Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Red, White and Ruse

Nice going, self-serving right wing assholes. Nice move to try and tweak the constitution for your own political gain with this self-serving flag amendment.

Nice job of wrapping yourself in the flag while continuing to tear down what it stands for -the rights of a free nation. Nice job of continuing our national decline into a nation that idolizes symbols over standards.

Right now things are going your way. People are afraid to question anything for fear of being branded An Enemy of the United States. Patriotism abounds. Hurray for war! Hurray for bloodshed! Hurray for God as long as it's your version of Him! Hurray for passive acceptance of what our leaders tell us!

But what if the tide turns, we get fed up and you hypocrites finally get what you deserve? What if the country becomes something you no longer recognize? What if a new foreign policy makes you embarrassed for your country? What if you are shouted down when you try to speak out?

What if you find your country has so departed from your values that you feel it's doomed, or dooming others through its recklessness? What if you still love it, but want to display how grieved you are through the dramatic act of burning its symbol?

It could happen. And if it ever does, your right as a sniveling conservative weenie to burn the flag should be protected. Why? Because as long as the United States flag stands for a nation of freedom, that freedom should include even fiery displays that make us uncomfortable.

The fact that this amendment even got to the Senate in the first place is shameful, and should serve as a wake-up call to those of us who favor freedom over symbolism.

Your failed, right wingers, but your very attempt to amend the constitution as an election ploy shows what you really value - political power. Under the guise of protecting the flag, a handful of holier-than-thou politicians have wrapped themselves in it, and by doing so, dirtied it in a most disgraceful manner.

We might as well burn it.

46 comments:

thimscool said...

"THE FLAG IS NEVER FLOWN UPSIDE DOWN, EXCEPT AS A DISTRESS SIGNAL TO CALL FOR HELP.

* Care of the Flag - Never let the U.S. Flag touch the ground, the floor or water. Place nothing on it. Never use it for drapery or decoration. If it becomes soiled, clean it. Mend it if it is torn. When the flag is worn beyond repair, destroy it in a dignified way, preferably by burning. "

Boy Scout Handbook, section on Flag Etiquette.

Roland said...

Is there something bothering you, Morgan?
Are you in distress as Luke says?
Gotta go to work.
Hope all turns out well.

thimscool said...

Right on Morgan. This nation is in grave distress.

I want to change the world... but I don't what to do, my friends.

So I'll try to get H' to fuse, my friends. And continue to search for truth.

Morgan said...

I'm heartsick, guys. This is the biggest pantload of poo the politicians have handed us this year.
I am indeed distressed for your country.
And Luke, thank you for the Boy Scout quote. The flag in my post is upside down for a reason.

thimscool said...

Note how it was originally scheduled for a four day debate, but they realized that wouldn't really fly.

The Republican Party is nothing but a marketing machine designed to get scamming crooks elected.

I don't feel to much more warmth to the Democrats, since they have a penchant for corruption too. But their marketing sucks.

JohnR said...

Morgan: I think you should have waited until after the vote was scheduled for your rant.

They voted the amendment down.

By the way, I agree with you.

JohnR

Morgan said...

Thanks, John. I didn't realize it had been voted down. I'll modify the post. I'm glad it died. But I'm still worried that they tried to push it through.

nicolaepadigone said...

heh, it died down by ONE vote! it was one vote short of a 2/3rds majority.

it's pretty shameful, and those that push it solely in election year cycles don't realize that they undermine the very thing they believe in by using is politically. the gay marriage amendment failed because of this very reason. before the actual run up to the vote on FMA, how much was it really talked about? now that the vote is done, how much is it talked about?

they do a disservice to the principles they believe in, because they don't want to win their principles as much as keep their guy in power

City Troll said...

Morgan it's a shame your such an ass... The flag burning amendment is silly but your a lost frustrated soul and I pitty you

Morgan said...

Thanks, city troll. I'll keep that in mind and if I hear the "pitty" pat of stupid little feet I'll think of you. And your spelling ability.
Geesh.

JohnR said...

Flags are rarely burnt. Even if they were, we should assume that the person burning it owns that copy of the flag. That makes it the burner's private property. So the owner of the flag may do what he wishes to his property. Congress is distracting people with a bit of emotional nonsense. If you have any respect for private property rights then flag-burning should be no problem.

Morgan: City Troll also forgot the comma between 'silly' and 'but'(independent clauses), should have spelled 'your'; you're, and I believe there should be a comma between 'lost' and 'frustrated' (list of Morgan's attributes).

JohnR--Grammar Cop

thimscool said...

