logicbdj

How's the weather up Sudbury way? It's been a while, but I love it up there.

Two years ago, I was in the Air Force, on duty, standing with a bunch of Secret Service agents while we watched a bunch of stupid teenagers across the street from where the Vice Pres. was speaking drag the Flag on the sidewalk, spit on it, rip it- pretty much everything but burn it. There wasn't a damn thing the law could do. Finally an old Vietnam-era Vet went up and punched the kid holding the Flag in the face and continued to wail on him until the cops arrested one of them. Guess who went to jail?

As disgusting as we may find desecration of the flag, or any other inanimate object or symbol, it does not violate the personal or property rights of another (save in cases where the item was stolen, or folks are trespassing to do it). There is no right from being offended.

As with any other form of acting out, ignoring it is often the best defense, as the perpetrators will soon tire of being shunned/ignored and might start to think and get a clue from life. While this vet may have thought he was doing his country another service by serving up an ass whoopin' for this kid (I suppose it's possible), it seems far more likely that he reinforced the kid's hatred.

Newton's third may apply to the physical side of the event, but not the legal; the initiator of force is generally to blame in the eyes of the court. This is as it should be.

That would depend on whether the fart were derived from White Castles, refried beans, or some other source.

Also, was the fart lit and, if so, was said lighting of the fart intentional?

I'll have to review your linked video at a later time to see if the answers to these important questions can be determined.

While I would agree that if one hates America (or any country, for that matter) he should endeavor to leave it.

Even so, frankly, if one thinks it's acceptable for someone to get away with battery over the destruction of an inanimate object then that person may not understand America well enough to live here.

Treason

While an argument might be made for flag burning being "aid and comfort", I think any prosecutor who tried might have the judge channeling Inigo Montoya. Also, death, or even a minimum 5 years/$10,000 seems a bit harsh; YMMV

Should it be illegal? I say no.

Though I find such activity to be despicible, the flag is -- while highly revered -- merely an icon. It represents the government, the country, both, or something else altogether, depending upon who you are.

It is not, however, a person. It is also not (unless stolen) the private property of another.

Its destruction, therefore, violates no one's rights.

Rights of any kind, by the way, do not owe their existence to any form of thuggery; they were long before any government came into being, and will continue even after they have been outlawed.

Whether you believe in creation or natural law, the concept of rights demand that they exist regardless of the powers that be or the absence of the same. Anything less renders them mere privileges.

But I digress...as I often do.

As I was saying, no harm is done to anyone's rights when a flag is burned. Some people get upset...very upset....and I'm not saying they shouldn't.

However, if flag desecration were made illegal, on what justification would it be so?

It is the offensiveness of the act, which is a representation of thought (i.e. form of speech), that triggers the emotion and lights the desire to see someone punished.

If flag desecration is made illegal in and of itself then a thoughtcrime has been created.

When such laws are made, society tells the actor "You have not harmed anyone, nor have you harmed anyone's property, and therefore have not violated any rights. You have violated sensibilities, you are a criminal because of your thoughts as expressed through your actions."

Who decides what is venerable enough for legal protection against such thought crime?

The federal government only?

Maybe the states?

Maybe Alabama could pass a law against desecration of the Stars and Bars.

Maybe, instead, the waving of certain flags could be outlawed; I'm sure there are some locales that would love to eliminate the same Confederate battle flag, or maybe rainbows, or Lord knows what else that a large enough group (laws don't take a majority, just enough pressure on and fear in the legislature) could push for and win.

Thankfully, while flag burning bills and even Constitutional Amendments have, from time to time, been proposed at various levels, in most cases the governing bodies have, as a general rule, recognized the slippery slope below.

oxley11

But about the flag being burned disrespectfully, yes, it should be a hate crime. The flag represents the people, our freedom, our unity as 50 different states, but as one nation, etc. The flag is more to us than just an icon. It's a reflection upon us. It's a sign of hope and will and fellowship. It's more than "just" a flag.

Precisely my point. It's the thought that counts.

If an action is legal if done with reverence, it should not be a crime if done with disrespect. To make it so contradicts the concepts of liberty upon which this nation was founded.

I am not defending flag burning, as some of you seem to think, but defending the principles for which the flag stands for me. Liberty and Justice for all; not just for those who happen to agree with me, or the government, or those who think such irreverence justifies violence, whether by an individual or the state.

Some of you might remember the 1776 in the old handle; it was not there for looks, and the sentiment remains.

I would agree that, if you feel strongly enough against the country to burn the flag, you should strongly consider leaving; I'll even help you pack and drive you to the airport.

Two Shay

True self defense does not require acceptance of injury before taking defensive action.

There is a simple solution to the whole flag burning deal. Pass a law of treason punishable by death. And then passionate American's wouldn't feel the need to get physical on some flag burning jerk! =)

After reflection, things tend to be more clear.

michelle

I liked Pat Buchanan's response to Buffet.

With the national debt > 100% of GDP, no matter how much you tax anyone (or everyone, for that matter), without MASSIVE spending cuts the government goes bankrupt.

The class warfare spin by Buffet is more mindless pap which will just ensure things get worse if it is implemented, and I am guessing it will be to some extent.

A financial wizard Buffet may be, but about economics he apparently understands squat.

Not poking fun about the riots at all.

My references are often arcane to those who knew me not.

My point was simply this. We in the US have not (yet) been completely neutered when it comes to self defense and, if such rioting were to occur here as Two Shay suggested it might, there might be a very swift and very different outcome for some with the indecency to participate.

Peace Lily

While I understand the sentiment and realize that, if he gets buy in, this will push the dolts to act, I don't see much impact coming from it.

(BTW: WTF is "fair and bipartisan"? Show me 20 people and I'll show you 35 definitions for "fair & bipartisan" depending on context)

It would be far better if everyone refused to send in their taxes until a balanced budget Amendment is passed. What we need to do is throw these drunken sailors in the brig; unfortunately, they hold all the keys and the guns; hard to hide the purse when your life is on the line.

Two Shay

Anybody want a peanut?

wolfie, an institution? Quite.

DCK & Zen

How you been, Fred?

Me? I'm still amazed at how many people still can't understand the whole "free form stream of consciousness" concept...oh well

Howdy all to Darth Zinc, michelle, slansh, Clarky, cheese, the two jokers above (of course), Do The Stu, Cappy, mikesb and the rest of you Satchheads.