In the news this morning:
The US House of Representatives will be voting today on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban burning, or other “desecration”, of the American flag.
desecrate to violate the sanctity of (something sacred); to profane (it).
sacred 1 dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a god or gods. 2 worthy of religious veneration; holy.
flag a usu rectangular piece of fabric of distinctive design that is used as an identifying symbol, e.g. of a nation…
I will not bore you with a semantic explanation of why a flag cannot be “desecrated”; I think it is obvious from the definitions above. A flag is, after all, a piece of fabric, and I have got as much trouble with someone burning it as I do with someone burning an old t-shirt. I myself have no interest in burning a flag, a bra or any textiles, but we all have our own behaviours.
My problem is that our government is wasting time and money on a frivolous issue when we are at war and we have scores of other real problems.
Georgia Congressman Phil Gingrey said, “to burn a flag is to disrespect America.”
To that, I say, “So what?”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
It's not like the whole government has stopped on this one issue. And although you don't give a shit there are voters that do. I wonder too that if these people who want their precious right to burn their flag would care if I burned some crosses in a black neighborhood.
I say burn them all. It is a trashed symbol of hypocrisy and it’s only that; a SYMBOL; not a holy relic of the church. Knowing this administration they will do anything to solidify their hold on the very iconology of America. Why the hell should they pass legislation to this end? The lackluster soul of the flag is on every redneck beater truck, every t shirt that Wal-Mart makes in China. It has no meaning anymore, no life other than the oppression of its own people for the monetary enhancement of the few.
k
Excelletn point SS! Or...think they would get all pissy if we took their weed!? You know they would....what if we burned their WEED!! Yeah...bet they wouldn't stand for that! Or their Dead albums...
People that would burn the flag to protest whatever it is they know nothing about are dicks. They are all fine causing a stir until someone puts it back in their face..then they can't handle it.
They want to do something to make a positive change? Light themselves on fire instead.
The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - "su" meaning "good," "asti" meaning "to be," and "ka" as a suffix.
Until the Nazis used this symbol, the swastika was used by many cultures throughout the past 3,000 years to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck.
Guess some thing have different meanings to different people.
SS, nice to see you have dropped your blond facade. Of course you are quite right about the nature of symbols. Riggs too (don't want you to feel left out).
FBSD, my ex brother-in-law who was a heroin addict already stole all of my Dead albums, as well as the rest of my CDs, to support his habit. Hey ho.
You can be for making flag-burning a crime or you can be for freedom of expression, or you can consider yourself somewhere in between. But a constitutional amendment?!! What the fuck?! I just happen to think that that is a bit over the top.
In a free society, flag burning is a matter of property rights not freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc. Therefore, if I own the flag, I can burn it and no one can do JACK about it. If I burn someone elses flag, then I have destroyed their property and need to compensate them for it.
In addition to the property rights of owning a flag, I can only burn it on my own property or on the property of someone who gives me permission. Any flag burning on property against the wishes of that property owner is trespassing and/or disorderly conduct.
All rights stem from private property rights, which includes ownership of your person. Ownership implies the right of disposal of that property by the owner.
SS, your analogy doesn't hold because you don't have the right to burn a cross on someone elses property without their permission.
ahh..but neither does yours DD. The only way you can burn a flag on your own property is if you do it in your house in your fireplace. If you burn it outside (unless you live in the sticks) you are guilty of Public Endangerment for starting an open fire in a residential area.
So burn your flag, burn your bra, burn your copy of the Bengals losing the Super Bowl (twice)...just do it inside.
FB,
In a free society, the "starting a open fire in a residential area" wouldn't exist. Analogy holds. Only cretins that live in covenant-controlled, Stepford communities would have such a law that would prevent something like a backyard campfire.
Come down off plant Free-Freaks (where you can do what you want, not pay taxes and the Bengals are always winners)...it is a fantasy land!
And thank John Elway, aka Almost God and Super Bowl/Arena Bowl Champ, for covenant-controlled lands! Without them I may have to look at a car on blocks, a lime-green house or someone that doesn't look exactly like me.
