“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” — Sinclair Lewis
Oh, I get it. It’s easy to get why Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is the sole Democrat who is co-sponsoring an anti-flag burning bill with — get this — 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.” (Newsday)
The helmet-haired former wannabe-hippie is trying to defuse the maniacal, obsessive hatred of the right towards her and her ’08 presidential bid (following, of course, her successful reelection to the Senate in ’06). As Carpetbagger, via Evan Derkacz at Alternet’s PEEK, notes:
… Senate Republicans don’t like the bill, so it’s basically an easy thing for Senate Dems to sign onto with impunity. It may be cynical, but it’s hard to blame a Dem planning a presidential run for pursuing this approach.
I guess poltiical moves trump freedom of speech now? That’s why I was so glad to see Madman in the Marketplace‘s recommended diary on Jonathan Tasini, who will challenge Sen. Clinton in the ’06 Senate primary. (Amy Goodman also announced Tasini’s candidacy today on Democracy Now!.)
Madman in the Marketplace covers the flagburning bill and many other issues, primarily Hillary’s conservative views on the war on Iraq. (Did any of you hear antiwar-activist, actor, and NY state resident Tim Robbins tell Air America’s Morning Sedition hosts that “Hillary can KISS MY ASS!”)
Just why is this Senate bill so offensive? Here’s one major problem: Hillary equates flag-burning with cross-burning.
“The deeply disturbing piece here is the awful comparison of flag burning to cross burning. Cross burning is well-understood as a sign of terrorism. It was used to suppress blacks organizing themselves in both the South and the North from the post-Civil War era until the late 1960s. It was a sign of intimidation, of terrorism, or impending hate crimes. It was often a death threat. Flag burning has usually been the province of hippies and countercultural movements, and these have been relatively benign. They are certainly not equivalent in any way shape or form to the KKK or the legacy of slavery and segregation that cross burning represents.”
— Matt Stoller via Evan Derkacz at Alternet PEEK
Evan adds his two cents about the lack of common sense in supporting a bill — in this day and age — that “outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else’s flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property” (Newsday):
Remember the quaint old days when flag-burning was so outrageous as a rights violation liberals would quiver with indignation? A Bush, a Patriot Act, and some enemy combatants later, outrage over criminalizing flag-burning feels like outrage at the exposure of a bare knee in a Hollywood movie.
I’m sort of kidding of course. Banning flag-burning is an important first amendment issue. It’s just, you know, expectations have shifted.
Is this “smart politics or Republican Lite?” Well, I guess it’s smart politics if you care more about defusing the rightwing’s ammo than you do about freedom of speech or your own base who find such bills utterly a waste of Senate time when so many other issues beg for attention.
Thanks, Madman, for your diary. Thanks, Jonathan Tasini, and I hope you gain enough voice to pressure Hillary on Iraq. Now, who in the hell can we work our asses off for to oppose Hillary in ’08?
I think people who burn the flag should be banned from the United States! That’s the way to handle dissent!
Consider my advice on the cooling off period.
What, is kicking people out of the country wrong? I mean, if there are rules against flag-burning, and they don’t like them, they can leave.
Or is that unreasonable?
Sadly, there’s no way she won’t win again in any Dem primary, and no doubt she’d be better than any GOP doofus who runs.
But I’d love to not have her as my Senator at the moment. All this “triangulation” around war is just making things worse. Imagine if Hillary actually stood up and supported Murtha’s plan (or amy plan) to get out of Iraq? Too bad it’s only a pipe dream.
You’re correct. She will win in ’06. Do you really think she’s unbeatable in ’08?
btw, true confessions: If in 08 she ends up as the candidate, I will bite my tongue and vote for her. She is brilliant and highly knowledgeable, and the Neocon cabal’s control has to begin to end … I fear they’ll co-opt her. But there is one final two-word reason: Supreme Court.
vote for her ever. She’s a classic sellout, waffling on Iraq, now freedom of speech, and even backpeddling on choice, apparently. I think a good case could be made that her defeat would help the Dems become the party they need to be instead of GOP-lite forever. That kind of longterm consideration is hard to swallow when the immediate horrors are so terrible, but when DO we bite the bullet and work for real change?
I’m also not convinced that she’s a shoo-in for the ’08 prez nomination. She’ll have an early lead, but will have a hard time gathering momentum from more likable rivals. She can’t just coast on Bill nostalgia forever, and as far as I’m concerned that’s about all she has going for her.
I’m with you all the way, Dave. But, I had to hold my nose to vote for John Kerry and Al Gore, but am glad — in retrospect — that I did.
