(updated below - by Glenn)
According to the USA Today, the Senate is currently only one vote shy of the 67 votes needed to pass the "Flag Desecration Amendment." If so, I'm convinced the amendment will go down in history as the dumbest law ever written.
As an initial matter, it's hard to think of anything more un-American than banning a purely symbolic act. It would be the first time we've ever amended our Constitution to curtail the Bill of Rights. We would be carving out a bizarre exception to our most celebrated right, the right to freedom of speech. The new rule would be, in essence, you can say anything you want (but you can't say that).
But let's put aside the fact that we would be trading in an eloquent statement of principle for something that sounds like a Meatloaf song. Let's put aside the fact that we would be joining the ranks of such illustrious regimes as Nazi Germany, Cuba, China, Iran, and Iraq (during the Saddam era). Let's forget all that and assume, for the sake of argument, that there is no more heinous transgression than the desecration of an American flag and that we must do whatever it takes to--God willing--stop this horrible crime for taking place. Assuming all that, is the Flag Desecration Amendment good policy?
The answer to that is--of course--a resounding "no." I, for one, have never felt any real desire or inclination to burn an American flag (or any other flag for that matter). Apparently most Americans are in the same boat because, according to one study, there were only 45 reported flag burning incidents in the first 200 years of the republic (h/t Think Progress). That means there are probably more historical incidents of witch-burning than flag-burning. Maybe we should start debating the Witch Protection Amendment.
But I digress. Back to flag-burning. Despite my natural disinclination (apathy?) toward burning flags, if the Flag Desecration Amendment passes, I'm going to be awfully tempted to burn one for the first time, if for no other reason than to protest the passage of such a mind-bogglingly stupid amendment. And I have a feeling I won't be alone. It seems likely, therefore, that the primary consequence of this amendment will be to dramatically increase the level of flag burning in this country.
If you doubt this is true, just ask Professor Robert Goldstein, who's an expert on the subject. This Senate Report quotes Goldstein as saying: "We've had more than twice as many flag burnings since this became a front page issue in 1989 than in the entire history of the American republic." The report continues:
Professor Goldstein has established that the number of incidents peaked during the period after the 1989 Flag Protection Act was in effect, and that the rate of incidents has more than tripled since the current effort to amend the Constitution was initiated. Even with the increase brought on by the agitation for bans on flag burning, the actual number of incidents remains exceedingly low. These facts are undisputed.
So there you have it, folks. Not only is banning flag-burning thoroughly un-American, but it's an extraordinarily counterproductive policy. It turns a non-problem into an exponentially more prevalent non-problem. And that's why I can say, with confidence, that the Flag Desecration Amendment is the single dumbest law ever.
UPDATE (by Glenn): The USA Today editorialized quite strongly today against the Flag Desecration Amendment, and then provided space for an editorial in favor of the Amendment. Who wrote the editorial favoring this Amendment? The increasingly odious Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who insults everyone's intelligence with this inane "reasoning":
Some opponents of the Flag Protection Amendment argue that we must choose between trampling on the flag and trampling on the First Amendment. I strongly disagree.
There is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner. This Amendment would leave both the flag and free speech safe.
Obviously, the burning of the American flag does convey a message in a unique way or else there wouldn't be an effort to amend the Constitution in order ban it. We have spent the last 218 years with the Constitution prohibiting all attempts by Congress to restrict free speech, but Feinstein thinks we should change that so that we become a country in which people like Dianne Feinstein can dictate to us what is and is not an appropriate form of political expression. She thinks she should be able to criminalize certain types of political expression and then tell us not to worry because the views can "be expressed equally well in another manner."
Dianne Feinstein is on both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee and sleepwalks as the Bush administration wages war on the constitutional principles which define this country. And yet this is the issue which has moved her to write an editorial in a national newspaper.
Say amen, brother!
ReplyDeleteBut it ain't stoopidity. It's naked politics, red meat for the rubes who doan think so fast. The folks that are pushing it are not all naive and stoopid (though for the likes of Inhofe, this may be close enough). Rather, they're pushing this as some sort of "I'm more 'Merkun than you, and anyone that's 'Merkun is on my side, not yours" type of shinola. It's an attempt to marginalise and cast as un-patriotic anyone who would dare disagree ... on anything.
"You're either with us or you're an al-Qaeda lover." "How can anyone hate 'Merkuh so much that they burn the flag?" "No self-respecting 'Merkun can do less than salute the flag as it passes by." "And any criticism of our Preznit is an insult against the ol' U. S. of f***ing A in a time of war, dontcha see?"
It's all part of the game plan.
Yes, I'll go out and dutifully burn the flag every Saturday on the steps fo the Federal building. Not that I want to, particularly. But because now I will have to, just to remember what it was like when we had freedom of expression and of conscience. And to remind myself of the Constitution we had before we burned it....
Cheers,
It'll still be totally legal to burn a Confederate Battle Flag, right? ;-)
ReplyDeleteSo does this mean there will be no more flag napkins for the fourth of July? I mean, what if someone blows their nose in one? Or how about my stars and stripes boxers- can I be arrested for those? What if I have a USA T-shirt and spill tomato sauce on it? What if there is an image of the flag on my TV and I change the channel?
ReplyDeletea country starts to lose its grip on freedom when it needs to start criminalizing the desecration of symbols of that very same freedom
ReplyDeleteCan't you hear the whingeing of the radical right about Glenn and false equivalencies comparing the US to China or Cuba?
ReplyDeleteWe're Merkins, so even if we pass exactly the same laws, we're good and they're still Commie pinkos. So take those Che Guevara shirts out of your closet, Glenn, and get with the latest tautology that the USA is the greatest because it is the USA.
If you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it.
ReplyDeleteNorman Thomas, American Socialist candidate for President
I agree with you but this all about the Republicans playing to their base in an election year when they are in trouble.
ReplyDeleteIt's a gut wrenching emotional issue for many that won't see larger implication of surpressing free speech.
I am another one that has never burned a flag and quite frankly I don't enjoy seeing the American flag desecrated. However, the true test of free speech is not about encouraging those you agree with to express themselves, but about tolerating those with whom you most vehemently disagree.
I would support the amendment if it also forbids car dealerships from flying those oversized flags at the side of the interstate and all Republicans from wearing any combination of red, white and blue while spewing hate speech.
ReplyDeleteA.L., I wish I could write like you do. These two sentences are pure gold:
ReplyDelete"It turns a non-problem into an exponentially more prevalent non-problem. And that's why I can say, with confidence, that the Flag Desecration Amendment is the single dumbest law ever."
Great post.
-------
Anonymous:
"Or how about my stars and stripes boxers- can I be arrested for those?"
I actually have a pair of those. I like them because of the ambiguity. Am I so super-patriotic that I have to show I'm American down to my boxers, or am I keeping the flag as close to my anus as possible? I feel like it's a nice metaphor for my ambivalence about what this country is versus what it could/should be.
---
Commenters in general:
Keep up the funny commentary. Ya'all are great
During a civil war both sides are the "true patriots".
ReplyDeleteYou are supposed to dispose of old, tattered or out of date flags by burning them.
ReplyDeleteA.L., dumb, yes. Dumbest EVER? Heartily disagree. In terms of pointless, harmful, and counterproductive, cannabis (or, as the Feds say "marijuana") Prohibition springs readily to mind...
ReplyDeleteAL: "It would be the first time we've ever amended our Constitution to curtail the Bill of Rights."
ReplyDeleteUmm, not to put too fine a point on it but... Prohibition?
Prohibition was pretty dumb, but I don't think it was a curtailment of the Bill of Rights. There's nothing in there about the right to drink alcohol. Freedom of expression, however, is covered in the very first amendment. The flag amendment would essentially create a carve-out of the First Amdendment.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the commenter who said this proposed amendment isn't stupid, on the justification that it's politics. I think that viewpoint presupposes that our lawmakers have no actual business that they ought to be doing instead of grandstanding for the public. Isn't it stupid to ignore the real problems the US has in favor of cheap political points?
ReplyDeletePresident Bush has been the leader of the "politics is everything" attitude towards public policy. All of his policies are tailored to increase his public popularity. And yet his approval rating is mired in the 30s.
People aren't as dumb as the politicians treat them. They might not be clever enough to figure out which policy is the best, but they are clever enough to see when everything goes down the crapper, even if they never figure out why it's happened.
And yes, Senator Feinstein boggles the mind. To think she was once the liberal mayor of San Francisco. Well, she's certainly following a career path designed to prevent people from attacking her as being too liberal!
That still leaves the "unprincipled" allegation unanswered, unfortunately.
Dianne Feinstein:There is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner.
ReplyDeleteOkay, here is my "thought expressed equally well":
Fuck you, Senator Feinstein.
And anyone whose policy decisions rely on phrases as bumbling and idiotic as "thoughts expressed equally well" should get the hell out of the legislative business.
Whispers: I rarely see this issue discussed directly, but I agree wholeheartedly that the Bush Administration has sacrificed principle for politics again, and again, and again. I don't think there are any principles in there, anymore, although they claim that their grandstanding is for them.
I think it speaks volumes for Rove's genius as a political operator (not to mention the complete ineptitude of all of the opposition parties) that somehow the public narrative is exactly the opposite.
Oh, yeah, I forgot.
ReplyDelete"Dianne Feinstein is on ... the Senate Intelligence Committee ..."
Is this one o them ox-ee-moe-Rons? Like Army Intelligence?
There is no idea or thought expressed by carrying an Impeach George Bush sign that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner. This Amendment would leave both the Codpiece and free speech safe.
ReplyDeleteThere is a good bit of hyperbole in the reporting on this issue -- it won't ammend the Consitutition if this mythical 67th vote arrives.
ReplyDeleteIt's not hyperbole to worry that the United States Senate is 1 vote from passing this amendment. Senators are the most visible representatives we have in America, with the exception of the president who has no official role in this. Senators are also the ones most familiar with the constitution and its civil rights protections. For Senators to be so disiniterested in the implications of creating a political crime is extremely troubling at a time when the president is already stripping away the protections of the rule of law and due process and leveling accusations of treason against anyone who criticizes his actions.
