Up The Flagpole
Here's the bad news. A move in the Senate Tuesday to pass a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning failed to gain a necessary 2/3 majority by one vote. Out here where I live, on the northern slope of the Santa Monica mountains facing the San Fernando Valley. this news was received with great dismay. The current frenzy of frying the Stars and Stripes in public has become so heated (excuse the pun) that on some days we can hardly see through the smoky haze.
The good news is that while that bill has failed, there's word that Dear Leader Bill Frist is moving forward on other fronts. To combat rising rates of delinquent spousal support, Leader Frist tomorrow will be introducing a constitutional amendment to defend Motherhood. We also hear that Leader Frist has another election year lollapalooza up his sleeve. As not only leader of the most august sector of the American government, but also as a medical doctor, Leader Frist will soon be unveiling his program to fight childhood obesity by increasing fruit intake: yet another constitutional amendment, this one promoting apple pie.
More good news: Not all Democrats, apparently, are pantywaist apologists for the current epidemic of flag immolation. The stalwart Dianne Feinstein, the U.S. Senator from California who is virtually unchallenged in this fall's election, took a bold public stand by forthrightly stating:
" I rise as the main Democratic sponsor of this amendment. I have given this a lot of thought for a long time. I believe what we have before us is language that is essentially content neutral. It is on conduct--not speech."
Yeah DiFi! What a gal! Where do I send the money? So glad you're in the Senate, fighting for me and the rest of the Forgotten Middle Class. A dozen or so other Democrat senators also joined Dianne in resolute defense of our national banner.
Disappointing, however, was the behavior of one Hillary Clinton. As David Corn notes, Hill kinda balked on the whole matter. She said she didn't favor Tuesday's move for a consitutional ban on flag-burning. No. The Senator from New York says she, instead, favors a plain old law against it. I dunno, Hillary -- that sounds like you're sort of soft on Al Qaeda to me.
Maybe this is all a sleeper idea for how to invigorate the coming presidential debates of 2008, how to touch the political third rail that divides Red and Blue America. That's right, maybe a debate in which the Republicans take the constitutional ban position while the Dems take the simple law-against position? Let's sleep on it. No hurry.
Meanwhile, another salute to Leader Frist. Taking up the flag-burning cause Tuesday was one more day, thankfully, that the Senate was distracted from acting on other issues -- from health care to social security to student loans. Imagine the damage that was avoided.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Are you saying of DiFi, as Gore Vidal did of Tom Hayden, that she is giving opportunism a bad name?
Surely they can find something to pin on Bob Avakian without amending the Constitution . . .
June 27th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
What I think you’re missing here Marc is that flag burning, according to Dana Milbank at The Washington Post, is UP at the alarming rate of 33% this year. From three reported incidents to four. If the Senate doesn’t intervene with an amendment to the Constitution, it could go up to five or six or more. Then we’re all screwed.
June 27th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Save the Flag, Burn the Planet
Am I being simplistic? Tell me how…
http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/2006/06/save_the_flag_b.html
June 28th, 2006 at 12:52 am
We can count on the Republicans to stage a lot of these stunts designed to “trap” Democrats like Hillary Clinton into “awkward” positions over the next two years. Since this seems unavoidable, at least we shall be able to observe how Hillary et al handle it–maybe it will be character building.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:38 am
I could be generous and misconstrue Ms. Feinstein’s unchallengedness as a safe place from to make it clear that the left is pro-apple pie and to take a strong position against the anarcho-dope smokers and the freaks and draft dodgers (oops).
I could but I won’t. Because I would have to use the same double standard on beloved Hillary and Senator Me-too Durbin from Illinois and Senator Duck Hunter from Massachusetts who also had a losing me-too I’m-a-regular-guy strategy.
In terms of party discipline, you don’t see Republicans going off the reservation on every vote, compromising the core principles in order to pander to the great unsane hump in the middle of the bell curve. No. They stick to their guns. They shout their lunacy from the mountain tops. They’re damned proud that Terri Schiavo is in a vegetative state so that they can flock to her carcass and pick her bones with sacred sounding beaks.
This are the voters you want to pander with?
When are we going to learn not to pander?
The current choice is do you want to lose with the Republican-lite centrists or do you want to lose with real Democrats.
I choose real Democrats.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:32 am
From THIS CONSERVATIVE, this is one of the dumbest amendments to come down the pike since prohibition. Having said that, Servant the Reps are “Off the Reservation” when it comes to spending and lots of things. No better than Democrats even… why would anyone expect hillary to have a rational vote on anything… she sits so firmly wedged on the fence she may never be able to get up…
June 28th, 2006 at 5:39 am
I haven’t decided on whether the flag burning issue warrants an amendment, but it is clear to me that the left (the only ones doing the burning and celebrating of it) insult most Americans and insult our soldiers when they desecrate the flag. But, civility and manner have never been the long suit of liberals.
If it’s true, that there have been only four flag burnings last year (and how would anyone really know that), then I’m seeing vast numbers of liberals, represented here, cheering them on–not for Consitutional reasons but because they are so in-your-face rude to people who love this nation and have defended it.
No class liberals are simply rude and will never deserve respect from decent people.
June 28th, 2006 at 6:02 am
When will the left quit desecrating the flag ?
http://www.flagclothes.com/catalog/catalog_listall.aspx?id=14
Next thing you know they’ll be passing out bandaids with Purple Hearts printed on them to mock our decorated war veterans.