Viva la USA....Viva la Broncs...Viva la Bengals Sucking Forever!
But cross burning is banned in some states whether on private or public property.
I've got more to say but it will have to wait because my friend Max (a different Max, obviously, not me) is opening a new pub tonight and I am going to go and drink some beer. Not Heineken, not Coors Light, but proper Czech lager.
See y'all later.
Max xo
Im not for banning flag burning on private propety as am i not for banning cross burning on private property. it just seems every time i see a clip of someone burning a flag it is at some protest that is on public land and not standing in their front yard. Thus i get the impression they want to be able to burn the flag on the steps of some courthouse. i agree with monkeys max in that it should be a crime and not a constitutional amendment.
I'm for:
Pina Collitas (sp?)
Getting Caught in Rain
Mak'n love after midnight
Champaign
Not much into:
Yoga
Didn't the Supreme Court of the United States decide this issue back in the 60's? Am I becoming a doddering old fool and think I made this up? Or am I becoming a doddering old fool because I'm the only person on this blog to remember the 60's? Wasn't that about the same time that the Supreme Court ruled that the use of the word "fuck" was not against the law? That was also about the time that women were burning their bras (stupid in my opinion, because there were many young women, myself not included, who really needed to wear a bra, a push up at that). I think that the Supreme Court must have thought this through already, just as they thought through the Roe vs. Wade issue, and I don't see why we're revisiting an issue that's already been decided. Unless, of course, the Republicans in government want to waste more time and money - as they did with trying to impeach Clinton on moral issues - and are trying to subvert us from some other really important issue that they don't want us to focus on. But, hey, I'm just a doddering old fool, so don't pay any attention to anything I have to say... night folks.
"If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents." said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center.
AG, that is the fucked up thing -- that people cannot leave well enough alone. They keep revisiting the flag issue, as they do the Roe v Wade issue. And it's not just Republicans (oh my god, here comes my libertarian side again) - all governments waste time and money.
SS, as DD said, flag burning is already a crime when it can be classified as criminal damage (I wish my 1st year law school books were not still in storage in England).
"Did I really write that?" - I must correct your awful spelling:
piña colada
champagne
Thank you for indulging my pedantic side.
Dont you think there are certain societial standards that need revisited every so often? I mean at one time slavery seemed normal as did women not having the right to vote. Seems to me that you guys only want issues revisited if it benefits your point of view. I wont be here to prove it but i guarantee in 100-200 yrs people will be amazed that abortion was at one time legal. Much the way we look back on slavery today.
So much to say. Better for me to just pipe the f down.
Dear SS, I agree with you that 100-200 years from now people will be amazed that abortion was, at one time, legal. By then babies will be born from test tubes and they will have programmed people out of having sexual feelings at all (guys like you and me will miss out on a lot of fun) in order to do away with STDs and all that mess and bother that goes along with falling in love and having a life. The way its going, governments will be completely in control of what you will look like, no one will be allowed to be born with disease, men will all look like the Universal Soldier and women will take over all other jobs because they're willing to work for less money. The way it's going, I'm happy I won't be here. I like the mess and chaos that allows individuals the right to make their own choices, to fall in and out of love, to make a beautiful baby (defective or not) . Just remember, if you give a government the right to decide for you on an issue like abortion, they can one day turn around (as they did in China) and force you to have an abortion. There is no middle ground. You are either free or not. Besides, we don't have to deal with an issue like abortion today if only the government would allow sexually active people to have an effective means of birth control. Telling people to abstain is the first step to having us programmed toward the "New World Order" that people are now discussing. It's just a dressed up version of the old "Brave New World".
But, hey, I'm just a doddering old fool, so don't pay any attention to anything I have to say...
AG, stop calling yourself a "doddering old fool" - you are far from it. Wisdom and experience are extremely valuable commodities.
Actually, Max, I prefer being a D-O-F rather than the alternative of D-O-A.
Post a Comment