Burn, Baby, Burn!
Well it had to happen. A beginning is inevitably followed by a body, a middle, a post-beginning if you will. Therefore, my second political post was born. And his name was "Burn, Baby, Burn". Unfortunately, he's a little slow and behind the times, for he concerned himself with the recent Flag Desecration Amendment that went through Congress before our Independence Day.
This amendment was created in an effort to prevent the burning of the U.S. flag in public places, an event that is just soooo prevalent today anyway that I can't even walk down my driveway without having to push myself through hordes of hippies gathered around a flaming Stars and Stripes, and would make it illegal to do so.
First off, there are just so many things wrong with trying to outlaw political dissent in our "free" country, even in such seemingly small ways as banning flag burning. The most obvious problem with going down a path such as this is where that path will lead to. Proponents say burning the flag is disrespectful to our forefathers, our troops who fight for our freedoms, and the values and morals of this great country.
If flag burning were to be outlawed, what would be next? Couldn't someone just as easily argue that protesting a war is as bad? Or that publicly disagreeing with the President and decrying his name and his actions is as disrespectful and as harmful to our national character?
See, that's the thing about our "free" country. We were given the freedom to talk about our leaders, to publicly voice our opinions on our lawmakers and system of government, to in essence "talk smack" about everyone in charge. We can protest wars. We can assemble in large crowds bearing signs that might hurt the President's feelings. We can do this because our forefathers in England could NOT do this. They couldn't burn their nation's flag in an act of protest when they disagreed with their leader's choices, so we CAN.
For those that say flag-burning is disrespectful to those soldiers that fought and died in wars to protect us, they fail to see the most obvious point before them in that those soldiers fought and died not only to protect us, but to protect our freedoms, including the freedom of protest, even if it is formed in such a disgusting display as the burning of our flag.
Republican Senator Bill Frist tried to make the argument that it is illegal to deface a government building, and thus is should be illegal to deface a governement symbol like our flag. The difference he fails to note, however, is that a governement building is not your property. A flag you buy at the supermarket down the street, however, is yours and therefore yours to do with whatever you like.
Once one has looked into the problems surrounding freedoms of expression and personal ownership within this amendment, one must look at a possible reason this proposal was put forth in the first place.
It's not news to anyone that President Bush's approval ratings have been the lowest ever in the past couple of months. Support for the War on Terror in Iraq has waned as troop casuality levels have risen. With elections coming up this fall, Republicans are worried about losing their hold in the House of Representatives and the Senate. So, what's a good strategy to get independents and conservatives who are sitting on the fence as a result of their lack of confidence in the current administration to come back to the light?
Try and sell yourself as being more patriotic than the other guy.
Republican backers of the amendment know that most Democrats will pounce on this issue and say it violates the Bill of Rights' freedom of speech. Republicans can then use that against Democrats in the upcoming election, arguing that not supporting such an amendment is indicative of a candidate's lack of patriotism and thus his or her inability to be an effective government leader.
Is this the real reason the amendment was put forth? I don't know. But it sure makes sense to me. When more than half of the country is upset with the President and by extension his political party, I can see why those in charge would try to find a way to suppress political dissent in public.
Look, the main line is this: it's your flag, it's your freedom, it's yours to do with what you want.
Luckily, the Senate agreed and rejected the motion after it had passed in the House.
--Cbake
This amendment was created in an effort to prevent the burning of the U.S. flag in public places, an event that is just soooo prevalent today anyway that I can't even walk down my driveway without having to push myself through hordes of hippies gathered around a flaming Stars and Stripes, and would make it illegal to do so.
First off, there are just so many things wrong with trying to outlaw political dissent in our "free" country, even in such seemingly small ways as banning flag burning. The most obvious problem with going down a path such as this is where that path will lead to. Proponents say burning the flag is disrespectful to our forefathers, our troops who fight for our freedoms, and the values and morals of this great country.
If flag burning were to be outlawed, what would be next? Couldn't someone just as easily argue that protesting a war is as bad? Or that publicly disagreeing with the President and decrying his name and his actions is as disrespectful and as harmful to our national character?
See, that's the thing about our "free" country. We were given the freedom to talk about our leaders, to publicly voice our opinions on our lawmakers and system of government, to in essence "talk smack" about everyone in charge. We can protest wars. We can assemble in large crowds bearing signs that might hurt the President's feelings. We can do this because our forefathers in England could NOT do this. They couldn't burn their nation's flag in an act of protest when they disagreed with their leader's choices, so we CAN.
For those that say flag-burning is disrespectful to those soldiers that fought and died in wars to protect us, they fail to see the most obvious point before them in that those soldiers fought and died not only to protect us, but to protect our freedoms, including the freedom of protest, even if it is formed in such a disgusting display as the burning of our flag.
Republican Senator Bill Frist tried to make the argument that it is illegal to deface a government building, and thus is should be illegal to deface a governement symbol like our flag. The difference he fails to note, however, is that a governement building is not your property. A flag you buy at the supermarket down the street, however, is yours and therefore yours to do with whatever you like.
Once one has looked into the problems surrounding freedoms of expression and personal ownership within this amendment, one must look at a possible reason this proposal was put forth in the first place.
It's not news to anyone that President Bush's approval ratings have been the lowest ever in the past couple of months. Support for the War on Terror in Iraq has waned as troop casuality levels have risen. With elections coming up this fall, Republicans are worried about losing their hold in the House of Representatives and the Senate. So, what's a good strategy to get independents and conservatives who are sitting on the fence as a result of their lack of confidence in the current administration to come back to the light?
Try and sell yourself as being more patriotic than the other guy.
Republican backers of the amendment know that most Democrats will pounce on this issue and say it violates the Bill of Rights' freedom of speech. Republicans can then use that against Democrats in the upcoming election, arguing that not supporting such an amendment is indicative of a candidate's lack of patriotism and thus his or her inability to be an effective government leader.
Is this the real reason the amendment was put forth? I don't know. But it sure makes sense to me. When more than half of the country is upset with the President and by extension his political party, I can see why those in charge would try to find a way to suppress political dissent in public.
Look, the main line is this: it's your flag, it's your freedom, it's yours to do with what you want.
Luckily, the Senate agreed and rejected the motion after it had passed in the House.
--Cbake
posted by Cbake at 2:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home