I'm not going to go all knee-jerk liberal on you about the Flag Burning Amendment passed by the House today. Personally, I think it's a stupid waste of time. We'd get better use out of our taxpayers' money by renaming french fries, "freedom fries" and by trying to keep dead people hooked up to feeding tubes. I know this amendment, like aforementioned dead people, has been hanging on to life for a decade, but I find the timing rather amusing.
How is it that when Muslims go nuts about American soldiers peeing on their Koran (purposely or accidentally, although, please - I've never peed on a Bible accidentally. Or purposefully, I guess I should say), conservatives whine that a) Who cares?, b) they would do it to us, c) serves them right for being terrorists, d) what's the big deal? It's just a book, not a life. To a good extent, they're actually right. It doesn't make us right for doing it. I mean, would you rip a lollypop out of a little girl's hands and laugh in her face, justifying that it was OK because the sugar would have rot her teeth? Even if taking away the lollypop was a good thing to do, there are right and wrong ways to do it.
Whatever. The point is, conservatives just don't see the big-freakin' deal about desecrating a Koran. Which makes it all the more ironic that they are pushing the Flag Burning Amendment! Hey, Republicans, what's the big-freakin' deal? It "accidentally" caught on fire. Oh - I was peeing into an air vent and, oops, the flag got a little urine on it. I needed toilet paper and, well, the flag was just right there.
The sad thing is that it's a known fact that conservatives don't get sarcasm. There are still studies underway to determine whether or not they have the capability of empathy, but it doesn't look good. So we can say for near certainty that they will never understand that they share the same views as the Muslims they disdain. They would have kittens if a Muslim government that we have relations with (say, Saudi Arabia or Malaysia) had soldiers that routinely desecrated the American flag while that government did absolutely nothing.
If you tried to burn a flag in protest or (God forbid) wear a flag jacket, you would be arrested and sent to jail. That's the United States, folks. It says a lot about where we've come as a nation that it sounds so foreign to us. But that's how this country worked in the 1950's and 60's. That's the reality that the reactionaries in Congress and the White House are trying to bring us back to.
11 comments:
I don't like it, it strikes me as bad in many ways, some of which I listed on my own blog, so I'm not going to get too in depth on reasons here. But before I mention any, I jsut wanted to point out that this couldn't have gotten as far as it did without some bipartisan support. When it comes to restricting free speech/expression, the left has far more to answer for over recent years than the right. And I'm sarcastic as hell, and thus pick up other sarcasm.
I don't like the way the ammendment is worded. There is way too much leeway for interpretation, and if recent years have taught us anything, the Supreme Court can find ways to make any law mean anything. Next thing you know, they'llbe encouraging towns to use eminent domain agaisnt people who don't fly their flags right because they are a threat to the public interest or whatever. Who defines prohibit, or desecration, or even physical? If I burn a flag in Georgia, does it affect intertstate commerce? If I look crosswise at a flag, does that hurt the flag's feelings, and cause it to shrivel and be desecrated?
See, the thing about this amendment is that it doesn't have to affect interstate commerce. It doesn't have to not restrict free speech. It doesn't have to follow anything else in the constitution. When our representatives choose to amend the constitution, there are no restrictions, assuming they can gather the required 67 votes. If they wanted to amend the constitution to say that Jews and gays were to be imprisoned, they could do so, and it would be legal and binding. That's why amending the constitution is not something that should be done for little things, like gay marriage or flag burning, or prohibition. It's too serious.
Waste - o - time. Definitely a "little thing".
Hey look! These guys burn flags all the time!?!
Scott, you merely calrified my point. It doesn't have to be defined, which means they can find any way to interpret it that they want in the future. That's exactly why the people that wrote the Bill of Rights would be so disgusted at hearing gun control activists reinterpret the right to bear arms as only being applicable to militias. They'd be so disgusted with the Supreme Court for deciding the commerce clause gives Congress virtually unlimited power. If you don't like this ammendment because of the ambiguosness of it, then you ought to be against the way they've reinterpreted the commerce clause, but you favor it there. So to you it's ok to make up new interpretations, as long as you agree with the new version. I, on the other hand, am disgusted at any sort of interpretation of the Constitution that does not fit it exactly as written.
Believe me, if this passes then some left-wing poltician in twenty years will find a way to stretch it to fit his agenda, and then you will be applauding him, because it will fit your agenda, too. My agenda is not giving more power to Congress, and this adds a lot to their power.
I think that this is a bad idea. I also think that conservatives are way too eager to ammend the constitution to make sure that everyone does things "their way". If this thing passes, how could they justify allowing people to display the Confederate flag. I find that a threat to this country's unity and peace! It symbolizes the desire to break up the country. It's not only unpatriotic, it's down-right treasonous!
I'm curious what all you left-wingers think about the Kelo decision the SCOTUS handed down today. It's ironic that the dissenters were the conservative justices, while the 5-4 winners were the liberals voting in favor of seizing property from the poor to give to the rich.
Thank God we as a nation have the foresight to pass a Constitutional Amendment that will affect approximately seven people. Is this really such a problem? Besides, I thought we were trying to get the Amendment through that would make it legal for Ahnuld to run for President.
Yes, I know the American Legion burns flags to respect the symbol, rather than as an attempt to disgrace anything. I mainly listed it out out of being a smart alec.
The main dfference betw the two -- burning a flag in effigy and burning a flag for retirement -- is the purpose behind it. It's a difference in motives.
If they made flag defacement illegal, then the result would be very similar to the laws for housing and employment discrimination. These laws, too, make illegal an otherwise legal action simply because of the motives in play (ie. you can refuse to hire someone, but not simply based on their race, creed, etc.) Flag people will be our newest protected class!
Then we can all be proud when the first flag person plays in the Major Leagues (Jackie Robinson) or becomes a major box office draw (Sidney Poitier)!
(sorry that got a little absurd towards the end)
I don't really think that bringing up the Confederate flag is irrelevant. The reason that people are giving for supporting this new law is that the burning of the flag is symbol of hatred for this country and therefore an act against this country. The Confederate flag is also a symbol of hatred for this country and therefore an act against this country (using the same reasoning, of course). Totally relevant. Oh, and they are both flags- even more relevant.
Ben- I heard about that Kelo decision this morning and it completely pissed me off!! I was so hoping that they were talking about just MN. No luck. This is completely outrageous!!! The topic of forcing people to give up their homes because the government needed the land was already enough to send me in a tirade, but THIS?! THIS IS JUST TOO MUCH! THIS IS THIEVERY!! I have to go punch something now. Or scream. Or scream and punch something while I'm screaming.
Yeah One of the justices on the majority opinion said that public use can mean increased tax revenues. Well what exactly can now be described as "not public use?" Absolutely nothing. It's easy to find a way to say that a township or whatever will benefit in some way or another in any situation, so the government now has UNLIMITED power to steal from it's citizens, as long as they can come up with an excuse, and we all know that as long as there are lawyers, there's an excuse. This trashed both the "public use" and "just compensation" portions of the 5th Ammendment. It goes against conservative private property ideals and liberal protect the poor ideals. The only people that will benefit from this are town council members and real estate developers. I imagine this will help to end the real estate boom. WHo wants to speculate on property when it can be stolen at any time? I think it's going to take some property owner bearing arms to protect his property to get this changed.
Or scream and punch something while I'm screaming.
Hey, neat. She must have two heads.
Post a Comment