June 28th, 2006 at 6:06 am
“I’m seeing vast numbers of liberals, represented here, cheering them on”
http://tinyurl.com/s5p4j
June 28th, 2006 at 6:58 am
“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”
That is the text of the proposed amendment. Now, if I had a bunch of flags made up with one star missing, or I copied the flag onto paper with my color copier, or I created a computer animation, or the like, and then burned it literally or figuratively, would that count? I can see the Supreme Court grappling with such issues for hundreds of years to come.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:10 am
Great writing, Marc.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:14 am
You know, I am against outlawing flag burning or passing amendments against it, on the traditional free speech grounds. But I date my departure from conventional leftism to an incident back during the 1970s, when the US invasion of Cambodia became public and I marched in an anti-war demo in San Jose, Calif, where I was then living. As we passed a post office, one of the demonstrators, a big burly guy, grabbed a flag that was flying there and began carrying it down the street. A postal worker, a much smaller man who was standing there ran up and grabbed it, and for several blocks the two of them walked in tandem, the postal worker saying nothing but absolutely determined not to let go of it and the demonstrator equally determined–at least for a while. Finally everyone got pretty embarrassed and someone said “let him have it,” at which the demonstrator let go with an embarrassed smile. The worker just said “it doesn’t mean anything to you anyway” and went away with it. It struck me at the time that a left movement that could not relate to and communicate with people like that postal worker, whose beliefs were equally sincere and whose love for his country was manifest, was a movement that was never going to get anywhere. I still feel that way now.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:33 am
It is difficult to legislate respectful behavior, but we keep trying in order to maintain some semblance of civility in an increasingly larger and less cohesive country.
I am somewhat on the fence regarding the flag desecration amendment. It doesn’t seem to be a big enough problem to warrant the division it causes between good liberals and conservatives in a government that really need another issue to be disagreeable about.
But since it has been debated……again, and it’s not going away, I favored letting the people themselves decide this one through their individual state legislatures. Those in the beltway who voted against letting them do just that I predict will pay at the polls. Not much but some, and some is all it can take many time in todays close elections.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:35 am
Those clothes in the ad Reg posted would have gotten someone charged with offensive conduct thirty years ago, ala Abbie Hoffman.
Americans are weird.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:36 am
that would be “really DON’T need another issue to be disagreeable about”.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:45 am
For the people who want to modify the Constitution every third month about something that pisses you off.
What you get pissed off about is really dumb. The important shit, you totally miss.
Say us lefties who love to insult you so much come over to your house and tell you the missionary position is now against the law. And to make sure there’s no illegal fucking going on your bed room, we’re gonna install a deputy sheriff right there in your spare bedroom to come in and check every time he hears amorous noises coming out of your shed.
Can we stipulate that would piss you off?
Can we stipulate that we would be as offended as you by such government intrusion into your private domain?
Can we stipulate that you’d still find something to get pissed about even if we designed the whole world so that nothing ever pissed you off?
June 28th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Woody,
I totally agree! Liberals are so in-your-face rude! Unlike Deputy Leader Cheney, who’s “go fuck yourself” on the floor of the Senate, to a Senator, is the paragon of virtue and civil restraint.
USA! USA! USA!
Here’s a totally awesome thought experiment: what if someone here posts a comment that says Marc Cooper is a wanker, followed by an ascii drawing of the flag, and Marc deletes the comment? Would that be desecrating our most sacred flag?
June 28th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Conservatives would have no problem with banning hte missionary position. Judging by their attitudes towards the state, I’d say they are on the submissive side.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Does this count as desecration?
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/27/hypocrisy-much/
June 28th, 2006 at 11:31 am
My personal favorites:
http://www.moderntails.com/product.php?productid=17769
http://www.moderntails.com/product.php?productid=17768
CafePress also sells an “American Flag Soccer Ball” design, which I’m sure must be very popular in countries that are looking for convenient ways to kick the U.S.A. around.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on the flag burning amendment: “”In my opinion, there’s nothing that would supersede this in importance.”
Hatch again: “I was asked this afternoon by a large body of media: Is this the most important thing the Senate could be doing at this time?” he told his colleagues, answering the question, “I can tell you: You’re darned right it is.”
Time to retire…
June 28th, 2006 at 11:47 am
MBalter: It struck me at the time that a left movement that could not relate to and communicate with people like that postal worker, whose beliefs were equally sincere and whose love for his country was manifest, was a movement that was never going to get anywhere. I still feel that way now.”
Eloquent Michael.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Servant, can we stipulate that yours is the most idiotic comment in this thread?
June 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Michael Balter, wrote above at 7:14 A.M. something interesting with which I can appreciate. It’s worth a re-read.
The left does exhibit disdain and contempt for people who truly appreciate our country and our flag. They consider them rubes, gullible, stupid, etc. How can they ever expect to win those people to their point of view?
Well, they can’t, which is why they can’t get legislation through and why they bastardize the Constitution with incredible interpretations–until a wisened Republican loads the Supreme Court for a while.
I wonder sometimes why people want to live in a neighborhood with people that they hate. I guess in the case of our country, the left won’t leave so they try to make it bad enough so that everyone else will want to.
One day, you folks on the left are going to wake up and find that everyone has given up the will to fight for what you’ve destroyed. Maybe that’s what you want.
==========
reg, I hope that you’re posting the links for everyone else’s amusement, because I quit wasting my time to look at them.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Woody,
Again, I couldn’t agree more. I am 100% sure that every Democrat who has ever donned this great nation’s uniform and fought against its enemies was, in fact, doing it ironically, and was sneering at America the whole time.
Seriously, it’s folks like you and me, people who GET IT, people who love freedom and aren’t afraid to type out blog comments about it, who truly love American and freedom and puppies, not those loser cowardly soldiers.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I haven’t decided on whether the flag burning issue warrants an amendment, but it is clear to me that the left (the only ones doing the burning and celebrating of it) insult most Americans and insult our soldiers when they desecrate the flag. But, civility and manner have never been the long suit of liberals.