It may be too late to save the Supreme Court by ’08. But that alone is enough to sway my vote.
We’ve tried using losses to influence the Democratic party, but it doesn’t seem to work.
Heck, I even had environmentalist friends who wanted George Bush elected in 2000 because they thought his actions would create a huge new environmental movement in the U.S. Yeah … we can see how far that took us.
IN THE MEANTIME — while we still can — who else can we support to stop Hillary?
Even Biden would be a slight improvement, tho he’d require some nose-holding, too. Boxer would certainly make for an interesting challenge for the female-president vote. Richardson, maybe. I’m hoping there are “dark horses” who haven’t yet emerged from the fog of punditry. Right now, “anybody but Hillary” seems like the appropriate stance.
The Republicans would like nothing more than to run against Hillary in 08. Since the media has already crowned her the Democratic nominee, we’re getting Kerry-ied away again. Fight like hell now. Show your party that HC is not your choice.
It’s that, or sit by and watch another 4 years of Repubican rule.
Did I read that right? If that’s true, then I can just pack my national politics bag up and toss it in the river. Been on the verge of it anyway….
I have said it since the beginning, and I just reiterate now that HC has a few stunts under her belt (this flag-burning one, the latest):
She will not get my vote. No way. So explain to me (someone please?) exactly how the nomination process works again?
Statewide primaries (only in states that have a challenger on the ballot or in all of them?)
Then the convention — the delegates from the states are bound to vote at the convention the way the popular vote indicates, is that about right?
Now what part of the machinations where it becomes actually less than representative am I missing? 😉
No way she won’t win her Senate Race. I pray she doesn’t get the nomination in 08.
HC pulls this political stunt as the 9/11 Public Discourse project tells us that our government – that’s you too Hillary, has done dick with billions of dollars over the last 4 years. I’m sure New Yorkers are gonna feel much safer with you and your stinkin’ flag burning priorities.
I just heard snippets of their press conference…. it was depressing. Are there good articles out there on this?
9/11 Public Discourse Project or HC’s flag burning?
THe 9/11 group’s statements.
(I think Hillary’s flag-burning thing is so lame, it was hard to write about it.)
Ex-9/11 panel: U.S. left open to attack
WASHINGTON — A final report from the former 9/11 Commission on Monday gave Congress and the White House a blistering review of their work to secure the nation, warning that terrorists will strike again and could cause catastrophic destruction with nuclear weapons.
n an emotional meeting after nearly three years of investigating and promoting recommendations for heightened security, members of the now-disbanded commission released a final “report card” filled with D’s and F’s. (Related video: Panel slams government)
They cited huge remaining loopholes in aviation security, a politicized system of doling out billions of homeland security dollars and a failure to give firefighters and other responders the radio spectrum they need to communicate during a crisis. (Related: Specific grades: Airline screening among F’s)
Former commission chairman Thomas Kean called it “shocking” that the nation remains so vulnerable.
From the actual bill, S. 1911, which is a rewrite of S. 1370 (incorrectly referenced in the Carpetbagger article. 1370 was buried in committee on 7/1/’05):
Bennett’s attempt to thread a very fine needle indeed, is a bad bill with good intentions (preventing violence). Bennett also voted against the Hatch bill (supported by Feinstein), a truly onerous piece of Constitution-meddling work. In the Cong. Record we learn that Bennett voted against every attempt at a Constitutional Amendment, even though his district was in support – up to 80%. The new S. 1911 rewrite is what Clinton signed on to, and she is the only co-sponsor.
Me? I think destruction of property just about covers it, as does incitement to breach the peace, or cause violence. Don’t need a special breakout for the flag.
That stated, and since it’s legislation, I suspect y’all have written the author, and Clinton’s office, right? Not just screaming in here, right? Didn’t need this comment ’cause you’d actually read the bill right?
Yeah, right.
Just called the Senator’s office and found they’ve been getting calls all morning on this. Of those callers, a decent proportion had not even read the bill: S. 1911. Available with a quick search on Thomas.
incidence of flag-burning which could not be construed by the local constabulary as “use of the flag of the United States to promote violence”?
In:
who gets to decide what the “intention” of the flag-burner was?
Lots of things can be construed as “fighting words” including calling George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, et al “war criminals.” Should we then make use of such terms against those in power criminal acts as well?
There are already laws on the books that apply to incitement of violence. We don’t need a special one for flag desecration.
This is a pandering bill no matter how carefully the verbiage within it was written. Hillary ought to be ashamed of herself.
from New York’s Republican senator – no, wait, she doesn’t even have the guts of the Republicans – she’s just an “I’ll say anything for votes” piece of shit. I voted for Mrs. Clinton but won’t make that mistake ever again.