That was amusing.

JohnR said...

That 'what' was amusing?

My comment on flag-burning or my grammar corrections.

Please be specific.

How can I grade this stuff if you aren't specific?

JohnR (who took a class in Proofreading and Editing last fall and can't stop proofreading and editing everything he reads.)

thimscool said...

The gramar/spelling corrections were amusing.

The comment on flag burning is just a proper application of common sense.

justin black said...

Support the USA! Whoopeee!

I'm not really into symbolism, so I just don't get it. Burning the flag gets rid of an ugly piece of fabric, nothing more. Apparently, it shows a contempt for our leaders I frequently feel, so I guess I understand the desire to. Still, I'd prefer burning president twit in effigy. After all, I'm not upset at my country, just at what the council of twits is doing with it.

Where was all of this nonsense about "supporting America" when they were crucifying Clinton for having a sex life *gasp* outside of marriage! According to them, it's only anti-American to disagree with a Republican president.

When will they realize that, in ideal situations, it's only the majority that wins an election. There are people who disagreed with this schmuck before he ever "represented America". Now that I realize I'm in the minority (and that fact is very much in question), does that mean I don't have the right to express my opinion?

Flag burning should be taught in schools. We need a populace that's willing to think - and act - for itself, not prop up some sacred cows and call it a day.

justin black said...

Support the USA! Whoopeee!

I'm not really into symbolism, so I just don't get it. Burning the flag gets rid of an ugly piece of fabric, nothing more. Apparently, it shows a contempt for our leaders I frequently feel, so I guess I understand the desire to. Still, I'd prefer burning president twit in effigy. After all, I'm not upset at my country, just at what the council of twits is doing with it.

Where was all of this nonsense about "supporting America" when they were crucifying Clinton for having a sex life *gasp* outside of marriage! According to them, it's only anti-American to disagree with a Republican president.

When will they realize that, in ideal situations, it's only the majority that wins an election. There are people who disagreed with this schmuck before he ever "represented America". Now that I realize I'm in the minority (and that fact is very much in question), does that mean I don't have the right to express my opinion?

Flag burning should be taught in schools. We need a populace that's willing to think - and act - for itself, not prop up some sacred cows and call it a day.

eaglewood said...

Let it all out Morgan, Don't mince words. Let us know exactly how you feel.

JohnR said...

thims: thanks.

JohnR

Woozie said...

Jumping all over the place here, bear with me:

Even if the amendment had gotten through the Senate, it still would have had to go through 2/3 of the states and be signed by the president to become an offcical amendment.

When the boy scout manual says to burn the flag once it has become worn beyond repair, they mean to neatly fold it and burn it in a sort of ceremony on top of a fire, not dousing it in lighter fluid, lighting it up with a zippo and chanting "Death to America"

thimscool said...

Woozie,

A while ago, in one of the many election years where this issue came up, there was an exhibit in Chicago about the subject.

One piece was a petition that people could sign in favor of a flag burning amendment. However, in order to approach the petition, the signer had to traverse an American Flag suspended just above the floor.

I believe it was during Bush 1. When are people gonna smell the shit in the sandwich they're eating?

More to your point, I agree that I find the desecration of the flag to be an insult, especially to those who died for our country, fighting for a very powerful symbol. There are many places, and many times in this world where the stars and stripes meant your ass was saved.

But this is just pathetic politcal posturing. The sadest part about it is it will, on balance, win some votes when senate candidate Scheming Hogg acuses incumbant candidate Voted On Principle of 'hating America'.

Woozie said...

Thimscool-

Yeah, I find it insulting, but I didn't support the amendment, despite my emotions wating to support it, because I knew that it was just a desperate move by the GOP to maintain control of the house and senate. Just thought I'd bring up the difference between respectfully burning the flag and not respectfully burning the flag.

Lord Omar said...

Burning the flag gets rid of an ugly piece of fabric, nothing more.

I tend to believe you'd find most Canadians agreeing with this sentiment regarding the burning of our flag. It's a flag for Christ's sake.
I've seen so many U.S. flags burned in my lifetime one would think you'd be rather used to it by now.

Roland said...

This amendment wasn't about flag burning as much as gaining popularity for the law-makers.
Happens every few years.

The flag burning itself is a sign of protest.

I saw a T-shirt that had this protest, "He's not my president." With a picture of Bush in the background.
Now, I never really liked Clinton all that much, but he was my president.
I will honor the leader in this country, even if I disagree with him.
And that is where the difference seems to be.
You don't need to like the guy, just be civil.

Morgan said...