Yeah, and the right, of course would never insult one of our soldiers. Like, say, John Kerry or John Murtha or Al Gore. You guys are completely full of shit with your smug sense of superiority about how much you love America and those “libruls” don’t.
Michael Balter is full of baloney. Those of us opposed to this stupid flag burning amendment love our country every bit as much as you. We stand during the national anthem at ball games. We serve in the military and our children join the Boy Scouts. We don’t burn the flag and don’t cheer on anyone who might (and it is rare).
And tell me, please, what liberals and lefties are desecrating the flag? There aren’t any. And who is “cheering them on”? Nobody. You made it up. Karl Rove & Bill Frist are cynically trying to get you riled up against your fellow Americans (you got that Michael Balter?) and you bite every time.
Meanwhile, you want to desecrate not the flag, but the Constitution upon which our great country is based. Your emotions are constantly manipulated by opportunistic politicians like Bill Frist and George W. Bush. Karl Rove says dance and all of you immediately jump to it.
You are fools and that’s why you are regarded as such.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Reg, there is nothing more important to Hatch than getting his party reelected.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Tim Blue, where did I use the term “Democrat” in my entry that you referenced and which you assumed in your response? Of course, you probably linked them because you know so many Democrats who identify with the radical left.
=====
Pub, you go into a rant without noticing in my comment that you referenced that I specifically stated that I had not taken a position on the flag amendment.
You’re blind if you don’t see that it is the left cheering for actions which insult our nation in deference to “global citizen identification,” requiring the left to attack the U.S. just as the jealous countries in Europe do. It sure isn’t the Young Republicans at the forefront of defending flag burning.
But, at least you confirmed what I wrote about the left’s true feelings of the average American by calling them fools. Pray tell, what are your qualifications to make you so superior?
June 28th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Woody,
Oh, of course you’ve taken no position.
Please reference what I said. I didn’t call “average Americans” fools. I called you a fool.
I merely pointed out that most people who oppose a cynical, political amendment about flag burning are average Americans.
And I guess I am blind because I don’t see at all “the left cheering for actions which insult our nation”. Don’t have a clue what “global citizen identification” means but I assume it’s some kind of far-right looniness.
And no one is defending flag burning. We are defending the Constitution that doesn’t need to be amended every time somebody does something that bothers you, or bothers me.
You like to talk about the so-called “far left”, but I doubt you ever talk about the far-right. You know, the type who blow up Federal buildings, shoot radio talk show hosts and set off bombs at the Olympics. Maybe if we smeared you by association with them as yu attempt to do to us you would start to get it.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Woody,
Oh, don’t play coy with me!
‘I haven’t decided on whether the flag burning issue warrants an amendment, but it is clear to me that the left (the only ones doing the burning and celebrating of it) insult most Americans and insult our soldiers when they desecrate the flag. But, civility and manner have never been the long suit of liberals.’
The Left, Liberals, Democrats, Satan, Communists, Nazis, Islamocomunofagonazis, they’re all the same! Am I right? Don’t leave me hanging!
June 28th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
“Michael Balter is full of baloney. Those of us opposed to this stupid flag burning amendment love our country every bit as much as you. We stand during the national anthem at ball games. We serve in the military and our children join the Boy Scouts. We don’t burn the flag and don’t cheer on anyone who might (and it is rare).”
Altho Michael used what I would consider a vast over-generalization with the term “conventional leftism”, I think you are drawing inferences from his comment about people who oppose this amendment that aren’t there.
Woody, of course, thinks he’s an “average American” when his comments here daily demonstrate he’s a marginalized idiot with extreme right-wing views. I, for one, hope the GOP fully embraces Woody’s wingnut mentality with even greater gusto. I’d look forward to a couple of generations of liberals not having to worry about the votes of centrists or the moderately conservative swinging into the arms of the crackpots, crony capitalists and crooks who dominate the Republican Party.
Incidentally, here’s an interesting article on why the serial failures and wild over-reach that we’re seeing with this BushCo Beltway gang is, mostly, inevitable given their “philosophy”.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html
June 28th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I think this was necessary in order to stop the mass flag burnings that have been happening in blue states.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
People of the ACLU are “average Americans” in many of your eyes. http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/07/17/aclu-policy-to-legalize-child-porn-distribution/
June 28th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
One can’t be too careful these days.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Did someone bring up the ACLU? I’m not a member, but I’m sort of average, I guess. Usually vote Democratic, although most politicians are parasites in my book. Still, I don’t remember advocating child pornography, or reading anyone else here do that.
Seems like Pug and reg had some good points. No doubt that’s why you jumped ship. I guess there’s no use debating them, since they are all just potential child pornographers.
Is somebody just creating this Woody character as a joke?
June 28th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
I find that link to be a circumstantial ad hominem: worst position possible on one issue, equals all positions on any issue. There is no way to determine if this actually is the ACLU position, and in any event is irrelevant to the current discsussion.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
“Is somebody just creating this Woody character as a joke?”
No, he’s all too real and illustrates the extremes who dare call themselves the “middle.” Not in a million years.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Since Woody’s brains are mostly in his Googling finger, here is a long statement by the ACLU itself of its child pornography position–a much better source than the “stop the ACLU” Web site and a much more nuanced position than the distortions by Woody and the anti-ACLU folks.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html
June 28th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Stephen Colbert yesterday evening on his Comedy Central program proposed a mandatory combustible flag that he has constructed that would cause an immediate and mass explosion upon being lit.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:38 am
The only way to handle a flag after it has been desecrated is to burn it. At this point we will have to find and burn all flags.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:50 am
Michael Blater, I know that you don’t support child pornography, but the ACLU seems overly concerned with stopping legislation which punishes that than it does with the pedophiles themselves. The ACLU is not “average American.”