It's going to be far easier to get passage in most state legislatures whose members are actually more susceptible to accusations of disloyalty and many of which have already gone on record supporting the idea.
Excuse me for posting the following again, I have already at several other blogs but I think it bears repeating.
ReplyDeleteI followed a link from AMERICAblog and read this:
President Bush spoke similarly at a Republican fund-raiser here Monday night, asserting: “An early withdrawal would embolden the terrorists. An early withdrawal would embolden Al Qaeda and bin Laden. There will be no early withdrawal so long as we run the Congress and occupy the White House.”
‘As long as we run the Congress and occupy the White House’
Is this what now passes for democracy in this country? Do we even realize how far we have fallen when the president considers himself and his cronies to be an occupying force?
The text of the amendment:
ReplyDelete`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'
Left undefined are the actual punishments, the definition of desecration and the definition of flag.
The flag protection act of 2005 , however, does define the flag and its treatment:
The flag:
"flag of the United States means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, in any size, in a form that is commonly displayed as a flag and that would be taken to be a flag by the reasonable observer."
The crime:
1.) Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence.
2.) Any person who steals a flag of the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag
The Penalty:
1.)shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
2.)shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
Of course, Congress could change these at any time.
So - if I were so inclined - I could hold a perfectly legal 'flag disposal' event rather than a soon-to-be-illegal 'flag burning' event.
ReplyDeleteSince congress defines desecration to include "intent" the Boy Scouts and veterans are safe. I expect you'd be sitting in a jail cell, however.
Article by Nat Hentoff on the flag burning amendment and the SCOTUS decisions "requiring" it:
ReplyDeleteAlso joining Brennan in the majority was Justice Antonin Scalia, who is invariably described as the most conservative member of the Court. During oral arguments in that case, Justice Scalia made it clear that there is not "a flag exception for the First Amendment." And Justice Anthony Kennedy, not known as a liberal, in joining the majority decision, said that the flag expresses "the freedom which sustains the human spirit." He continued, "It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt."
Justice Brennan added, "We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own." That is precisely what my wife and I did during the Vietnam War. We were against the war. Although the anti-war sentiment of many of the people in our neighborhood had turned into a virulent anti-Americanism, we flew the flag on the Fourth of July to bear witness to the fact that America is a place where we are all free to protest against the government.
One hardly knows how to respond when Diane Feinstein moves to the right of Antonin Scalia, to carve out "a flag exception for the First Amendment."
The flag is where the God of Merka lives. It is his house. If you desecrate God's house, just imagine what God will do to you.
ReplyDeleteJust what IS in the water in DC?
ReplyDeleteI just don't understand why they would want to prevent the burning of the flag by shredding the Constitution instead.
ReplyDeletemainsail: Just what IS in the water in DC?
ReplyDeleteThe grog of self-righteousness and the blood of dead idols.
Nick;
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid there's been a new amendment passed and you can no longer use the phrase 'fuck you' in reference to a US senator. Don't worry; your views can be expressed equally well in another manner - 'screw you' comes to mind - but the f-word has been determined to be a little too disrespectful.
More great news about constitutionally-acceptable ways to use your freedom of speech coming up!
You can no longer use the phrase 'fuck you' in reference to a US senator, unless of course you are the vice-president.
ReplyDeleteAll laws are dumb. They don't apply to them. Only us.
ReplyDeleteThe topic was the largest defense procurement scandal in recent decades, and the two investigators for the Pentagon's inspector general in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office on April 1, 2005, asked the secretary to raise his hand and swear to tell the truth.
Rumsfeld agreed but complained. "I find it strange," he said to the investigators, on the grounds that as a government official "the laws apply to me" anyway.
Ooooooh. We could have lots of fun testing the limits of the FBA! You know, like make one of those photo-montages all made up of little images (of an appropriate sort, of course), or replace the stars with Dianne's pusser, and the bars with actual bars....
ReplyDeleteWhy not encourage a contest to show Dianne all the thousands of unique ways of expression one could come up with using the 'Merkun flag.
Say, did anyone bother to point out to my esteemed Senator that she's "giving aid and comfort" to the religious nutcases who got all bent out of shape about the Muhammad cartoons?
*sheesh*
Feinstein is one of the "useful tools" of a malign Republican party ... and stoopid to boot.
Cheers,
Yes or No , the dems can't win, at least in the eyes of the "base". (An exceedingly apt term if you think about it.)
ReplyDeleteThe enemy of freedom is here. Not in Iraq or in a cave in Afghanistan.
Feinstein and her husband are making big bucks off the war. She's the next Lieberman. It may take a few years.
ReplyDeleteIt's so nice to know that Congress has solved all the other problems facing us, in order to deal with same-sex marriage and flag-burning, those two major threats to our country.
ReplyDeleteMichael, I've considered the respectful-protest-flag-burning myself!
dr. limerick:
ReplyDeleteAs an earnest young boy steeped in patriotism, I learned that the only proper way to get rid of a worn out or soiled U.S. flag is to burn it. In a solemn and respectful way, of course. But if we can't burn them, what are we going to do with all those worn out and soiled flags?
Oh, quite true, quite true. Good point (although Feinstein probably still won't 'get it'). Yes, you're supposed to burn flags. But with due solemnity and respect. It's not the act that is prohibited. It's the thought.
Which is something in short supply in Feinstein's head, so I'd say that amendments prohibiting such would be very dangerous to the likes of her.
Cheers,
David Shaughnessy wants to build something new. A spaceship perhaps to take you to the mothership?
ReplyDeleteYes, David. Dianne Feinstein. Bad Democrat. I'm a Democrat by default. At least they can get elected, unlike Greens, or Libertarians, and thank God for that. If Tom "The Moustache of Understanding" Freidman is now calling himself a Geo-Green or a Neo-Green, I may have to become a Maoist. That moron screws everything up in six months. He doesn't even know the difference between a Lexus and Fig Tree. You can eat figs.
Don't burn the flag, just wash it. It's dirty and soaked in blood.
ReplyDeleteWhispers:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the commenter [me, Arne, I guess] who said this proposed amendment isn't stupid, on the justification that it's politics....
I didn't say "justification". I was talking about the motivation behond these shenanigans.
... I think that viewpoint presupposes that our lawmakers have no actual business that they ought to be doing instead of grandstanding for the public. Isn't it stupid to ignore the real problems the US has in favor of cheap political points?
Oh, I agree. The politicians do have other business they should be attending to (see, e.g., Glenn's comments WRT Feinstein), but they think this is a cheap "gimme" to use to avoid having to do what they should be doing.
Plus, this little escapade is just a little test drive on the road to fascism for some.
Cheers,
mike said:
ReplyDeleteThe text of the amendment:
"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
Left undefined are the actual punishments, the definition of desecration and the definition of flag.
Sounds more like a "full employment for First Amendment lawyers" amendment. We'll get to have hundreds of lawsuits now as to what can legally be done and what acts are "desecration".... Well, maybe we could pass a corollary amendment that passes on jurisidiction to decide the latter to an expert court, say maybe these folks (or maybe these ones)? They have lots of practical experience....
Cheers,
AL writes: It turns a non-problem into an exponentially more prevalent non-problem. And that's why I can say, with confidence, that the Flag Desecration Amendment is the single dumbest law ever.
ReplyDeleteIt may be substantively dumb, but could be politically brilliant. In comments here alone you can see many proclaiming that they now have a desire to burn the flag. Such a sentiment is understandable and I can empathize with a patriotic person's avowal of that intent in light of the proposed amendment.
However, expressing a desire to burn the flag -- which I expect to be pervasive in certain parts of the blogosphere -- and the actual practice if captured on film, are going to be great fodder for the "patriotic" GOP, their blogging minions, and Fox News.
So, there mere proposal to fix a "non-problem" may create what will decidedly not be a "non-issue" that benefits the right, when, as night follows day, outraged civil libertarians and others proceed to advocate the burning of Old Glory, and actually do so.
At Senator Feinstein's website, in the contact area, there is information on how Californians can purchase a flag that will be flown over the Capitol and then shipped to you. For $17.30, you can request the date that it is flown and specify the "occasion" that it marks.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to order one and mark the "occasion" as "in PROTEST of the Flag Protection Amendment". When I get the flag, I'll e-mail the Senator again and let her know that I'll be using it in a protest at Powell St. in San Francisco, if she wants to stop by.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteFunny you should bring this up today, because over the weekend I asked my more conservative husband if he'd come bail me out if I got arrested. He was very surprised when I told him what I could possibly get arrested for. I am 42 years old and vaguely remember people burning flags during Vietnam, but it never would have crossed my mind to do it for any reason. Until now. Maybe we should all just go to Washington and burn copies of the Constitution since it seems we aren't following it anymore anyway!
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteObviously, the burning of the American flag does convey a message in a unique way or else there wouldn't be an effort to amend the Constitution in order ban it.
I oppose this amendment because there doesn't seem to be a problem of flag desecration to address.
However, I don't see much of a freedom of speech issue here if such an amendment did manage to pass.
Can anyone here tell me what redeeming speech is communicated when you desecrate the colors?
Can anyone here tell me what redeeming speech is communicated when you desecrate the colors?
ReplyDeleteWhenever I burn a flag, it's my symbolic way of saying "I am opposed to and angry with non-obscenity content standards being applied in free-speech restriction."
Can anyone here tell me what redeeming speech is communicated when you desecrate the colors?
ReplyDeleteSince when does speech have to be "redeeming" in order to be protected?
If this amendment does pass, my plan is to print it out on a huge piece of plotter paper and burn that.
Idolatry, pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone here tell me what redeeming speech is communicated when you desecrate the colors?
ReplyDeleteOne of the best and most important aspects of America has always been that nobody needs to convince the Barts of the world (or the Dianne Feinsteins) that their speech is "redeeming" in order to be allowed to engage in it. The whole point of the First Amendment is to preserve the right to engage in speech that is widely considered to be reprehensible and destructive (which, if you think about it, is the only type of speech likely to need constitutional protection). It will come as a surprise to exactly nobody to see that Bart's view on this issue - like his views on essentially everything -- as squarely contray to the principles on which our country is based.