"It's a flag for Christ's sake."

It's supposed to stand for something, and if it no longer does then why not take a match to it? Can burning a flag dishonor it any more than forsaking the principles under which it's flown?

Morgan said...

"Let it all out Morgan, Don't mince words. Let us know exactly how you feel."

Yeah, I thought I'd be blunt today, seeing as how I'm usually all shy and stuff.

Morgan said...

"One piece was a petition that people could sign in favor of a flag burning amendment. However, in order to approach the petition, the signer had to traverse an American Flag suspended just above the floor."

Oh Luke, I remember that!! That was interesting!

Nicole said...

Morgan, a couple of years back, I saw some women protesting down in the US something on the news. One girl had a sign that stated

" THE ONLY BUSH I TRUST IS MY OWN".

Hope this brings a smile to your face, like it did mine
Cheers, Nic

Morgan said...

Nicole, OMG, my husband and I saw a bumper sticker with that slogan on it yesterday and cracked up.

My favorite political bumper sticker lately is "Frodo failed. Bush has the ring."

*grin*

Larry (no not _that_ Larry) said...

Even if the amendment had gotten through the Senate, it still would have had to go through 2/3 of the states and be signed by the president to become an offcical amendment.

Er, no. No Presidential signature necessary, and 3/4 of the states have to ratify.

You can't really blame the Congress-critters for wanting to outlaw flag burning, if you wrapped yourself in the flag as often as those Bozo's do, you wouldn't want anybody burning the flag either.

Woozie said...

Okay, so I was wrong. Still a lot of stuff to get through, though.

Morgan said...

Touche, Larry.

prettylady said...

Please, friends. Pretty Lady is despondent, today. She clicked on that 9/11 conspiracy video, and now is in desperate need of a phone call to her brother, for reassurance that everything is okay, and that Bush & Co. did not purposefully murder thousands of people in order to steal billions in gold and insurance money and have a pretext to start two wars. And her phone is down and she can't call anyone.

Flag amendments=red herrings, agreed.

I recall, back in my student days--a fellow student did an art piece that involved a flag, gold and silver paint, and syringes. To my mind, the piece was a desperate act of foolishness, committed by a student who lacked the technical and conceptual skill to produce actual art. But it got the ROTC guy who came to visit his girlfriend all riled up, and thereupon the art student was taken more seriously, for being 'controversial.'

Sigh.

Gene said...

enWhere was all of this nonsense about "supporting America" when they were crucifying Clinton for having a sex life *gasp* outside of marriage!
***
This has to be the stupidest post I have ever seen in the history of the internet. What on earth do you think marriage is you moron a__s ho_e??? It is a promise and covanant to God you dumb sh_t!!! Under the the pretense that you believe in God. Who on earth would want to be married to an adulterer? Tell me honestly, do you want to marry someone who thinks it is ok to betray you?

thimscool said...

Gene,

In case you don't get much spam, there are many places online where you can affordable (and discreetly) have valium shipped to your home...

thimscool said...

Terrible spelling. JohnR, have mercy! Affordably and Discretely.

prettylady said...

Thims, you got 'discreetly' right the first time around. 'Discretely' means 'in a manner consisting of distinct or unconnected elements; noncontinuously.'

This drives me about as bonkers as the misuse of 'disinterested' to mean 'uninterested,' when 'disinterested' means 'having no vested or personal stake in the matter,' while UNinterested means, well, uninterested.

© Pretty Lady--Word Usage Cop

justin black said...

Gene -

I never put on a pretense that I believe in a god. Marriage is a contract between two people, nothing more. If neither one of them seems to mind something on the side (and I can assume because Hillary is still married to him she doesn't mind) then who am I to judge? And, what does it have to do with his ability to govern, anyway?

My pont is that Clinton's private life had nothing to do with anything, yet we crucified him (during war!) for it. Meanwhile, our current president has the sense to keep it in his pants, but can't seem to stop stepping all over the constitution and my rights contained therein. What do I get for complaining about this moron? "You don't love America! Support our troops!" And people calling me dirty names because I think people who crucified Clinton for nonsense are being hypocritical now when they say I have to support our president no matter what.

I would not remain married to someone who betrayed me. Hillary Clinton, however, did. What right is it of ours to say that's not the end of it?

However, if I were to base my political affiliation on the polititian's private life, I'd start by crucifying anyone who got drunk and shot his friend. That shows a very distinct lack of moral fiber, in my opinion.

By the way, can I quote you? I've been called stupid before, but never the stupidest post I have ever seen in the history of the internet.