Why the example is extreme, it is no more extreme than the ACLU is in their targets and goals, which, to my knowledge, has never raised an eyebrow with commenters here. They must accept the organization.
Let’s hope that NAMBLA isn’t a big contributor to the ACLU and awaiting their defense.
==========
Regarding googling, I really don’t like it, either. People should simply give their opinions and reasons rather than saying I’m for or against something and here’s a link to someone else who can say it better than me. That’s lazy and it overlooks that there are other links which can counter just about any position. Plus, it’s a time waster.
You’ll find that I started doing more of it when your buddy R.P. wouldn’t look things up himself and would call me a liar unless I spoon fed him sources to support my ideas. Yet, links to other’s views, whether they be from the NY Times or National Enquirer, aren’t necessarily any better than what we can determine ourselves.
I don’t need the links and only see value to them to stop ridiculous attacks demanding proof of my opinion or for legitimate reasons such as providing factual information about something like a vote or court case.
All the demands for documentation, which can be countered with other docmentation ad naseum, is counterproductive to debating ideas.
Please don’t ask me to provide a link supporting that view.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:54 am
“Why the example is extreme, it is no more extreme than the ACLU is in their targets and goals, which, to my knowledge, has never raised an eyebrow with commenters here. They must accept the organization.”
We do? Did I miss the meeting when all mandatory opinions were handed down? I didn’t know that I had to have a certain point of view to visit this blog.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:10 am
Yeah! Don’t let those liberal bastards get you down, Woody! There are few threats to the Republic greater than the ACLU – or as I like to call them, the Anti-Church League of the Underworld! So what if they spend the bulk of their time defending people against violations of the very civil liberties that define American freedom against our tyrannical Islamist enemies? They clearly hate baby Jesus!
Oh, I also have a question: in order to “de-secrate” something, it has to be con-secrated first. Is the flag sacred by virtue of being the flag, or is Baby Jesus swaddled in each flag at the factory before it’s shipped out?
June 29th, 2006 at 6:23 am
I don’t know whether to shoot myself or go bowling. I swear some commenters here are on crazy pills.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Woody, your O’Reilly hamboning misses some pretty obvious stuff, doesn’t it? Pedophiles are for law enforcment to deal with, the ACLU is conserned with first amendment issues. One would hope that the diference between doing bad things and thinking (and talking) about bad things would be apparent enough. As for titlalating the potentail pedophile, I’d take a look at mainstream advertising. TV. and garbage like kid’s beauty contests as well as extreme porno. That would mean getting specific with people who are MAKING MONEY, something the conservative never much wants to do.
NAMBLA, yeah, that’s such a huge, powerful organization, I’m sure they have a lot of money to throw around. The knee jerk grandstanding against the ACLU only shows to go that today’s conservative ain’t very.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:11 am
While we are discussing civil liberties, let’s give a cheer for the US Supreme Court’s ruling against military tribunals. Things may be bad in America, but it is still unconstitutional to throw someone in prison and swallow the key.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Shit, what has happened to today’s conservatives?
The fetishization [?] of inanimate objects and symbols used to be an anathema to the descendants (as in Protestants) of the enemies of Rome (as in Papists and idol worshipers).
I guess this new nationalistic religion needs its idols.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Michael B – Regarding your crowing over this antiquated notion of effective and proven methods of winning the War On Terror being “unconstitutional”, as a decent – although well above average – American, I think it’s unfortunate, if not potentially disastrous, that President Bush isn’t allowed to offer a signing statement, when the liberals at the Supreme Court err in their judgment, stating that he doesn’t feel the need to comply with their high falutin’ theories and speculations, just like he’s done with so many of the “laws” passed willy-nilly by the left-wing Congress. What is the country coming to ? The important thing is that the Commander In Chief not have his hands tied.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Tim Blue – Freedom Father!!!!11!!! to the rescue. What a wonderful antidote to the cartoonish views we hear too often from woody. At the risk of providing him with ammunition let me say straight out that I’m not huge flag person. My objection extends to all flags. I despise tribalism of any kind and what are flags (or anthems, really) but symbols of tribes. Far too often blind allegiance or enforced, bordering on mandatory notions of patriotism encourage us to take of our thinking caps and leave our critical faculties at the door. I disliked the in your face, chest thumping, flag waving atmosphere following 9/11. I’m reminded of pakistani cab drivers in new york who i spoke to who were forced to adorn their cabs with the stars and stripes or be beat up as a reprecussion. Bush used this climate skillfully, to his advantage and it made the erosion of civil liberties and the reckless push to war with Iraq much easier to pursue. More so, I think it prevented a much more fruitful and honest dialogue about America’s role in the world. Before I’m bombarded with objections I will adknowledge that that there are surely other models of patriotism and the concept need not be defined by the likes of our domestic phalange.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:30 am
**Multiple Choice Quiz**
Finish the sentence by choosing one of the selections.
1. The ACLU…
(A) defends Constitutional rights (especially the ones that they can make up with the help of activist judges) by using situations for radical causes or
(B) defends radical causes by using Constitutional rights (especially the ones that they can make up with the help of activist judges?)
(C) hates America and has little concern for the rights of conservative causes.
(D) is an organization for gay scouts.
Grade your own test.