Speaking of which, it should be equally unsurprising that Bart's views are quite similar to David Byron's (who thinks that Cubans are free to burn the Cuban flag without consequences given what a lover of liberty Fidel Castro is):
In all honesty Feinstein is correct to say you don't need to
burn a flag to slag off America. I've never had any need or felt any inclination to burn a flag to make a point.
Mindless ideologues on the far extremes of the spectrum always end up meeting in the same place. They are but opposite sides of the same empty coin.
So according to Dianne Feinstein, it would be all right to criminalize saying "Fuck You" because there are similars ways of expressing the same sentiment?
ReplyDeleteterminus est said...
ReplyDeleteif the Flag Desecration Amendment passes, I'm going to be awfully tempted to burn one for the first time, if for no other reason than to protest the passage of such a mind-bogglingly stupid amendment. And I have a feeling I won't be alone.
No you wont be alone. I will stand right next to you with my own flag (my private property to do with as I see fit) and a lighter. The reason I would do so is for the very reason you state, after never ever even contemplating or being inclined to burn a flag.
Let's start thinking about a flag-burning party, just in case.
Any Dem voting in favor of this Amendment needs to be voted out of office, by the way. This is the stuff of police states and the GOP, NOT a party that should be representing the actual people and liberty.
You know, as far as I can tell nobody in recent history has burned an American flag here in the US of A except for that shadowy, possibly terrorist, organization called 'The American Legion' (was that the bunch exposed in Dan Brown's book?). I understand from my clandestine sources that this coven of flag-burners has rites and rituals associated with this fell deed. I hear also that they have close ties with a foreign international militaristic group called 'Veterans of Foreign Wars'. The Republicans (God bless them) have finally realized how pernicious these organizations and their acts are, and seek to put legal sanctions on this horrible activity. Praise be!
ReplyDeleteBart -
ReplyDeleteThere is no requirement that political speech be "redeeming" to enjoy Constitutional protection. Nazis marching through Skokie IL receive constitutional protection, and I hardly think their point of view is considered "redeeming" by anyone but them.
To answer your question directly -- people burn flags as a statement of disagreement with American policy. Whether that statement is "redeeming" or not depends on your point of view, but frankly that is not relevant. It's protected speech.
If, as the current reading of the law has it, *money* is protected political speech, then symbolic acts like burning a flag are, too.
Instead of reacting by wanting to burn a flag, perhaps a better symbolic response would be to hold funeral services for the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, the wingers have endlessly railed against the concept of the Constitution as a "living document." Well it seems they're finally succeeding in killing it.
And the BIG question then becomes, once this flag is burned how does anyone prove in a court of law that it was in fact a conforming US flag and not a non-conforming knockoff flag?
ReplyDeleteYes, you're supposed to burn flags. But with due solemnity and respect. It's not the act that is prohibited. It's the thought.
Yes, its the thought that counts. Once the door is open, how many other thoughts might be deemed criminal? I feel like I'm trapped in a Sci-Fi movie!
What about sticking little American flags in piles of feces? Is that "flag desecration" if the little flags don't actually touch the poo?
ReplyDeleteOr how about my stars and stripes boxers- can I be arrested for those?
ReplyDeleteOnly if you have an "accident" in them - if you keep them feces and urine free, you should be fine.
Of course you should not be allowed to burn flags!
ReplyDeleteThat shows extreme disrepect to china and the pacific-rim countries that actually make 'em.
Silly Senator Di-Fi.
ReplyDeleteGet this. There is no idea or thought expressed by making the burning of the American flag unconstitutional that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner.
For example, "I am a pandering politician." Or "I have no respect for the principles of American democracy." See how that works? Good. Now get back to actual governance.
I was just shocked into the realization that I AM A FLAG-BURNER! Some of our local car dealers (you know, the ones who fly the 100-foot long flags above the used cars) actually have images of flags, easily acknowledged to be flags, and in full color, in their newspaper ads. I shamefacedly admit that I have used newspapers to kindle fires, and may have burnt one of these flags instead of clipping and sending them to the American Legion for proper disposal according to their arcane rites.
ReplyDeleteI hope I'm not injecting frivolity into a mostly serious forum, but this post put me in mind of a political cartoon I saw last week.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.idrewthis.org/2006/flagburning.html
Sorry, forgot to HTML tag it. This cartoon.
ReplyDeleteThe increasingly odious Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who insults everyone's intelligence with this inane "reasoning
ReplyDeleteUh oh. Glenn breaks out the "O" word. In Glenn-speak, it doesn't get much worse than that.
The flag:
ReplyDelete"flag of the United States means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, in any size, in a form that is commonly displayed as a flag and that would be taken to be a flag by the reasonable observer."
Ok, I make a cake for the 4th of July. It is frosted with red and white strips, a blue back ground in the left upper conner and white stars. A common form of the flag at all sorts of State parties.
I put it out in public on the 4th and proclaim my intent to have the cake end up in the public sewer by eating it. I then proceed to eat the cake.
Was a crime committed?
Please don't hawk your crappy webcomic on this blog.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Greenwald said...
ReplyDeleteBart: Can anyone here tell me what redeeming speech is communicated when you desecrate the colors?
One of the best and most important aspects of America has always been that nobody needs to convince the Barts of the world (or the Dianne Feinsteins) that their speech is "redeeming" in order to be allowed to engage in it. The whole point of the First Amendment is to preserve the right to engage in speech that is widely considered to be reprehensible and destructive (which, if you think about it, is the only type of speech likely to need constitutional protection).
Really? The Courts generally hold that "destructive" speech like obscenity and fighting words do not enjoy First Amendment protection.
You can very easily argue that desecrating the flag has no other purpose apart from instigating violence like fighting words or obscenity. The flag represents the United States. Desecrating the flag can easily be interpreted as symbolically saying "F*ck the United States."
Therefore, we get back to the intellectual question of whether flag desecration communicates any redeeming message other than the fighting words of "F*ck the United States."
You claim to be a First Amendment lawyer. Try to answer the question honestly without the usual ad hominem attacks as if you were arguing the issue before a court.
It will come as a surprise to exactly nobody to see that Bart's view on this issue - like his views on essentially everything -- as squarely contray to the principles on which our country is based.
Really? What are my views on flag desecration as a First Amendment issue? Maybe you are clairvoyant because I never posted them here.
The Bush deficit is more likely to ruin this country than some moron burning a flag.
ReplyDeleteEvery penny in the national budget goes to make interest payments on our debt. The deficit indicates that we cannot even cover the interest, that we have to borrow money just to mitigate the situation, let alone start to reverse it.
There is absolutely no chance of the economy turning around at this point. Things will get quite a bit worse before they get better.
A.L.,
ReplyDeleteI e-mailed, faxed and sent by old-timey mail your article to Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) with the following opening:
"The excerpts from the following article were posted at http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/. I think you would benefit from reading this. I also think you would benefit from a refresher course in Con Law. You do realize that this is the first amendment to the Constitution to LIMIT my rights, right? Try reading the Federalist papers, maybe. Call me. You're getting bad advice."
A waste of my time, I know. I was informed, unofficially, of course, that he voted for the prior amendment when he was in the House of Reps and wants to protect our symbol. He better thank his God every night that his most serious opponent is Katherine Harris.
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
ReplyDelete- President Shepherd, "The American President"
My main concern is that the SC will stretch the flag burning amendment to include other types of anti-patriotic speech. What if other national "symbols" get elevated by it - shall it be a crime to mock the pledge of allegiance? Or the Statue of Liberty? Or what if someone burns a copy of the constitution in protest? A Picture of the President? And if it became illegal to burn a picture of the President, could it become illegal to speak ill of him? Already conservative morons go on and on about how critisizing the war is treason and questioning the president in "war time" is the same. They would support it, as farcical as it is, the groundwork is there.
Consider how these idiots interpret the 2nd amendment - the specific stuff about "well regulated militas" means nothing to them, it's a generalized right to bear arms in their minds. Or Article II - which apparently is a blank cheque for the president to do anything, as long as he thinks it helps national security. Despite Federalist 69 making it clear the framers meant no such thing.
No, it won't stop with Flag burning. This will open the door for all sorts of fascist laws.
It's also another GOTV effort assuming the issue becomes a november election issue even as a way to win back state houses and governorships, or perhaps states can ratify the amendment by ballot measure? I'm not sure.
russell said...
ReplyDeleteBart - To answer your question directly -- people burn flags as a statement of disagreement with American policy. Whether that statement is "redeeming" or not depends on your point of view, but frankly that is not relevant. It's protected speech.
Thank you for answering the question. This is a very reasonable take. Opinions concerning political policy are at the heart of the First Amendment protections.
Mindless ideologues on the far extremes of the spectrum always end up meeting in the same place. They are but opposite sides of the same empty coin.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. If the amendment resolution passes the Senate it will have garnered at least 67 votes in that body. If it passes both chambers of 38 state legislatures (those that are bicameral, of course), it will have garnered literally thousands of votes by elected representatives in those states.
Does this mean that our entire political system is now held captive by "extremists"?
Such a notion is, of course, nonsensical.
For reasons that obviously escape the overpowering intelligence of our august Glenn Greenwald, the common voter, whether Democrat or Republican, wants this amendment to pass. To call this "extremist" is to remove all meaning from the word.
What the issue does reveal (and why I find this blog so interesting), is how completely divorced from reality "intellectuals" (leftists) like Glenn are, and why they are so marginalized in American politics. It is very entertaining to witness how truly clueless self-identified "smart" people are about practical political issues. It is also clear why Glenn and his ilk are always on the losing side. They are political morons who couldn't win an election for dogcatcher if they were the only candidate in the race.
Wow. We've lost people. Democracies only last so long. What a disgrace. Sen. Feinstein and any Democrat that supports this is a disgrace. Pretty much makes me want to give up. I'll vote Democratic but that's it. No more contributions, no walking precints on election day, no more blogging, no nothing. Will the last patriot please turn out the lights when they're done.
