A flag was burnt last year. Or so say the Citizens Flag Alliance, the watch-group that pays attention to these things. I’m sure there may have been, within the safe confines of somebody’s homes but in public view of everyone, more burnings of the flag, but I can count reported cases of public burning of the flag on American soil on one hand with my hand being a stump.

It’s the great American wedge issue. All of flag politics are. Michael Dukakis was tripped up by the flag — the Pledge of Allegiance to be more precise. In his case the signature of “against the Pledge of Allegiance” was a strike for religious freedom [most especially Jehovah’s Witnesses] — a cause the Religious Right never really seems able to get behind accepting supposed afronts against mainline Protestant denominations.

I’m not terribly interested in burning the flag. It’s a strange act designed so the perpetrator can wallow in their marginality. As George Carlin said, “I consider them symbols, and I leave symbols to the symbol minded” — which works as well for the flag burner as someone with a “These Colors don’t run” bumper sticker.

“It’s not the threat to free speech that they say it is… what are the dear flag burners of America to do?”

It’s probably more a threat to the rights of free speech than is the margins of pornography. And I believe the real problem, for me, is a sort of stratification of our civic religion, the flag being the equivalent of — I don’t know — the rosarie, or better yet the object that is the Quaran. “Thou shall not burn the American flag.” To make laws with regard the flag on what you cannot do with it is to make into law what you are required to do with it.

In the name of Patriotism.

And who gets to define “Patriotism”? Probably the most boisterous.

Karl Rove saideth: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. He cited moveon.org as his example… which, I guess has some odd validity to. I’ll get back to Karl Rove in a minute.

Better example may be Bill O’Rielly. Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you’re a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they’re undermining everything and they don’t care, couldn’t care less.

A curious statement, and I’m sort of stuck parsing out what the heck “dissent” is and what the heck “undermining”. Is “Undermining” dissent when it actually affects public opinion on matters? Dissent being ineffectual undermining, — which he is aokay with. (Except, of course, he isn’t… as can be seen with his demonization of Jeremy Glick — his mind being completely unable to wrap his head around the thought that in all of thousands who died at the WTC, someone might be a pacifist and someone might have a pacifist son.) Actually, it’s hard to see Bill O’Rielly’s words as being anything but part of the feud with Al Franken — a feud he’s getting his butt kicked in largely by default due to his remarkable thin skin.

Who the heck is this that is defining acceptable (and even more strikingly — legal) discourse here — and to what agenda?

You will note the difference between the fallout of Karl Rove’s statements to those of Dick Durbin’s. Roves stands behind his words; Scott McClellum says that Bush is “lifting up public discourse”; the right-wing base thumps their collective chests; Bush evokes his one moment of glory — the “Bullhorn Moment”. Dick Durbin apologizes, and the demanders of the apology refuse to accept it. Dick Durbin cited the reliable source for his testimony at Gitmo; said what happened at Gitmo, then made the mistake of referencing Hitler. As the genre of Hitler references go, his made more sense than Rick Santorum’s or Robert Novak’s during the Judicial Filibuster battle.

The Dick Durbin comments are important here, as are the flying overs about Guatanemo Bay.

Considering that all of one Representative voted “no” for authorization of force into Afghanistan, and that the magazine he signalled out (The American Prospect) editorialized the same — whom was Karl Rove referring to? He specifically named moveon.org, which was a different entity in September of 2001 than it is now. (It has been co-opted into a weird sort of Democratic Party organ.)

I guess you can start with that tye-dye shirted guy I saw on the street today sitting at a plaster with a silly slogan akin to “Make Love Not War”. And, perhaps his co-horts in the “Anarchist” Community — the type that may or may not burn an American Flag.

Or you could go with Howard Zinn. A bit more germane in his thinking. His comments look like this.

What I’m suggesting is change our posture from that, from a military superpower to a humanitarian superpower. We are enormously wealthy. Let’s use that wealth to send medicine to Africa. Let’s use that wealth to help change social and economic conditions around the world.

Where do you go with that? I guess here.

Millions of dollars from Americans for tsunami victims created goodwill worldwide. In Indonesia, where the relief effort was focused, nearly eight in 10 said the donations had given them a more favorable view of the United States. Just 15% there viewed this nation favorably in 2003; now 38% do.

Osama Bin Laden’s approval rating in Indonesia has fallen in Indonesia, but I can’t immediately find the polling report.

Osama Bin Laden, incidentally, for a show of the limits of war — and the belief in the limits of war in of all places the Bush Administration — Peter Goss said of, “I have an excellent idea where he is. What’s the next question?” with the additional thought of “When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you’re dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play. We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways.”