Anwer:
All are possibly good answers, but (B) is the most correct.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Here’s a criticism of the ACLU that I find compelling, by someone who actually shares the goals of promoting free speech and protecting the Bill of Rights (as opposed to pulling Coulteresque schtick out of crazy-right field – or is it their ass ?) Although I think the ACLU’s advocacy is a very useful antidote to the kind of crap that we see above, I don’t think they are sacrosanct by any stretch of the imagination. For example, during World War II, the ACLU of Northern California actually acted in defiance of the national organization when they protested the internment of Japanese-Americans solely on the basis of their ethnicity. Incredibly, this is still controversial in certain right-wing circles. (See Michelle Malkin’s recent book defending the incarceration of American citizens on the basis of ethnicity or national origin.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-06-13-aclu-edit_x.htm
June 29th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
I thought my question and suggested answer were pretty pretty accurate in response to Wall’s comment.
I saw similar reports that you linked about the ACLU’s double standards. As a private organization, they can do what they want. You can bet that Coca Cola wouldn’t put up with directors who publicly criticized the company. However, the muzzling certainly damaged the ALCU’s image (not any more in my eyes,) as they expect government accountability but want to hide theirs.
It’s nice to see a liberal stating a problem with the ACLU–not because the ACLU is wrong, but because it shows that someone on the left is actually willing to criticize another on the left–Mrac Cooper being a permanent exception.
I haven’t read Malkin’s post, never do really, but we can’t judge actions from one time period and situation against values and the situation today. You can bet that if I settled near the James River around about 400 years ago, I would have wanted every Indian killed before they killed us. I bet that if you were an adult in 1945 with a relative fighting in the Pacific then you would have favored both atomic bombs and maybe a third and fourth.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Love Woody’s account of the ACLU. I think the correct answer to what they are is: the ACLU is an organization that defends Constitutional rights no matter who they piss off. So they defend Rush (Limp blowhard) Linbaugh over his med recoreds, the Nazis to march in Skokie and the rights of atheists to not see religious creches in the public square at Xmas. An inconvienent people!
Fear not Marc the guardians of Americanism in the GOP have a new hot issue. Lets send Bill Keller to jail for treason for the NYT’s stories on govt snooping of financial records. Forget that the Wall Street Journal and LAT printed the same stories. Everyone knows that NEW York (“Jew York” maybe?) is unamerican. Send them to Gitmo!
Diane Finestein is entitled to her opinion and so are we. Too bad she hasn’t been “Liebermaned” yet!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
“we can’t judge actions from one time period and situation against values and the situation today”
Certainly not. Because, after all, we ARE moral relativists.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Reg, I don’t put much stock in this. The fact that I am reading about it in U.S.A. today, means it wasn’t much of a muzzel, right?
And Nat Hentoff has been a stupid crank for years, though Wendy Kaminer is a pretty stright shooter.
The A.C.L.U. is not beyond reproach, (I hate the silly “money is speech” kanard, which binds us to a system where the weathy rule the poor) but they do have to do with arguments about speech; and nothing to do with promoting child molestation.
Woody’s dumb cliche of “activist Judges” is what’s known as a giveaway. Yeah, I can see Scalia is really keeping politics out of the Courtroom! He’s the one who wanted to strike down Maranda, which would qualify as direct social activism as much as anything I can think of.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
One thing we can all agree on is that child molestation is a terrible thing:
http://www.nysun.com/article/35314
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Crane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_%22Buz%22_Lukens
http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=0060761423
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/05/more-child-sex-troubles-at-dhs/
(Note: While, we all agree that sex or pornograpy with minors is a terrible, terrible thing, in the case of Strom Thurmond’s having sex with a 15-year old girl, we have to remind ourselves that we can’t judge actions from one time period and apply our values today. I think the Bible, which is chock-full of God-fearing polygamists and slaver-holders, teaches us that. This is not to be confused with moral or cultural relativism, which is both Liberal and Evil.)
June 29th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
reg, core values are absolute, and there’s a difference between not judging and justifying.
I listened to a very old man from Alabama who, about ten or fifteen years ago, actually said that blacks were happy as slaves and all that goes along with that. He wasn’t an evil person, but he was old and uneducated. I didn’t jump down his throat like a lot of others. I accepted that he was old and lived in a different time under different circumstances and was uneducated–and, that he and his generation had almost died out and nothing could be gained by trying to attack or change him. Let them die and move on. That’s not excusing this man, but it explains him in a better light than being evil, which he wasn’t. It also acknowledges that had I, or you, been in his place at the time he grew up, we might have the same ideas.
We learn from the mistakes, and successes, of past generations, which is what we should be doing with history rather than attacking historical figures who can’t defend themselves over issues that they faced then that are different than today.
In doing that, I’m glad that Patrick Henry spoke of treason against The Crown and that we dropped the A-bombs on the Japs (1940′s terminology.) Patrick Henry taught us that freedom is too great to be sold and Truman taught us that you don’t start something that you can’t finish. On on hand, you can say those were morally wrong, but a historical review disputes that–just like we will find one day with the Iraqi War. (I just had to add that last one.)
June 29th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
(Just a note to say that I posted my comment above before I read reg’s latest one. My views don’t change, but I might argue them differently or add to them considering his irrational conclusions and misleading inferences.)
June 29th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
reg, don’t you see the difference between moral absolutes versus what society accepts? I really don’t think that you do.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Just one question for people out there. Did anyone hear of attacks on “Activist” Judges prior to BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION? Enquiring minds want to know!
June 29th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
What is it about right-wingers and child-sex?
HOMOSEXUAL CHILD PROSTITUTION RING INVOLVING GEORGE BUSH SR.
http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/article_archive.htm
June 29th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Can you believe it was the Washington Times breaking thoses stories.