Gene said...

However, if I were to base my political affiliation on the polititian's private life, I'd start by crucifying anyone who got drunk and shot his friend. That shows a very distinct lack of moral fiber, in my opinion.

By the way, can I quote you? I've been called stupid before, but never the stupidest post I have ever seen in the history of the internet.
***
Justin, I didn't understand the shooting their friend thing. Was it a metaphor?

I am back to see if I was banned for the outburst; but I guess I am not as of yet.

Betrayal is my pet peeve. If one can't understand a marriage vow; it leaves me moved to the depths of saddness no one should ever have to experience; to say the least. It hurts me to even hear about it.

I can't stand Hillary; but no one deserves that level of humiliation and betrayal; not even the lizard queen. What choice did she have; really?

I don't ask to be excused for the outburst; it was heartfelt.

Gene said...

Marriage is a contract between two people, nothing more.
***
Wrong; it is a Christian ritual between a couple and God.

Righteousness based on human "law" is "Skubala".

justin black said...

I've attended several marriage ceremonies. Buddhist rituals, Jewish ceremonies, Pagan handfastings, Homosexual unions, and, yes, Christian rituals as well. It seems to me marriage has been around a much longer time than the 2000 years since Christ supposedly appeared, and is certainly not your god's sole purview. Every major religon has its own marriage customs. Does a lack of the Christian god mean their vows are less valid?

I tried to look up "Skubala" in the dictionary without success. I'll have to take your definition. I guess I am very into "Skubala", since the only law I follow is law that comes from humans, and I am very righteous. On the other hand, I suspect it is meant in a deragatory fashion. If that is the case, it falls on deaf ears. I don't believe in your bible, why would I care what it labels me as?

I agree that betrayal is wrong. I can't imagine what it must be like to be Hillary Clinton, but she is her own person. It was none of our business how she and her husband ran their marriage. They have their ways, we have ours.

The crack about getting drunk and shooting your friend was a cheap shot at our vice president, who did exactly that. I was merely making a point that some actions speak bigger volumes about your character than others.

I cannot speak for Morgan, whose site this is, but I do not mind the outburst. I also have trouble controlling my temper from time to time, and speak loudly rather than clearly. We disagree. Sometimes, disagreement makes us angry. I doubt we'll ever agree, but that is not my goal. My goal is to try to understand you better as a person, and have myself understood. We live together on this tiny planet, we may as well learn to understand each other.

Morgan said...

"Wrong; it is a Christian ritual between a couple and God."

Justin, I'm hoping Gene will answer you, but I doubt she will. I'd also like to know if she believes only Christians can marry. Or if two non-Christians can marry, and if they do whether their union goes unrecognized in God's eyes until one converts to Christianity. And if one converts but the other doesn't, whether they're only half-married....

justin black said...

Morgan -

I, too, suspect Gene is done with my sad, atheistic self. This is a bit of a shame. I can discuss morals all the livelong day. I have many, and they are very important to me. Just call me "Skubala Doo"!

JohnR said...

Justin: One of the problems with following man-made law is that one day something is legal and the next day it is illegal with prison to follow.

Man makes it and man unmakes it.

Don't get caught on the wrong side when the law changes.

Anway the wind blows...

JohnR

Morgan said...

Alas. Two good question and still no answer from Gene.
I guess since she believes all life comes from a Christian god then Buddhist babies don't really exist.
Bless her heart, Justin. Can we really blame her for hiding from her own stupidity?

justin black said...

JohnR -

You are correct. Manmade laws change; sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. However, I think I was either unclear, or you simply misunderstood me.

I follow the (distinctly) man-made laws of our country. Despite the fact that we have a prison population, I think it's safe to say most people follow these laws. The alternative is going to prison, or at the very least hefty fines (and I am a poor, poor man).

I also follow a much stricter set of morals I came up with all on my own. Being a human being, these are also "human law". Gene's argument seemed to be (I wasn't sure, and she hasn't responded to say whether I was right or not) that following human laws was somehow anathema. I was merely making the point that I was proud of my "human laws" by claiming the very term used to denigrate my beliefs.

Do I agree with all of our nation's laws? No. In those cases, I follow my own code and seek to lead people in overturning those laws. However, my own personal code is still a very human endeavor.

There are laws I make for myself that I do not think other people need to follow. I wouldn't dream of forcing my will on others, except in cases where the safety and / or freedom of others is threatened.

My own personal code of ethics also changes over time. As I grow in experience and knowledge, my views shift.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Anonymous said...

Very cool design! Useful information. Go on! »