If you make burning the flag illegal, you might as well go ahead and burn it because the freedoms which used to differentiate the United States from other nations are dead.
If I remember my boy scout manual correctly, burning is the only properly respectful way to dispose of a flag. It’s probably already in the laws.
I’m with Alohaleezy – write in Bugs Bunny before pulling the lever for Hillary.(hah – that should be ‘touching the screen’) I don’t care if they run Dick Cheney against her. I’m mad as hell and am not gonna take any more.
That’s right about disposing of the flag, and it’s not just the Boy Scouts, it’s U.S. Code.
I wonder how you’re supposed to dispose of an old cross respectfully…
Dash it to pieces over a gay person’s head?
I remember one of the many other times this particular bit came up, Garry Trudeau printed an American flag at the top of a Sunday Doonesbury column and had Mark Slackmeyer saying, “Hey, kids, now you can NEVER dispose of this newspaper!”
I too applaud Tasini, thank Madman for his diary, and hope Tasini, even if he ends up not winning, sends a clear signal to Hilary that her constituents want Democrats to be a clear alternative to the current administration.
Hillary Clinton, like the rest of her delusional pals in the DLC,don’t understand that no matter how much they posture themselves as similar to the Repubs, that in the end the Repubs will throw her over the edge and into the abyss anyway. And that the rank and file Repub voters, like sheep, will follow the orders of their party, as long as it’s not Bush or Cheney themselves up for the vote.
(And of course never mind her betrayal of the constitutional principles our democracy is supposed to revere.)
Final note; It was Huey Long, I believe, who coined the first part of the quote in the diary above; “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the American flag”.
I honestly believe any law that outlaws flag desecration is un-American.
I would never personally desecrate a flag (except to use flag stamps upside down, which symbolizes a nation in distress), but when someone chooses to burn or otherwise deface the flag as an act of protest, aren’t they engaging in the very rights the flag is supposed to symbolize?
Outlawing flag desecration is nothing but hypocrisy.
as democracy burns, is worse than hypocrisy.
I’ve known electeds more conservative than she and they wouldn’t support for a piece-of-shit bill like this.
This is so transparent, and it’s not fooling anyone. If she wants to show some principle, stand with Murtha. He’s not a “scary” liberal that would cost her the nomination.
I’m more than a little pissed that she would DARE compare flag burning to cross burnings. I’m disgusted, quite frankly.
Confederate flags weren’t the only flags flying at these types of events … as she damn well knows.
By setting up the flag as sacred, thus Holy, the opponents of flag “desecration” are making an idol to replace Freedom of Speech.
…when I was a right-wing lunatic, and I still don’t like her now. Same reason, ironically, she’s too “fake” for me. She doesn’t inspire passion, originality, or seem very forthcoming. She always seems like she’s hiding something that only she knows and is secretly laughing at the rest of us.
Too ambitious by half, no where near as charismatic as Bill, and just not someone I could trust.
That being said, if the choice is between her and some right-wing nutjob, I’ll vote for her. (even if it’s Giuliani or McCain; I trust them even less). But damned if I’m ever going to vote for her in the primary. I half expect her to pull a “Jomentum” and publically distance herself from the DNC chair, Howard Dean (who DOES have principles, is passionate, and though he’s ambitious, has never let that get in the way of doing a good job).
Oh, and this flag-burning legislation sponsorship is just as calculated, “fake” and transparent as her other political moves; in the end, it’s still all about Hilary, not the American public.
First of all, it should never be done indoors. Choose an outdoor location that has been cleared of rubbish and dry leaves.
Second, burn only cotton, silk, or paper flags. It is inexcusable the way today’s young people burn polyester flags, releasing dangerous fumes into the nostrils of viewers.
Last but not least, do not jump up and down or stomp on burning flags, or permit others to do so. An ample supply of other flags should be made available for this purpose. Flag burning is not foot burning and it is time people learned the difference!
or if all the available flags are made of polyester, chopping down flag poles should be seriously considered as a viable alternative. The wooden ones make for excellent firewood in these cold winter months (though if they’re painted, you’ll want to get the paint off first because of the fumes and all that), and in most cases a regular old axe will suffice to do the job, although a chainsaw will speed the process along. Just remember to clear the area of bystanders and shout ‘timber’ at the appropriate moment.
For your durable metal “I’ve been chopped down before” flag-pole, you’ll need something a little more heavy duty and earmuffs to avoid that horrible metal-on-metal screeching sound.
She ought to be more concerned about the “maniacal, obsessive hatred of the” left (and me in particular) towards her.