Thank God they became a right-wing rag…who knows what kind of crap those Moonies would dig up.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Activist judges? Let’s start here and go forward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
I know one thing that we would have without activist judges–a lot of wonderful people who ended up on the abortion room floors before they had a chance. That’s the very, very worse form of child abuse. Who defends that?
June 29th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
I think we’re all missing opportunities for creative compromise on this issue.
What is the basis for objections to burning our flag? That it’s an attack on America. But wouldn’t that mean that burning any country’s flag is an attack on that country, a unilateral declaration of war on the part of the flag-burner, a circumvention of due process, a tacit statement that our sacred constitutional procedures for declaration of war are null and void? So why don’t we have an amendment that prohibits the burning of the flag of any country, including our own? If, say, you burned the flag of Lichtenstein, you would retroactively be considered a member of a rogue militia, and be court-martialed. The punishment: being tied down under the blazing Texas mid-day sun, over a hill of ants. I think that would be kinda cool, actually. Even if it’s only slight less stupid than this proposed flag-burning amendment.
A better use of congress’s time would be a constitutional amendment to require the death penalty for anybody who buys Oxycontin illegally. We could amend it later to include Qaaludes.
Actually, I feel the first target should be Strip Aerobics. Then we could move right along to Edible Underwear, after which all consumer-society manifestations of the Whore of Babylon would be fair game: tacky navel piercings, Madonna albums, perhaps even old calendars featuring Fabio, an easy target for police raids on suburban garages full of junk that people should have thrown away long ago. “Hah! Sarge, we netted three *consecutive* years of Fabio calendars on this run to Modesto. Look at him: stripped to the waist, flashing his pec implants, all that long, faggy hair … it makes me want to vomit. And there was an old vibrator right underneath the stack — tell me *that’s* not circumstantial evidence, even if the batteries were long gone. Another threat to the Republic, into the slammer.”
But all in good time ….
June 30th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Yeah, Woody, I can see the burning relevancy of this 1803 case in terms of the (phoney) “activists” cases of today. Judge Scalia is activist enough to appoint Presidents that give jobs to his kids, why don’t we start THERE and work back? Or, check out Tim Grieve at Salon today on draft doging SCJ Clarence Thomas lechuring his peers on not understanding the realities of War.
As for the old Man, Woody, one can often hear “eduacated” conservatives vomiting the same sort of drivel: George Will believes the blame for the war rests on the abolishionists, the war actually had nothing to do with slavery, etc.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Hentoff is radically anti-abortion. I wouldn’t put too much stock in his conspiracy theories. I’d say that tthte ACLU played that one correctly….Advocacy organizations still need to be run like organizations. To think ACLU should allow board members to speak out of turn (after all they’re “Civil Liberties”) is like saying that the NRA can shoot each other.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:11 am
“is an organization for gay scouts.”
I consider this hate speech and it should be removed and the user, a multiple offender, banned. This isn’t PC is human respect. As an Eagle Scout I spit in your damned eye. I can see the need for tar and feathering here.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:50 am
I don’t recall Jefferson Blasting John Marshall as an “Activist” Judge. Did I miss something? Boy and I thought that case, at least, was settled law. Thanks for correcting me on its controverial nature. Lets pass a constitutional ammendment at once to put those Federalists in the place!
June 30th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Ah, the ACLU! That great evoker of adrenalin and table-pounding.
Sometimes, they’re right on, on free speech issues. And commendable to that extent.
They are, however, a leftish, secularist group and go off the rails on establishment clause issues, using he courts to determine social issues (e.g., abortion) that should be decided through the democratic process, and applying the language of “rights” to economic equality issues that really go beyond their mission.
Another example–trying to stop the recall election of Gov. Brown in California, essentially on the theory that minorities were too stupid to use the same voting equipment that everyone else uses. That seemed to me a partisan use of a very weak racial discrimination claim.
On these issues, I’m not a fan.
As for flag-burning, I think it’s a time, place, manner issue and SCOTUS should have left it to the democratic process to decide, but it’s probably too small a speck to warrant a constitutional amendment.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
“Activist” is a wingnut code word for a decision they disagree with. It’s not a valid term legally. The proper venue for that is called dissent.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
This one is for Micheal B. – hey Mike, thank god for the Supreme Court that just ruled that if a jury has problems coming to the conclusion of punishment in a capitol offense case, we should automatically off them…..thank god for the Supreme Court! (?)
June 30th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
ACLU – No Jesus to promote religion in schools but let’s have pictures of smiling Cuban kids in uniforms to promote communism. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101321.html
—–
M. York, “activist” as it relates to courts has nothing at all to do with decisions. It has evrything to do with overstepping the authority of the courts and trying to usurp the duties of the other branches.
Someone mentioned Brown vs. Board of Education as being good. But, we found through the Voters Rights Act that Congress can deal with those issues. We also found that such activism in education led to kids having to get up before 6:00 AM to be bussed out of their districts across the county to other schools. Good thinking there.
When the courts take “activist” roles, they are not acting in accordance with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Sometimes their evil deeds take generations to correct, and some of those generations have been killed off because of some right to privacy that doesn’t exist except in a court decision.
The liberal judges are out of control and are a disgrace to the ideals of our justice system.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
I feel stupid even responding to this rain of crap, but…
September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader’s right to sing “Awesome God” at a talent show.
August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.
February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.
December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.
November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.
November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.
August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.
July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.
June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.
May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.
March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister’s right to preach on sidewalks.
February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.
October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.
July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.
April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.
January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church’s right to run “anti-Santa” ads in Boston subways.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
SEE I TOLD YOU THE ACLU WAS NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF PEDOPHILIC CHRISTIAN FASCIST!!!!
July 1st, 2006 at 6:14 am
The most recent ACLU religious freedom action on reg’s list was way back in Sep 2005. Ancient history. I want to know: what has the ACLU done for Christ *lately*?
Also, reg, you probably used Google to make that list, didn’t you? Woody’s right — using Google is pointless. It just turns up a bunch of confusing facts. Arguments should be supported only by assertions. Assertions repeated to the point of inanity. Whoever asserts last, wins. It’s simpler that way.
July 1st, 2006 at 7:37 am
“has evrything to do with overstepping the authority of the courts and trying to usurp the duties of the other branches.”
How do they activate without deciding? Do they request cases be made up in their political favor? Bush v. Gore certainly was activist then.
July 1st, 2006 at 8:55 am
“Also, reg, you probably used Google to make that list, didn’t you? ”
I use Google to figure out what to have for breakfast.
http://tinyurl.com/lplmg
July 1st, 2006 at 1:31 pm
I used google to find out the meaning of reg’s posts: http://tinyurl.com/ozdxz
reg, googling is useless because I can do the same thing and get more links better defining the ACLU than did you. Your “facts” are just that–yours.
It’s better to be honest about situations and debate the ideas surrounding them rather than pull up a bunch of misleading “these are my facts” which only lead to someone else pulling up theirs, and back-and-forth ad nauseum.
July 1st, 2006 at 2:25 pm
You’re a funny guy, Woody. Did Stephen Colbert spend time with you when he was creating his wingnut comedy character ?
July 1st, 2006 at 2:53 pm
I use Google to figure out what to have for breakfast.
Based on Woody’s last post he seems to be doing the same.
July 1st, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Woody says that core values are absolute, then defends the old man from Alabama by resorting to cultural and social relativity. Well, which way is it?
July 1st, 2006 at 4:57 pm
I didn’t defend the old guy. I said that it wasn’t worth attacking him. Granting forgiveness or giving an old person a pass isn’t the same thing as condoning wrong beliefs or excusing them. Do you think that Christ accepts sins when he forgives them? What am I thinking? You wouldn’t believe in Him.
July 1st, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Woody wrote:
Granting forgiveness or giving an old person a pass
—————————
So moral absolutes are relative to age? Culture? Time? Political party?
So what the hell is an absolute and relativism in your mind?
July 1st, 2006 at 8:53 pm
LOL
And the irony that a warmongering violence freak like Woody would dare speak of Christ’s forgiveness….Satan, get thee behind me!
Woody, you have to be a fake.
July 1st, 2006 at 11:12 pm
If Christ can forgive anyone, even you…even me, then who am I to refuse it? Technically, I didn’t say that I forgave the man because he didn’t ask for forgiveness (a prerequisite), but expanded the follow-up comment to explain the difference between acceptance and forgiveness. Please forgive me for not making this any clearer for your simple mind.
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:16 am
You’re right, Woody. I don’t believe in Christ. I’ve heard this term “believe in Christ” all my life until I quite going to Baptist church. The term doesn’t mean anything to me; I don’t understand why it means anything to anybody. If Jesus really lived then he’s been dead for 2000 plus years, and now exists (according to believers) as a spirit that is present in the world. Nothing I have seen or experienced in my life would lead me to accept this as a truth.
It seems like the fact that I don’t “believe” excludes me in some way; a line has been drawn between believers and non-believers. That’s fine. I don’t want to believe, so I don’t. You’re mindset is as foreign to me as can be. You might as well believe in unicorns from my perspective.
We were talking about the old man, though. If he was truly expressing his core values then he was bigoted and racist. No doubt this was from ignorance, and it would be extremely naive to expect anything different from him. I know this first hand, since I was born in rural Tennessee and lived there from 1961 to 1989. Believe me I got my bellyfull of this kind of stuff.
Enough about me. Was the old man at core racist and bigoted? Or was his world view informed by his upbringing? What part of his view was absolute and what part was relative? You might try to explain the difference, unless you simply refuse to because I am not a “believer” and wouldn’t understand. That would be convenient, but not very informative.
It is easier to believe in something than it is to explain why. That’s why you can get people so riled up when you ask why they believe something. If you value reason, logic and science then just believing simply because you believe it won’t cut it.
True, you didn’t defend the old man but you did manage to make a connection between Jesus and yourself because both of you refuse to condemn. This truly speaks loudest of all.
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:48 am
Woody should get off his cross, once and awhile.
July 2nd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:57 pm
You and your self-righteous kind, did more than throw a stone at Iraq.
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:09 pm
All “sins” are not created equal.
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:04 am
Some of you accept just about any perversion and any belief, but let someone mention Chrisitianity and you go nuts.
Dear Neo, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty certain that Saddam Hussein had more to do with the situation in Iraq than did I; but, I cannot confirm or deny that the President or any of his Cabinet called me for advice before our troops went in.
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:22 am
Woody,
You sure were an enthusiastic cheerleader to begin mass killings of Iraqis, in order to “teach Hussein a lesson”.
Your charismatic fervor, for killing families and destroying communities “in order to spread democracy” is a bit like someone advocating gang rape to spread virginity.
But Christ forgives…(however, I doubt he forgets), and your inclusion of bloodlust into the fruits of the spirit borders the demonic.
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:43 am
Neo, you have me confused with someone else. I’ve said numerous times on this site that I did not favor the beginning of hostile military action in Iraq. However, I conceded that the President just might have more information than I did, so I didn’t oppose it. That’s still better than Kerry who voted for it before he voted against it. I think that you’re going to have to take your hate out on someone else or be content knowing that your claims and information are flat out wrong.
