Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
"A Flag On The Floor: Art Or Desecration?" and Hillary's Flag Burning Legislation
This is my first blog (ever and anywhere) and I felt compelled to write something on the regression of our civil rights since reading another reader's post predicting that an Obama presidency would rubber stamp and continue the Bush administration's fierce regression of our civil rights. I always think of flag desecration when I think of a pure debate on the subject of civil rights. It is not a person, it is a symbol... which do we value more?
http://cbs2chicago.com/vault/Dread.Scott.Scott.2.38317.html?detectflash=false
The exhibit, entitled, "What Is the Proper Way to Display a U.S. Flag?"
included a full-sized flag on the floor of the exhibition room, in
front of a shelf that invited visitors to answer the question the
exhibit's title posed and photographs of South Korean citizens burning
the flag, flag-draped coffins, and other imagery intended to incite.
When
I think of this exhibit and furor it created, I remind myself that a
symbol is just a symbol. To step on the symbol of free speech in order
to engage in free speech is what makes America great.
In the
middle of this fight for the Democratic Nomination I keep wondering -
Are people treating their right to vote as a symbol or are they using
it to exercise their real freedom?
Hillary introduced legislation to make flag-burning illegal.
Hillary Clinton and Flag Burning
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/5/211436/972
Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen.
Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any
constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the
subject... In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to
burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil
rights law.
My husband firmly believes that Obama's history as a civil rights lawyer uniquely qualifies him to undo the Bush administration's insidious robbery of our rights as American citizens, I tend to agree. I happen to admire Obama and the loyal friendship he has maintained with Rev. Wright, dissent - especially when passionate - is the purest exercise in freedom, after all words are just words... right?
Symbols of freedom are only useful when they inspire, not when they are used to bludgeon dissent.
I'd
like to see more discussion of the issues that transcend either
candidate - using your precious right to vote as a symbol to threaten others
into seeing things your way is a terrible waste. Ask yourself which way
you intend to use your vote - as a symbol? or as an act of freedom?
Advertisement
Comments (7)
This looks like shit and my links don't work, sorry... please read it anyway.
http://cbs2chicago.com/vault/Dread.Scott.Scott.2.338317.html?detectflash=false
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/5/211436/972
April 11, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a link to the vote page>
Banning flag desecration is in fact - a slap aginst part of what the flag is a symbol of.
And yes - Hillary has hedged on how much she would toss of the executive power grab that Bush pulled off.
As I used to say "Pusillanimous - that's just a fancy word for the U.S. Congress"
April 11, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
So she voted against her own Resolution? Thanks for the link by the way, I guess I should have done a little more homework. Silly me, assuming she would have voted for her own Resolution.
This only confirms be feeling that she really is the purest form of panderer.
I can't help but wonder if she would still want to be POTUS if Bush's expansion of executive power hadn't happened? In some way, do you think... she thinks she might be able to have more power than her husband did?
April 11, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually - she did not sponsor or even co-sponsor the bill. I'm an Obama supporter, but truth is truth.
April 11, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
True - but the WaPo and the NYT's have articles stating she sponsored 'a' bill - they don't state which one.
In defense of my post as its written, her stated position has been consistent - even if her voting one hasn't matched it. She doesn't support a constitutional ban on flag desecration, but does support a less binding federal law in some form banning it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/washington/28hillary.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I guess its not clear to me how it got reported that she was as co-sponsor in support of it - but didn't end up on the voting record as such.
My cynical guess would be some pretty crafty triangulation on her part to support it before she didn't support it etc., yet again the story of her position on something yields questions about her calculus instead.
April 11, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently this is what she sponsored, I can't find any more information on it one way or another. So she sponsored something, but it doesn't look like it went anywhere until the other bill that did get voted on went forward.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01911:@@@L&summ2=m&#rel-bill-detail
S.1911
Title: A bill to provide for the protection of the flag of the United States, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] (introduced 10/24/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Related Bills: S.1370
Latest Major Action: 10/24/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.SUMMARY AS OF:
10/24/2005--Introduced.
Flag Protection Act of 2005 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; (2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning a U.S. flag; or (3) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag belonging to the United States, or belonging to another person on U.S. lands, and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.
Related Bills: S.1370
Latest Major Action: 10/24/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 6/27/2006
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] - 6/27/2006
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 10/24/2005
Sen Pryor, Mark L. [AR] - 9/28/2006
April 11, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, I think the position that destroying someone else's flag should be a crime... but isn't it already?
I mean, isn't the destruction of someone else's property a crime no matter what the object? Doing it to start a fight/violence is a crime already too... isn't it?
This approach doesn't seem much different than banning partial birth abortion, start out with the most emotionally charged form of an act - get that banned, and move through to the less controversial act at a later date.
Chopping an issue into micro-issues, working up to the macro-issue... wait-a-minute, didn't Mark Penn write a book on the subject?
April 11, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment