and has to go back to the country of origin to apply legally for a work permit, then I agree that it is not a "get out of deportation free" card, which is what amnesty would be. However, there is, in the currently pending Senate legislation an item called the "Employer Protection Clause," which exempts employers who have, knowingly or unknowingly, employed illegal immigrants from fines and penalties. This is what is known as amnesty.
An employer who has accepted the required documentation, such as a work visa, social security card, and a valid driver's license or ID card, may not know if the documentaion is valid or forged, and so could have unknowingly hired an illegal immigrant. This type of employment, of course, would be at minimum wage or better, and all payroll and social security taxes would be paid according to law. Such an employer should not be held culpable for employing illegals.
An employer who knowingly hires an illegal immigrant, without asking for the necessary documentation, doesn't keep employment records, pays less than minimum wage, and avoids paying taxes is clearly committing a crime, and would greatly benefit from the proposed amnesty.
The Philosophical Libertarian side of me reasons that, if there is a useful job to be filled, the employer should be able to hire whomever fills the need. Philosophical side also questions, "why stop there? Why not grant amnesty from the IRS, the DEA, the FTC and all other Federal organizations which enforce victimless crimes?"
My Pragmatic Libertarian side wins this argument, though. Such amnesty seriously tilts the playing field, and is much closer to Socialistic favoritism than to Free Market Capitalism. It gives an advantage to those who have broken the law over those who have abided by the law. Moreover, it does nothing to solve the immigration problem. It does not dry up the incentive for more non-citizens to sneak across the border in order to find jobs, nor does it add any incentive for employers to hire employees legally.
This legislation needs to go back to the drawing board. While I dream of the day that personal responsibility and practicality take precedence over creating more victimless crimes, I could never support legislation which interferes with the free market in such a way to create favoritism.