ReplyDelete"hypatia":
ReplyDeleteIn comments here alone you can see many proclaiming that they now have a desire to burn the flag.
You misunderstand me. I said that I had no desire to do so. But if they pass this stoopid law, I will have to take up my civic responsibility (and marshall my monetar resources) and do my patriotic duty to burn flags as indicated. I didn't ask for this job. It would be thrust on me.
Cheers,
Oh well, so FINALLY someone whose blog gets read by more than friends and family figures out that DIFI is as problematic a Senator as... well, does the name Holy Joe come to mind?.. and actually says something about her cravenness.
ReplyDeleteDid you know she is running for re-election just like Holy Joe? Did you know she had opponents in the primary just held? Do you wonder that she got 87% of the primary vote, even though she has long been "odious?"
The almost exclusive focus on Holy Joe has meant that we're going to be stuck with DiFi for another six years. Thanks.
Ptooey.
Really? The Courts generally hold that "destructive" speech like obscenity and fighting words do not enjoy First Amendment protection
ReplyDeleteThe courts have also ruled that burning a flag is protected speech which is why a Contitutional amendment is what is being discussed today. What's actually driving many dabates these days is the fact that judges (even Conservative ones) tend to be thoughtful, while the public feel no qualms about letting their emotions rule.
The result is that the USA is now being treated like any other brand name, with the same amount of reasoning behind supporting policies as people generally use to choose between the Yankees or the Red Sox.
Bart Argument shorter:
ReplyDeleteWhat you said actually means X, where X is a generally bad thing. So why are you defending people's right to say X!!!!?
Your little rhetorical trick doesn't work. Burning a flag means many things and "fuck the united states" or "fuck america" are just your interpretation of this event. Your definition is not categorical Bart.
Quit trying to change what Glenn said and arguing against that, instead of what Glenn actually said.
The point of burning flags is to get attention to an issue. To say "I feel so strongly about this, that I'm willing to break all social convention and risk vast disapproval from my fellow citizens" - it not engaged in lightly and that is why is precisely needs protection. No one is frivolously burning flags for the hell of it.
Even if they were, what is the material harm done such that these people need to be locked up?
Regular protests don't get much news coverage, but I bet burning a flag to indicate one's diapproval of torture or the Gitmo Gulag would. That's the point.
And you may feel any protestor that burns a flag has done their cause more harm than good, and turned many more people off their cause. It could be the case, and if so, so be it. In fact, you should be happy because I daresay that you're not a big fan of the majority of protests and protestors anyway, nor their causes.
A free country means the right to say "fuck America" anyway Bart. Because if the "fuck America" crowd ever took over the majority, you'd sure as hell want the right to say "I love America" still, even though it would be unpopular.
America is not inherently good - it is good people with good ideals that could make it so. When America is led by bad people with bad ideals, it becomes a force for evil. In such circumstances, good men should be willing to say "Fuck [this version of] America" or become bad.
bart said: Desecrating the flag can easily be interpreted as symbolically saying "F*ck the United States."
ReplyDeleteThank you for proving our point, bart. If someone claimed that we should pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit saying "F*ck the United States," that person would be quite rightly laughed out of the room.
Just by means of clarification, I need to emphasize: Any flag burning would be instructional. I would have to take out a flag, burn it with appropriate reverence and solemnity, and explain that this is permissible ... but then take it out and micturate on it and then turn my back after dousing it with kerosene and lighting any parts not piss-soaked, just to demonstrate that we are now in the market of prohibiting thought. I would carefully explain that it is the opinions of others that determine which of my thoughts are permissible, and which are punishable by fines of $100,000 and a year in prison.
ReplyDeleteBy way of contrast, I would also have to show that it's permissible to call Dubya a pea-brained goat-f**ker who snorts dead foetus HGH for thrills and "manly vigour", despite the fact that such a sentiment causes paroxysms of outrage in the RW foamer brigades.
It's all civics, you know. Elementary civics.
Cheers,
PhD9 said...
ReplyDeleteBart: Really? The Courts generally hold that "destructive" speech like obscenity and fighting words do not enjoy First Amendment protection
The courts have also ruled that burning a flag is protected speech which is why a Contitutional amendment is what is being discussed today.
I am well aware of the Scalia decision and I agree with it. I was simply correcting Glenn's misstatement of the extent of 1st Amendment protections to "destructive" speech.
Feinstein is one of my Senators. I just wrote her an email asking why she insists on continuing on as a "Democrat" when she spends about 99.9% of her time pandering to, not just run-of-the-mill Republicans, but to the extreme radical right.
ReplyDeleteI'll get some patronizing garbage in response, but I felt the need to comment on her ineptness, dishonesty and failure of leadership. Is THIS really what she thinks is important for Congress to be working on?
-Kristin
It is very entertaining to witness how truly clueless self-identified "smart" people are about practical political issues.
ReplyDeletewith the same amount of reasoning behind supporting policies as people generally use to choose between the Yankees or the Red Sox.
For once anon is absolutely correct. The fact that many voters are, in fact, morons is a serious problem. Thats why the Founders invented Senators and Judges and a Bill of Rights. To protect the Republic from "the tyranny of the majority" and other dangers that they saw in "purer" forms of democracy.
Crankboy,
ReplyDeletePlease reconsider this approach. The way to go about it is to get involved in your Democratic party and change it to what you believe in.
Are all the precinct captain positions in your area full? Is there a Democrat running in your state house and senate races or an unopposed republican? The party doesn't exist in a vacuum, and people make it what it is. So don't cut off support to it and hope it will right itself - that's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Instead, dive in and fix it.
The movement to defeat Joe Lieberman at primary is a perfect example of this - rather than just settle for an imperfect Dem, the netroots and others are trying to replace him with a better one. one you wouldn't have to hold your nose to vote for.
One you could give money to gladly.
Democracy isn't just something that happens on election day.
What if there is an image of the flag on my TV and I change the channel?
ReplyDeleteIt's going to totally change the Olympics:
Athletes are going to have to stop draping flags around their shoulders when they win Olympic medals. And, the ladies like Gail Deevers probably can't have American Flags on their fingernails. Can the gymnast wear leotards with flags on them?
What will happen to the $5 Old Navy Fourth of July flag t-shirts?
It's a sad day in America when you can't buy a crappy Chinese-made flag t-shirt from Corporate America.
I think "hypatia" has some good points. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage people to burn the flag. We are now being trolled by our own lawmakers. Frikkin Hilarious.
ReplyDeleteBart said,
"Can anyone here tell me what redeeming speech is communicated when you desecrate the colors?"
That question is brilliant. Seriously, the word choices, the flow, the imagery... and the obvious answer -- "pissing off Bart."
Maybe the real question is, does the briar patch bring us closer to the rabbit hole?
Symbols of symbols of symbols made real. Pass the match.
A constitutional amendment to restrict what citizens can do with their own property...symbols and metaphors over property rights...what have we become?
Who is actually the Rabbit here?
Advice in a hunchback way--
Democrats: Burn the amendment not the flag.
Republicans: Don't trade one of your core values for an attempt at short term political gain.
For reasons that obviously escape the overpowering intelligence of our august Glenn Greenwald, the common voter, whether Democrat or Republican, wants this amendment to pass. To call this "extremist" is to remove all meaning from the word.
ReplyDeleteI'll ignore your appeal to majority fallacy to say:
Please link to the polls that demonstrate how banning flag burning is a priority for Americans such that spending time on this is a worthy use of the highly paid congress' valuable time.
I for one, would be upset to learn Park Rangers spent a week repainting the sign on the gates of a national park, while a forest fire burned within.
HWSNBN is clueless:
ReplyDeleteCan anyone here tell me what redeeming speech is communicated when you desecrate the colors?
Just for the hard of thinking (such as HWSNBN): It tells the gummint that I am the master of my own thoughts, and that the gummint may criminalise my opinions but any such gummint will never earn my respect.
Cheers,
anonymous:
ReplyDeletePlease don't hawk your crappy webcomic on this blog.
Please don't leave the detritus of your projectile emesis on this blog. Thank you in advance. Now FOAD.
Cheers,
Dave the Michigander:
ReplyDeleteIt's spelled "y'all," I believe. One syllable, not two.
Wow. HWSNBN finally gets a clue. After wondering what one might express through flag-burning, he trots this out:
ReplyDeleteYou can very easily argue that desecrating the flag has no other purpose apart from instigating violence like fighting words or obscenity. The flag represents the United States. Desecrating the flag can easily be interpreted as symbolically saying "F*ck the United States."
The further clue he needs to approach a simulacrum of sentience is that it can also be interpreted as symbolically saying: "You can't tell me what thoughts I am allowed to have." Zounds. We have at least two thoughts that may be conveyed by flag desecration! Add to that the sentiment, "F**k you, you pandering Republican proto-fascists!" I think we have something going here; the possibilities are truly endless....
Yet HWSNBN can't figure out why it is important that we have these freedoms ... including the very freedom (otherwise unconstrained by this stoopid and pointless law) to say "F*ck the United States".
Cheers,
Pathetic!! Dianne Feinstien is my Senator, I'm sorry to have to admit! I used to write her about the Patriot Act and civil liberties issues but I came to the conclusion that she also borrows a copy of the Constitution from Bush to wipe her ass on since every response to my "redress of grievences" were a polite and diplomatic F-YOU! I write her no longer cause she just ain't worth it! None of them are!
ReplyDeleteAnother amen. I saw Reynolds on some talking head news program, and the discussion was actually going fairly well until he started attacking Democrats from outta nowhere. Anybody who thinks he is some sort of "reasoned conservative" is either naive or not paying attention.
ReplyDeleteAs one poster pointed out, and which Greenwald is correct on--distortion and demonization is used constantly. The fact that Reynolds "retracted" his statement is meaningless--the problem wasn't the facts of the statement, but that he WILLINGLY DISTORTED without first checking the facts, and he does this constantly.