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Woody, I asked you a question.
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Woody wrote,
However, I conceded that the President just might have more information than I did, so I didn’t oppose it.
———————–
When is admiration and devotion for a right-wing political leader an excuse to allow sin?
There are bodies piling-up, in Iraq, and your justification is, “At least my excuse to rally around sin is better than Kerry’s?”
If you self-righteous right-wingers would cherish the lives of families in Iraq as much as they claim to cherish fetuses, you might have something….but you treated the deaths of hundreds-of-thousands of living human beings as if they were trash.
God’s law indeed. God’s law, as long as it corresponds to right-wing Alpha-Males.
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
kendali, I made no connection between myself and Jesus except to say that if He forgives me, then I, a person of much lower standing, could do no less to another. It seems somewhat hypocritical to say, “Thank you, Jesus, for your death on the cross and your grace, but don’t expect me to reflect your nature to someone else by forgiving him. No sir, I’m too good for that.” Why should that bother you?
If you want to know why people become Christians and hold to that faith…well, that covers a lot of territory. Attend a church next week and see if you can find the answer there, as it applies to you.
Neo, you give much, much greater importance to my political observations than they deserve. Nothing that I say or think affects our foreign policy or domestic programs. (Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths? What are you reading or smoking?)
July 3rd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Woody, Forgiveness is a wonderful thing, and anyone who is able to embody that is on a remarkable and rare path, a path of peace and love. If you are able to do that I commend you. But reading some of your posts doesn’t give me that impression. Can’t really tell of course, since I don’t know you personally.
I attended church enough to know the story of Jesus’ admonition against the pretentious self-righteousness of the Pharisees. That’s what I mainly get from the folks who throw his name around so freely these days, especially in the name of war. Being judgmental has never been so popular, or maybe it’s the same as it ever was.
The real question was about absolute values versus learned ones. That’s what the original discussion was about, but I’m beginning to lose interest. Seemed like a fair question, and not a baited one. I was just curious how you defined that.
Even though I find many of your views fundamentally opposed to mine I hope you realize that I never attacked you personally.
July 3rd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Thanks, kendali. I just figured that we were going to go on one of those circular discussions going nowhere, as is often the case when people approach me with open questions like yours–usually just picking a fight rather than seeking information. I misjudged your intent. Sorry.
On values, there was a book that I read a long time ago and has since been updated titled “How Should We Then Live?,” described here on one of my famous links from google. http://www.rationalpi.com/theshelter/live.html It discusses western civilization and values. The author speaks of “absolutes” repeatedly in the book (as I remember), and it helped me to realize that core values shouldn’t change just because society and civilization might. Lying is lying, today and yesterday. Stealing is stealing. Those aren’t preferences but are typical of core values.
I honestly am not very good at discussing the abstract and philosophy. There wasn’t a lot of that in my accounting classes. I would give a more in depth answer to you if I could, but perhaps you’ll find some answers in that book which was influential in my analysis of living. I can learn from books, but on some topics it’s hard for me to explain philosophical issues to someone else.
If you’re sincere about an honest exchange, I would never duck your question.
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Thanks Woody. I agree. These things are hard to discuss and this blog isn’t the proper forum anyway. I’ll check out the book you recommended.
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
-Woody,
You have exchanged absolute values for the “vision” of a political leader.
I have noticed that very committed Christians are indeed relativists. That is, all moral absolutes concerning killing, stealing, destroying other people’s property, LYING, deceit, seem to be “relative†to their political party’s leaders.
You want to have it both ways, you would like many non-believers to act in such a way that does not betray absolute laws, yet you do not even think to apply these same laws to you and the political party you support.
If God is real and the basis for moral law, why have you fully blinded yourself to His laws violation in Iraq? Why have so many Anglo-Protestant and Catholics decided that Iraqis do not deserve His laws?
Our invasion and occupation of Iraq, based on all sorts of deceitful reasons, have killed and maimed tens-of-thousands, yet you insist to keep claiming you believe in the Lord’s absolute and unchanging law, while you do everything to undermine it. This is why I suspect you believe God’s law is only valuable when it is in accordance with your political leader’s schemes.
This is why I just find it hard to take you serious when you begin to write about the Triune God and his unchanging law.
July 3rd, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Neo, is it now ten-of-thousands instead of the hundreds-of-thousands that you used earlier? How many will not have died as a result of our intervention–not just in Iraq but throughout the mideast because of Hussein being toppled?
Well, we could revert to the philosophy in Vietnam: “Kill them all and let God sort them out.” I’m sure that’s what you think that we believe.
Why do you think that people in church are supposed to be perfect? They are there because they aren’t and know that they can never be that. At least they try to improve. You have some serious problems and could use a little support yourself.
That’s it for me on this post.
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Why do you think that people in church are supposed to be perfect?
—————————–
Fuck perfection, stop cheerleading murder, is that so hard?
Do you faith-based warmongers lack so much “will-power”?
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Where is the self-control?
July 4th, 2006 at 8:45 am
It is a bit unnerving to have extremists from the other political party supporting candidates, they consider loyal, in my party.
July 4th, 2006 at 8:45 am
totaly ignore that last comment.
July 12th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Untamed Guerrilla Ringtone…
…
August 21st, 2007 at 6:00 am
knee implants…
I agree 100%!…
December 1st, 2007 at 12:55 am
Hardcore Gay Sex…
Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me
…
July 11th, 2009 at 4:32 am
Can you provide more information on this?
May 2nd, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Non-traditional students have much more to contentthan traditional college-aged students. They have the demands of children to deal with as well as the stresses of trying to find financial aid that will allow them to attend university.