And it is necessary to expose in particular Reynolds. As I travel the blogosphere, he is constantly linked to by liberal sites, implying that he has achieved some sort of credibility. He is not "the best of the other side".
Is this supposed to another one of those laws that elicit a gut reaction to which there can be nothing but assent? Aren't we supposed to be disgusted by the very notion that someone could or would want to burn a flag? I mean imagine the moral reprehensibility of someone who'd do that--it's be like desecrating the corpses of the dead soldiers who give their lives for our country, right?
ReplyDeleteI love how the Repubs pick these wedge issues that are supposed to show the moral hollowness of the Left. There is no adequate argument to makie is there? Your're either for or against--and which side you choose says something about whether you're allowed to breathe and live in the land of the free.
bart said:
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't see much of a freedom of speech issue here if such an amendment did manage to pass.
Can anyone here tell me what redeeming speech is communicated when you desecrate the colors?
It's free speech, bart. The fact that it's free should be redeeming enough.
I have noticed over the last few years that both houses of Congress, and both parties (If you notice a difference anymore) have become more aggressive at "flipping off" the people with an Increase in regularity.
ReplyDeleteBut, what surprises me most is not what the members of congress are capable of or are doing,plotting and planning to save thier own party, jobs, power, Influence (I.E. thier own asses) up and above the Constitution and all that goes with it, but that the American public continues to go back each time to either party so they can go get F**ked each and every time. Getting F**ked by this government is turning out to be a "ritual of regularity", and the sheeple have it done to them with smiles on thier faces as if they had "won" some sort of victory???
I can't figure??
I have noticed over the last few years that both houses of Congress, and both parties (If you notice a difference anymore) have become more aggressive at "flipping off" the people with an Increase in regularity.
ReplyDeleteBut, what surprises me most is not what the members of congress are capable of or are doing,plotting and planning to save thier own party, jobs, power, Influence (I.E. thier own asses) up and above the Constitution and all that goes with it, but that the American public continues to go back each time to either party so they can go get F**ked each and every time. Getting F**ked by this government is turning out to be a "ritual of regularity", and the sheeple have it done to them with smiles on thier faces as if they had "won" some sort of victory???
I can't figure??
Feinstein's got to go. She's Lieberman in drag.
ReplyDeleteI love how the Repubs pick these wedge issues that are supposed to show the moral hollowness of the Left. There is no adequate argument to makie is there? Your're either for or against--and which side you choose says something about whether you're allowed to breathe and live in the land of the free.
ReplyDeleteIt's called hardball politics, and there used to be Democrats who knew how to play the game. Unfortunately, ever since the party McGovernized, the Democrats have turned into the political equivalent of limp-wristed pansies.
That's too bad, because the country is the poorer for it. Perhaps after they lose again in 2006 and 2008 the Democratic Party will shed its extremist left wing and once again become a force to reckon with in national politics.
This is a joke. From Mike's description of the previous attempt at an amendment like this:
ReplyDeleteThe crime:
1.) Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence.
2.) Any person who steals a flag of the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag.
So the amendment, assuming of course that they stick to something effectively the same as the previous one, would criminalize fighting words and destruction of private property. Ummm... this is new?
Even if this amendment passes, it would still have no effect*. It would enhance the penalties for existing crimes. But quietly burning your own flag with no intent to start a fight would still not actually be illegal. And while of course burning a flag could be a part of an attempt to "incite or produce imminent violence", it is not enough by itself.
Somebody help me out here, has this Congress done ANYTHING since 2004 that was NOT entirely symbolic?
* Assuming it's enforced fairly. I know, I know, I should assume if anything the reverse. Silly me, trying to be logical.
anon: It's called hardball politics, and there used to be Democrats who knew how to play the game. Unfortunately, ever since the party McGovernized, the Democrats have turned into the political equivalent of limp-wristed pansies.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that McGovern didn't know how to play hardball politics. I think that the Dems lost the will to compete much later--it finds itself so divided on important issues because there's been an element of conservativism at the local in the Dem party that if it appears too radical it will lose this element of its support.
The Dems and Repubs share so many points that the Repubs can carve away voters who are 1) alienated by economic issues that the Dems have no way of answering because they buy into the dominant economic model, 2) prone to vote for the status quo because it keeps the mob at bay, and 3) fear that any more radical changes will destabilize the social fabric.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteIt's called hardball politics, and there used to be Democrats who knew how to play the game. Unfortunately, ever since the party McGovernized, the Democrats have turned into the political equivalent of limp-wristed pansies.
Compare:
That's too bad, because the country is the poorer for it. Perhaps after they lose again in 2006 and 2008 the Democratic Party will shed its extremist left wing and once again become a force to reckon with in national politics.
Well, make up your mind Which is it?
Cheers,
Well, make up your mind Which is it?
ReplyDeletePerhaps you need to re-read the comment.
anonymous:
ReplyDelete[Arne]: Well, make up your mind Which is it?
Perhaps you need to re-read the comment.
Perhaps you need to re-read my comment, short as it is. ;-)
Cheers,
Perhaps you need to re-read my comment, short as it is. ;-)
ReplyDeleteMy comment is clear. The Democratic Party has to shed its extremist left wing to once again compete in national elections. Once it does, the nation will be better for it.
I like the way Louisiana handled this matter years ago. (While I see no harm in the flag burning amendment, its not a burning hot issue with me either)
ReplyDeleteWhat Louisiana did was to amend their criminal code so that if someone exercised their constitutional right to burn a flag, that if a person observing this behavior became enraged and beat the ever loving shit out of the guy doing the burning that this would only be a misdemeanor with no jail time. Sort of like a traffic ticket.
Kind of the best of both worlds. You can burn a flag if you want, but then we get to beat the crap out of you for doing it and our punishment will be a small fine. Too bad other states haven't followed suit.
Says the "Dog"
Can anyone here tell me what redeeming speech is communicated when you desecrate the colors?
ReplyDeleteDoes this sound familiar to you fascist?
I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Or how about the simple fact that even the KKK and their skinhead brethren have a right to speak their offensive, unredeeming spew. Surely their speech is farther beyond any redeeming value than merely burning a symbol of what used to be freedom?
"then we get to beat the crap out of you for doing it and our punishment will be a small fine."
ReplyDeleteSlow down, tough guy. You'd hope for a small fine here in Florida. We've got the right to shoot people who threaten us and we have concealed weapons permits.
No, I like The Dog's idea. Instead of the state enforcing patriotism, get a mob to do it with state sanction. Hopefully a mob wearing brown shirts...
ReplyDeleteThe ACLU reports: Cuban courts commonly jail dissidents who dishonor" the Cuban flag.
ReplyDeleteIn a statement before THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS:
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS C. CLIFTON, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE MIAMI HERALD.
We, in Miami, have a greater interest in what goes on in Latin America and the Caribbean than the rest of the country. .... I spoke earlier about how dissent is treated in Cuba. It might interest you to know that burning the Cuban flag is treated the same way. You go to jail for it. Why would we want to model our first amendment behavior on theirs.
Ed Brayton at Postive Liberty:
In China, where we all watched the student protestors at Tianenman Square burn the Chinese flag, their actions result in a minimum of 3 years in prison. The other two nations that punish those who burn their flag at the moment: Cuba and Iran
Editorial in The Cleveland Plain Dealer:
Such a [flag burning] amendment would be an assault on liberty more worthy of Cuba, one among the totalitarian states where flag burners face lengthy imprisonment.
The ACLU reports: Cuban courts commonly jail dissidents who dishonor" the Cuban flag.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you actually needed to post proof that people Cubans under Castro are not free to dissent is about as much proof as anyone should ever need of David Byron's pathologies and communist-loving dishonesty.
I meant to say "Cuba and China" - think what a sick, sick mind it takes to try to depict those places as providing free speech to their citizens.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, think what it takes for someone liek Dave Byron to come and defend Communist regimes day after day. SICK
Feinstein is a hag in need of a stroke. She has betrayed her voters TIME and TIME again. From the earliest days during her mayoral tenure in SF and on she's managed to crawl up the coattails of history by triangulation, deception, and utter banality.
ReplyDeleteShe has to go. Voters don't seem to agree so I'll keep hoping for that stroke.
The Flag Desecration Amendment isn't just about burning the flag, but desecrating it in any way the writers or enforcers which to enforce it. Which means bumper stickers with stars and stripes, but not a flag, could be perse... prosecuted. People who have stars and stripes on their pants, or their shirts, or the guy who thinks of himself as a patriot and painted his car in stars and stripes, all could be prosecuted under this amendment. Yup, and those stars-n-stripes napkins, too. And the person with the boxers. Maybe you wouldn't be prosecuted, but the store selling them might. Not only is it stupid, it's badly written law, with a built-in need for exceptions (how do you get rid of old flags), modifications, "judicial activism" so despised by the far right. And I see it as a law enforceable any way the enforcers want to, randomly, perniciously, hatefully.
ReplyDeleteEven in Glenn's book there are dozens of examples of him just making up shit to say how wonderful America is compared to other countries.
ReplyDeleteLet's hear some of the dozens.
but desecrating it in any way the writers or enforcers which to enforce it.
ReplyDeletePardon me, that's "want to enforce it." And I read it before I published it, too.
The Democratic Party has to shed its extremist left wing to once again compete in national elections.
ReplyDeleteThere's an extremist left wing causing problems? And here I thought the problems were caused by the extreme right of the Dems. You know: Hillary, DiFi, Lieberboy, Biden. The extreme left wing is at places like this, trying to turn 'push' into 'shove'.
Let's hear a retraction of your insinuation that I was in favour of the amendment to ban flag burning.
ReplyDeleteDavid - I know that the reason you spend so much time here is because you have been banned from so many other blogs, of all types. And while I am very reluctant to ban anyone here, and never have done so, coming here and stating that there are "dozens" of fabrications in my book while refusing to provide examples of those "dozens" of fabrications is coming quite close to entering that extremely narrow realm of what would lead me to ban someone. Not only do I not ban criticism of me, I specifically invited you to set forth your examples to support your charge of serial fabrication in my book. Your refusal to do so makes what you are doing nothing more than rank, malicious defamation, and I won't tolerate that.
I didn't build this blog to provide a forum for people like you to come here and whimsically make those sorts of accusations.
Perhaps the readers of this thread should be reminded that the actual text of the constitutional amendment that Glenn characterizes as "The Dumbest Law Ever" does in no way outlaw the desecration of the American Flag.
ReplyDeleteIt simply expands Congress' Article I powers to pass statutes to criminalize flag desecration constitutionally. Whether or not Congress will exercise that power remains to be seen, and if it does, the precise manner it which it criminalizes such behavior is not addressed by the amendment.
And here I thought the problems were caused by the extreme right of the Dems.
ReplyDeleteYou may not be aware of this, but the Republicans dearly hope your perspective prevails during the next two election cycles.
Perhaps the readers of this thread should be reminded that the actual text of the constitutional amendment that Glenn characterizes as "The Dumbest Law Ever" does in no way outlaw the desecration of the American Flag.
ReplyDeleteI didn't write this post. A.L. did.
And while I am very reluctant to ban anyone here, and never have done so...
ReplyDeleteYou banned Gedaylia (for all intents and purposes).
Oh, and one other matter for correction Glenn...your bio on Amazon states "Glenn Greenwald was not a political man."
You've been posting on various political forums since at least 1995. That is eleven years. When was it, exactly, that you weren't political?
Anon # 5:20:
ReplyDeleteAre you for real? They would work to get the power and then not use it? Can you say that out loud and keep a straight face?
I didn't write this post. A.L. did.
ReplyDeleteMy bad. Correction noted.
******************
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Coward said...
[snip]
What the issue does reveal (and why I find this blog so interesting), is how completely divorced from reality "intellectuals" (leftists) like Glenn are, and why they are so marginalized in American politics. It is very entertaining to witness how truly clueless self-identified "smart" people are about practical political issues. It is also clear why Glenn and his ilk are always on the losing side. They are political morons who couldn't win an election for dogcatcher if they were the only candidate in the race.
1:42 PM
******************
Ya gotta love the fascism in that comment. It's got it all, the tyranny of the majority, thundering anti-intellectualism backed with "fuck the Constitution if it'll just let us win one more time" attitude!
Why don't you sick, traitorous fucks outlaw criticism of American Idol next? After all, it's popular too and that might get you a few more votes out here in Dumbfuckistan.
Anyway, I'm going to burn a pile of U.S. Constitutions on the Missouri Statehouse steps if this POS passes.
The message will be "If the freedom of speech is dead, then the dream of America is dead."
You banned Gedaylia (for all intents and purposes).
ReplyDeleteThat is false. I did not ban Gedaylia or anyone else. I restricted his posting to one comment per post (the only time I ever imposed such a restriction). One comment on each post is more than the vast majority of commenters here post, so to say that he was "banned" is plainly dishonest.
And compared to most other blogs -- particularly right-wing ones, many of which prohibit comments altogether or ban them with the greatest ease -- I am more than happy to compare my tolerance of divergent views here to any other larger blog in the blogosphere.
You've been posting on various political forums since at least 1995. That is eleven years. When was it, exactly, that you weren't political?
The entire book makes clear that by "political," I mean that I did not care about partisan politics. I never suggested I was politically apathetic. Quite the contrary, I devoted a significant portion of my litigation practice to First Amendment and other constitutional issues, often pro bono, and as the book makes clear, I had strong views on isolated political issues. But I never cared about or worked on electoral or partisan politics until this current Administration began waging war on the Constitution.
The entire book makes clear that by "political," I mean that I did not care about partisan politics.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. You posted in the Town Hall forum nearly every single day for almost two years under the moniker "Der Wilhelm" and in those posts you (very ably) debated the political issues of the day (albeit on from the right side of the political spectrum).
Isn't it somewhat disengenuous for you now to claim that during that time you weren't political, even in the partisan sense? At the time you were far less critical of Republicans than you are today, and you were far more critical of Democrats than you are today.
I mean, how can you make this claim when you know you spent countless hours composing tens of thousands of words debating the major political issues of the day for many, many years?
To late to the party on this thread, but...
ReplyDelete*Of course* there will be more flag burning. There is no conceivable interpretation of their interest in passing this amendment except as a tool to bludgeon democrats who "support flag burning". Right now it's a minor tool in senate and congressional campains; if it passes on to the ratification stage, it becomes a major tool in thousands of local elections. It's a great "wedge," like most of the other social/religious issues that the political leaders of the right choose to whip up into national issues (abortion, gays, stem cells, etc).
Amazing how the religious and conservative right never gets worked up about issues that don't happen to be wedges that divide democrats, isn't it? They are just advertising campaigns, no different than movie marketing. And the guys that take it too much to heart and start blowing up abortion clinics are just like the fanatics who start stalking David Letterman; they are to blame for being mentally imbalanced, but the marketers are also to blame for feeding their insanity.
That is false. I did not ban Gedaylia or anyone else. I restricted his posting to one comment per post (the only time I ever imposed such a restriction).
ReplyDeleteOn wonders if such a restriction were imposed upon you in some forum or another whether or not you would consider it a ban. After all, debate is completely impossible when such a restriction is imposed, isn't it? Wasn't this a ban in all but name?
I mean, how can you make this claim when you know you spent countless hours composing tens of thousands of words debating the major political issues of the day for many, many years?
ReplyDeleteI just explained that and am content with my answer. And I've made clear many times that I focus on the excesses of the Right not because I think the Left is free of flaws but because the Right controls the government and the Left controls nothing. And the excesses of this Administration have no peer.
I further know that you are Gedaylia and are violating the one-post rule which you agreed to abide by. You have posted multiple times in this thread (and others) since you claimed you would not post again. I will leave the violating posts up today since they contain accusations that the Amazon summary of my book is inaccurate, and I wouldn't want to allow you the satisfaction of thinking that you posted something, the content of which I felt a need to delete. But any further posts of yours will, per the prior limitation (and your claim to adhere to it), be deleted.
anonymous:
ReplyDelete[Arne]: Perhaps you need to re-read my comment, short as it is. ;-)
My comment is clear. The Democratic Party has to shed its extremist left wing to once again compete in national elections. Once it does, the nation will be better for it.
Perhaps you need to think about how others view the problem and the solution. To my mind, the greatest evisceration of the Democratic party has happened in the last decade or so, with the DLC folks firmly in charge. Say what you want about McGovern, he was hardly a "limp-wristed pansy". I'd say that appellation really applies to the suck-ups that keep talking about accommodating and reasoning with the Rethuglicans, and who keep getting their teeth kicked in (you know, like the gang of 14 or whatever it was that reached the "compromise" on the nuclear option and the filibuster ... and then couldn't find it in themselves to actually pull the trigger and use the remaining "powers" the Rethugs said they'd hand them to stop little Scalito).
You want courage, you ought to look at Wellstone's career. You want principle, look at Feingold. You aren't going to get your salvation from the DLC; you'll just get more sand in your face. No thanks.
I'll stay liberal. I'll stay leftist. I'll defend it as best I can, in any way I can. And I'll be proud of it. And if you don't want the likes of me in your Democratic party, I don't want to be in it. Instead, I'll join those that want to take the Democratic party back, and boot the likes of Lieberman ... and you too, if you persist in your notion that the Democratic party ought to purge the "troublemakers"....
Cheers,
"The Dog"'s brown-shirt tendencies start to come poking through:
ReplyDeleteKind of the best of both worlds. You can burn a flag if you want, but then we get to beat the crap out of you for doing it and our punishment will be a small fine. Too bad other states haven't followed suit.
Why not hand out RNC "Team Leader" baseball caps and tote-bags to the really productive RNC thugs?
Cheers,
I love how rightwing idiots like to defame McGovern as a "pansy".
ReplyDeleteThe same "pansy" George McGovern who dropped out of college to fly 35 combat missions as a B-24 bomber pilot in Europe, earning the Distinguished Flying Cross.
As opposed to "manly" W or Cheney who did everything possible to stay out of harm's way.
anonymous at 5:24pm
ReplyDeleteI've been voting Dem for more than thrity years. I think the party has gotten more conservative in that period, farther to the right, trying to keep up with the rightward movement of the GOoP. There are times, and they've become more frequent in the last six years, that I'd like to change parties, if I could find one that wasn't likely to fall off the political edge. --If there's an 'extreme left wing' to the Dems, it msut be the LaRouchachas, who are so far out that they aren't Dems for most values of Dem.
anonymous sez:
ReplyDeleteIt simply expands Congress' Article I powers to pass statutes to criminalize flag desecration constitutionally. Whether or not Congress will exercise that power remains to be seen, and if it does, the precise manner it which it criminalizes such behavior is not addressed by the amendment.
Ummm, nope. Protecting the national security from the profound evils of "flag burning" is obviously an long-recognised and time-honoured prerogative of the executive. It's even in the oath of office the preznit must swear. And, significantly, Article I is entirely silent on this. Thus, any measures to prevent flag burning or to hold indefinitely without trial or recourse to courts any designated flag burners is a plenary and exclusive prerogative of the preznit. Any attempt by Congress to infringe on this would be obviously un-Constitutional.
Cheers,
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteYou may not be aware of this, but the Republicans dearly hope your perspective prevails during the next two election cycles.
I have never taken the advice of Republicans on strategy. I suggest you stop doing so as well.
Cheers,
I love how rightwing idiots like to defame McGovern as a "pansy".
ReplyDeleteNo one called George McGovern a pansy.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
[snip]
It's called hardball politics, and there used to be Democrats who knew how to play the game. Unfortunately, ever since the party McGovernized, the Democrats have turned into the political equivalent of limp-wristed pansies.
That's too bad, because the country is the poorer for it. Perhaps after they lose again in 2006 and 2008 the Democratic Party will shed its extremist left wing and once again become a force to reckon with in national politics.
2:47 PM
I guess I'll believe my eyes before your lying gob. Liar.
At the time you were far less critical of Republicans than you are today, and you were far more critical of Democrats than you are today.
ReplyDeleteI mean, how can you make this claim when you know you spent countless hours composing tens of thousands of words debating the major political issues of the day for many, many years?
If that was true of Glenn, it was also true of me. I've argued politics online since the mid-90s, but didn't vote then and wasn't partisan. My focus was primarily issues advocacy, and those issues were mainly two: (1) drug policy reform, and (2) gay rights. To a somewhat more minor extent I also waged war against the inanities of so-called "scientific creationism." But I nevertheless was a right-tilting libertarian who still thought in terms of the GOP being the least bad choice.
And I despised things like Waco and the excesses of the Reno DoJ; wasn't bashful about saying so, either. But this populist, Bush/Frist GOP is worse by many magnitudes. It is no longer the least bad choice, particularly when it totally controls the federal govt and has captured much of the MSM.
Chickenhawk fascist The Dog said: Kind of the best of both worlds. You can burn a flag if you want, but then we get to beat the crap out of you for doing it and our punishment will be a small fine. Too bad other states haven't followed suit.
ReplyDeleteIf it comes down to it, I'll protect my 1st amendment rights with my 2nd amendment rights.
glenn are you saying that the rest of the faux "advertise liberally" circle of links has banned dave?
ReplyDeleteSo what - not like any of you really speak for liberal or progressive ideas anyhow.
I believe it was Marshall McCluhan who said that when we elevate a symbol above that which it represents, that which it represents is diminished, then lost. Coming from a group that routinely pisses on the Constitution and wipes its collective ass with the Bill of Rights, can this measure be viewed as a surprise? Of course most of them worship The Lord Jesus Christ while completely ignoring his teachings, so they are kind of in the habit already. There is not so much a war on terror as a war on logic and common sense that is being waged by these idiots.
ReplyDeletemichael falcon-gates:
ReplyDeleteWhen is Dianne Feinstein up for re-election? And, who are her most likely primary opponents? And, where can I donate to their campaigns?
This year. Primary is over. She
won handily against a couple protest candidates (with no real money).
:-(
Cheers,
David Byron:
ReplyDelete[snip lots of David explaining what it is that Glenn should do IHNSHO]
The policy could be modified to make it workable in a number of ways. For example a restriction to one comment per thread during the first 6 hours of the thread's existence might work.
David, it's Glenn's blog. You should consider yourself lucky ... and perhaps reflect on that and act accordingly. In my book, "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you have the "freedom" to write/edit pages in a book I'm writing. Maybe less compelling in a participatory venture such as a blog, but in the end, it's the right conclusion there as well.
Cheers,
David Byron;
ReplyDeleteI too don't always feel like doing all kinds of research to give links and other evidence when I'm having a fairly casual discussion on someone's blog.
However, you have levelled an extremely serious and personal accusation at Glenn. Saying that his book is full of lies is different than some tired argument about whether Castro is a hero or a villain. To go on to say that you don't feel like offering up a single example is very irresponsible.
I'm not surprised that Glenn doesn't appreciate being casually libelled by a guest at his own blog.
Davidbyron;
ReplyDeleteNo, they're not even close to "worse". Both you and Bart responded to A.L.'s flag burning post with a comment along the lines of "What's the big deal?" Insulting as it may be, it is similar.
Did he mischaracterize your views on free speech? Quite possibly. Certainly you've taken full advantage of the opportunity to defend yourself and set the record straight.
Meanwhile, you've given him no such opportunity. He's a serial liar because you say so.
Fortunately for Glenn, this sort of wild and unfounded accusation has destroyed your credibility anyway, even among those who might otherwise have agreed with you.
Glenn Greenwald...Speaking of which, it should be equally unsurprising that Bart's views are quite similar to David Byron's (who thinks that Cubans are free to burn the Cuban flag without consequences given what a lover of liberty Fidel Castro is)
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I'm not intending to defend Castro, (let's be honest, for over 40 years he's been quite capable of doing that on his own, he's a Real War El Presidente), but consider his situation. A tiny island nation just south and off the coast of the greatest economic and military power on the planet that has been actively trying to assinate him and overthrow his government by any and all means, including invasion, for over 40 years. We do not face the same kind of threat and we are looking more and more like Cuba everyday, except they have a much lower illiteracy rate, free health care and education and no loss of life during the same big hurricanes. This is all with economic sanctions put in place by our government to punish the Cuban people, make life difficult in effort to foment revolt against Castro, leaving the Cuban economy in a very difficult place. If this country wasn't trying to eliminate Castro, one has to wonder if he might not be more inclined to be a lover of freedom. That's why he became a revolutionary in the first place. He wan't even a communist until Eisenhower snubbed him and sent Nixon to meet with him (Nixon's assessment). He didn't like the deal he was offered, it was just more of the same bad deal for his people as the previous regime with U.S. Corporations exploiting his country. Naturally he was driven into the arms of the Soviets.
David Byron:
ReplyDeleteNo Arne, you should consider yourself lucky to be here. I on the other hand am good enough that Glenn should consider himself lucky.
You have a seriously warped view of your own significance here, much less importance.
I suspect you'd consider it a "victory" of sorts -- a sort of "badge of honour" -- if you can manage to get even the even-keeled and infinitely patient Glenn to boot you. Another "notch in your belt" of all the people that just couldn't deal with your vast intellect and brilliant repartee....
Maybe Glenn could be persuaded that in fact it might be a kindness to grant you this, and that the pristine state of his policy against banning wouldn't be impugned in the least by giving you what you so desperately ask for. It would be an act of mercy and commendable. If he chooses to be less good-natured about it, though, he might just let you suffer ... the most painful case of The Blue Balls Of Blogdom on record.
FWIW, I think you might be best informed that when you leave these environs, you will almost assuredly achieve the same notice and mention around here as Gedaliya did in passing. Which is to say....
Unfortunate, though, that while you have some pretty good points every once in a while (in my book, at least), you manage to let personalities and petty peeves overshadow -- nay, smother -- that. A waste of a pretty good brain.
Cheers,
David Byron... Glenn is not my boss and I don't owe him anything, nor vice-versa.
ReplyDeleteGlenn's not the boss of you! He's any of us!
Any of you that have had kids know how much fun it is to say that. The only thing you might owe Glenn is a little courtesy, and I'm not suggesting that you have been discourteous. I don't know. This is his blog and we are guests here. He is our host. Courtesy is always owed. Respect is earned. You must respect him a little bit or you wouldn't be here regularly. If I don't respect a blogger, I am pretty discourteous about it once and then I leave. I vote with my feet.
David Byron:
ReplyDeleteCharacterising the relationship as one-sided as you did is dishonest.
Saying I characterised it as such is dishonest. I realize that on participatory blogs (unlike, say, InstaHack, Hugh Hewitt, and Powerline), the comments are part of the punchline, and I'm quite sure Glenn feels the same. But that interaction and interplay needs a few ground rules to be respected -- or even enforced -- in order to work, and far be it from me to tell someone how best to achieve the purpose(s) they set for their own blog. That is their prerogative and their right. Their mistakes (if such are made) are their own, and their priorities their own to set and strive for. When you seem to arrogate those decisions to yourself just by dint of your "participation", you fundamentally mistake the nature of the relationship.
Cheers,
Arne... the most painful case of The Blue Balls Of Blogdom on record.
ReplyDeleteThat is a much better choice than this (which I'm convinced is sarcastic endorsement ofWeigel's idea of a put down). Some of the commenters here are much better writers than dolts at Reason magazine. Atrios gave Weigel Asswankery honors for that post today.
On a side note, I'd like to compliment Mr. Weigel on a most excellent post. In my book, the best money line in any post today is...
...this argument is somewhere between an episode of "How I Met Your Mother" and a 3rd grade farting contest.
Classic
Comment by: madpad at June 20, 2006 02:02 PM
Davidbyron: I note that you haven't provided any specific examples of falsehoods you claim to have found in Glenn's book, as he requested. Discussing the style and overlooking the substance is unconvincing (except to very stupid audiences).
ReplyDeleteIn the absence of such substantiation, your claim to have found "dozens of examples of him just making up shit to say how wonderful America is compared to other countries" stands as unfounded libel.
Show us some proof, please. Or retract your claim.
Arne,
ReplyDeleteI think DiFi retires after this term. That's something to look forward to. If not, she may face a real challenger with support next time around.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteIf this country wasn't trying to eliminate Castro, one has to wonder if he might not be more inclined to be a lover of freedom....
Or a Hall of Fame pitcher for the Yankees (they drafted him, IIRC).
... That's why he became a revolutionary in the first place. He wan't even a communist until Eisenhower snubbed him and sent Nixon to meet with him (Nixon's assessment). He didn't like the deal he was offered, it was just more of the same bad deal for his people as the previous regime with U.S. Corporations exploiting his country. Naturally he was driven into the arms of the Soviets.
Please, please, everyone: Do go get Stephen Kinzer's book "Overthrow" and read it. Lots on Cuba, the whole century of meddling in CALA, and Iraq, Hawai'i, Afghanistan, and Iran to boot. Even David Byron would appreciate it; Kinzer's evaluation of the track record of the United States is pretty dour (but perhaps not quite as pessimistic as Byron's).
Cheers,
By which I mean the next term. Not the current term she finishes this year.
ReplyDeleteThe constitution is not meant to be a suicide pact. Some things should certainly be considered as being beyond the pale. Cheerleading for Ossama bin Laden is one. Desecrating the flag should be another.
ReplyDeleteanonymous:
ReplyDeleteThat is a much better choice than this (which I'm convinced is sarcastic endorsement ofWeigel's idea of a put down).
My favourite for the ultimate repartee back in UseNet days was "J.H. McCloskey" (also here.... Kind of like the James Wolcott of UseNet: high-minded but with a very sharp -- albeit "kind" -- edge.
Cheers,
But quietly burning your own flag with no intent to start a fight would still not actually be illegal.
ReplyDeleteCite a case where someone in the U.S. burned a flag with "the intent to start of fight".
And while of course burning a flag could be a part of an attempt to "incite or produce imminent violence", it is not enough by itself.
But that's exactly what the original legislation says:
(3) abuse of the flag of the United States causes more than pain and distress to the overwhelming majority of the American people and may amount to fighting words or a direct threat to the physical and emotional well-being of individuals at whom the threat is targeted;
It simply expands Congress' Article I powers to pass statutes to criminalize flag desecration constitutionally. Whether or not Congress will exercise that power remains to be seen
That may be one of the most ridiculous statements made on this subject.
and if it does, the precise manner it which it criminalizes such behavior is not addressed by the amendment.
Which is exactly the point. The amendment doesn't fundamentally mean anything and can be applied arbitrarily to protect anything vaguely resembling a flag. Does it matter to you how behavior is criminalized?
The constitution is not meant to be a suicide pact.
ReplyDeletePlease explain how insulting the flag is equivalent to suicide.
DavidByron said...
ReplyDeleteChinese protestors burn the communist party flag and are not arrested for it. Cops are just standing there in the background (photo).
3:57 PM
First, this is in Hong Kong, which will have a separate legal system from the mainland at least until 2046.
One of the first laws put in to place after the handover in 1997 was banning the burning of the mainland flag.
This same group was taken to court for burning the mainland flag a few years before this BBC story. The court of appeals overturned their conviction on free speech grounds, but this was reversed by Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeals.
On a side note, don't you love the fact one of the guys burning the communist party flag is wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt? Leung Kwok-hung has now won a seat in Hong Kong's Legislative Council and won a judicial ruling at the CFA against an illegal Executive Order authorising sweeping electronic surveillance of the local population.
Hong Kong SAR Court of Final Appeal ruling on flag burning
ReplyDeleteYou can also find the mainland laws protecting the flag.
:::"Whoever desecrates the National Flag or the National Emblem of the People's Republic of China by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling, or trampling upon it shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights.":::
David Byron:
ReplyDeleteOh Arne, you didn't read my disclaimer before sounding off did you poor boy? I bet that was quite embarassing for you when you read further.
Nope. Just so you know.
Just a FYI: If ever you have second thoughts, there's a little trash can by your posts where you, the author, may delete them. Use this tool judiciously.
Your comments are just like the comments of the commander at the Guantanamo camp in characterising the suicides there as "assymetric warfare". Both seek to justify immoral policies by characterising them as forced (and desired) by the victim.
Did you read the post quoting the article by Alessandrini? I agreed with that article's points, and one of the points it makes is that the U.S. gummint is trying to take away even the detainees right to choose the manner of their own death.
Yes, the suicides may be seen as a bit of "in your face" defiance, and the response of the gummint may be ssen as a "f**k you too, we're the ones that get to decide how you die, not you" response. The "asymmetric warfare" comment was just a small manifestation of that; we won't tolerate any disobedience, and won't recognize it as legitimate or even meaningful.
As for you, dead David, you're hardly committing suicide here (and I'd say that you trivialise the deaths of these detainees far more than I ever could in making such an inane comparison.
But more to the point, I wholeheartedly approve of your "right" to 'commit suicide' here, and was expressing concern in advance that Glenn might not be so kind as to allow you the choice of means of your own destruction. Surely you can see the whining of the U.S. commander is quite different -- nay, in fact opposite of the sentiments I expressed here. I certainly hold no desire to keep you here against your will, nor would I presume to deny you the dignity of your exit. All of which is to say that this sentence of yours: "Both seek to justify immoral policies by characterising them as forced (and desired) by the victim." is simply not true (and for more than one reason). As noted, I expressed the sentiment that if Glenn were to deny you your early 'exit', it would be mean of him ... and hardly an approbation of the Guantanamo officer in charge who sought to deny his charges just such an option (and then attacked them for it when they did).
I didn't do it on purpose Arne. I just have an odd sense of humor perhaps. It's pretty black.
"Opaque" is the word that springs to mind. But that suggests that you should take note and perhaps adjust your posting accordingly. As I mentioned above, the "Delete" icon is always an option.
Well you certainly didn't seem to feel the need to apologise for what you said, once the penny dropped did you? I guess that's another point against your character.
Perhaps. But, to be honest, David, I tire of you. Sue me.
You know that Glenn's rules for commenting here are very liberal. If he decides to change them because of me, well I guess that's his decision.
Actually, here's the way it works: If Glenn decides to change the rules not because of you, but rather specifically for you (and you alone), that's also his decision ... and I'm sure one that he'll find a way to live with. That may in fact be better than assuming some general rule that swallows the exception and causes more harm than good, at least for other situations. This ain't a court of law here.
Something to read when I'm banned :)
As I was saying....
But yes, do go read it.
Cheers,
david byron said:
ReplyDeleteI didn't intend my comment as a criticism of the book in any way. I don't know if Glenn took it that way. I wasn't even discussing the book. Just used it as an illustration. Wasn't even replying to Glenn.
and in the very next comment said:
I made a nasty throw a way comment back at [Glenn]
Jesus tapdancing Christ. You're pissed and your feelings are hurt. You're pissed and your feelings are hurt. You're pissed and your feelings are hurt.
We get it. Really we do.
I keep wondering how many people here are being paid to disrupt the comment threads on this site?
ReplyDeleteI for one will state for the record I am not now, nor was I ever paid to post on blogs. How many of you "anonymous" types can say the same?
Agree that this is dumb. But how about these from Mississippi (courtesy of http://www.dumblaws.com)
ReplyDeleteIt is illegal to teach others what polygamy is.
If one is a parent to two illegitimate children, that person will go to jail for at least one month.
A man may not seduce a woman by lying, and claiming he will marry her.
Unnatural intercourse, if both parties voluntarily participate, results in a maximum sentence of 10 years and $10,000.Full TextIt is illegal for a male to be sexually aroused in public.
David Byron said:
ReplyDeleteI probably could have said it nicer...but that's just life isn't it?
Yes. I suppose the same goes for Glenn Greenwald- he could have said it nicer, but that's just life, isn't it?
Before you say "he started it" or "he picks on me all the time", let me just stop you and say "I. Don't. Care."
Sweet Chocolate Jesus, let it go, dude. There's so many more important things to worry about than what Glenn thinks about you.
So, if I ran a company that supplied flags that looked very much like American flags ( one star foo, one strip off, one shade off wrong color red...) and it appeared for all intents and purposes as an American flag unless you took it and looked very closely (counted each star, compared the colors to a standard flag, counted the strips) it wouldn't be desecrating an "American Flag" but to everyone who saw you - it would look exactly like desecrating an American flag.
ReplyDeleteArne,
ReplyDeleteThanks for those links... on Cuba and the usenet Wolcott. :-)
David,
I have not seen the "alleged attack" on you by Glenn. Glenn's evisceration of a person's arguments may be pointed, I doubt if they are the kind of thing that Malkin or Coulter or some of us around here engage in. His inclination and training does not lend itself to that kind of practice or nature. I suspect this is all a function of your gestalt, not Glenn's.
Anonymous said...
The constitution is not meant to be a suicide pact. Some things should certainly be considered as being beyond the pale. Cheerleading for Ossama bin Laden is one. Desecrating the flag should be another.
11:31 PM
But cheerleading for Hitler is OK?
Unpopular speech is precisely what the First Amendment was written for. It's precisely why we allow tha Nazis to march in Skokie, The KKK and Nazis to march in Greensboro, (and murder liberals), let Coulter and Malkin preach their fascist nonsense. So we can confront it, show it for what it is, marginalize it back to the fringes of society so it can fester in the dark under the floorboards and have no impact whatsoever. And on those rare occasions when it cause some jerk to act out, we can prosecute the jerks and civilly sue the moron who encouraged them, and put them in the poor house. See Tom Metzger.
DavidByron said...
ReplyDeleteI guess with a recommendation like this...!
Kinzer's evaluation of the track record of the United States is pretty dour (but perhaps not quite as pessimistic as Byron's).
I was waiting for someone to recommend a book to go with the one armagendoutahere suggested (1491 : New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus).
This is the crux of the biscuit, isn't it? David, most here have no illusions about the evil our government often does. It also does some good things, or at least tries. Hopefully, we will never have to find out what we would do if fascists took over and many of us started to dissappear. As Henry Wallace said, American fascists recognized long ago that the state must not be perceived as doing the violence domestically. They just poison the channels of public information. Proxy groups do their violence for them, and give them the cover and the appearance of innocence. Please allow us to let our system work. It's ponderous and slow, but it avoids violent upheaval. We actually like that. It's the other side that blows up federal buildings. We are in no hurry to become like them. Not yet.
If you want to come over here and foment violent leftist revolution, put your money where your mouth is and get on a plane. Doing it from the safety of your mom's basement in the UK makes you kind of like the leftist version of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Kommandos here.
Anonymous at 11:31 p.m. posted: "Some things should certainly be considered as being beyond the pale . . . Desecrating the flag should be another."
ReplyDeleteThere's an old zen proverb (delightfully quoted by Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon, and no less apropos for it): [A symbol] is like a finger pointing to the moon. Don't look at the finger, or you will miss the glory of the moon.
Someone else in comments (and now that I look back I can't find it, naturally) said it very effectively: when the symbol of the freedom becomes more important than the freedom itself, there's a problem.
Rob
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI know this is coming far after the fact, but I don't draw comics of any sort. Believe me, the results would only be comical in ways I wouldn't wish them to be. In any case, my name is not David C. Simpson. I choose to keep my surname unknown, but I assure you my name is Erin.
Arne:
Thanks for sticking up for me, and in a well-worded manner at that.
Moderators:
If linking to political cartoons is not acceptable, please let me know. I don't wish to err again.
And just another thing, even if it is ineffective. I'm wondering why I bother to defend myself from an attack on my identity from someone who doesn't have the guts to post under any name at all.
ReplyDeletePut up or piss off, huh?
Can we piss and shit on the flag?
ReplyDeleteThe didn't ban that.
Can we burn the Declaration of Independence?
ReplyDeleteCan we shred the Constitution?
They better ban that too.