Bush, it seems, accidentally said the truth when he said that “I don’t think you can win it.” and then went on about “creating conditions whereby terrorism is no longer acceptable.”

Was that the direction Scott McClellan was going when he said that Rove was merely discussing the differences of approaches? Probably not.

I guess I had my father watching Now with Bill Moyers last summer. At some point, some guests had him in a sort of lather about Congress’s actions — or rather lack thereof — in addressing anything real.

“Well, you know what Congress is working on this week?” I asked.
“No. What?”
“The Flag Burning Amendment!”
“There’s something that must be addressed immediately.”

Well, here it is again. The House of Representatives, as they do once or twice (maybe even thrice?) a year, has passed a Constitutional Amendment to allow laws to stop the physical desecration of the flag. The Senate is as close as they ever will be (meaning if they can’t pass it now with a 55-45 Republican majority, they probably won’t be able to for another generation) to passing it… but it looks as though it’ll narrowly fail. If it passes, I guess that means after Bush signs it through it’d be there in the air for the states to ratify it. (I don’t know if they would, but I do know that most of the red states will sign on immediately… better to avoid looking at any issue that actually — affects anyone.)

Who? Where? and Why? is there that cares about what? and where? a national epidemic of flag burning, and puts it up as a crucial area of concern for these United States.

I saw a flag burn once. On television. Or rather heard a flag. On radio. In March of 2003, during the blast of war protests immediately following that preliminary “Decapitalization Strike” of “Operation Iraqi Liberation”. Someone set the flag ablaze. A fellow protester was upset at it, and waved the fire away. “And this person just wanted to dance.” Wackiness ensured.

Symbolism unbounded upon the populace. Was there a hew cry from Mississippi to stop that stray flag from being burned? Nay — they were too busy eating Freedom Fries.

It’s up to… Ken Salazar, annoying Democrat-oid of Colorado, to defeat the measure.

But an AP survey Wednesday found 35 senators on record as opposing the amendment – one more than the number needed to defeat it if all 100 senators vote, barring a change in position.

Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., remained undecided, a spokesman said.

As for Hillary Clinton’s answer, I’d first like to know what the question is.

“Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center,” said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. “Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.”

I doubt it.

Actually they’re a batch of right-winger’s list of “25 People who Are Screwing up America.” This serves as, I guess, the pinacle of partisan-bloggering participatory debatery fun-dungery.

23) Sandra Day O’Connor (6)
23) Ruth Bader Ginsburg (6)
23) Maxine Waters (6)
21) Charles Rangel (7)
21) Al Gore (7)
17) David Souter (8)
17) Al Sharpton (8)
17) Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (8)
17) Bill Clinton (8)
16) Paul Krugman (9)
15) Noam Chomsky (10)
13) John McCain (11)
13) Robert Byrd (11)
11) Jessie Jackson (12)
11) Jimmy Carter (12)
10) Nancy Pelosi (13)
8) John Kerry (14)
8) Barbara Boxer (14)
7) Dick Durbin (17)
6) Hillary Clinton (19)
4) George Soros (23)
4) Harry Reid (23)
3) Ted Kennedy (24)
1) Michael Moore (26)
1) Howard Dean (26)

For the life of me, I don’t know what to make of this list. This be the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy? (Or some dissipated threads out of it… I didn’t really see Noam Chomsky stumping a lot for John Kerry.)

How is Al Gore screwing up America these days? I know he launched a weird tv network of some sort — seen by nobody. I guess he makes an environmental speech every so often. (Actually, come to think of it — Jesse Jackson’s last few imprints into the national news was a defense of Michael Jackson and a plea to keep Terri Schiavo on the feeding tube.) I guess I should figure out the date this poll was done — before or after Dick Durbin (#7) referenced Hitler. In the same vein, if this had been taken a few months ago, during the “Justice Sunday” wackiness — would the three Supreme Court Justices have been higher up on the list? And does this finally square the dailykos as the top liberal blog? (I see no other blogger on the list.)

It’s all a little confusing.

I wonder if that clerk at Rite Aid — name on namebadge I don’t remember, but let’s say it’s “Samantha” (it is something to that like) — is a male, female, transgendered, transvestite (which, I guess would mean male… incidentally, if I had to guess, this would be my guess), or… I think those are my only options. If I’ve left anything out, feel free to tell me.

I wasn’t about to ask, and I pretty much pretended like no such thought enters my mind. S/he was cheerful enough.

………..

I was walking through a North Portland neighborhood yesterday. A 16 or 17 year old kid is doing yard work, and he says to me as I walk by, “They’re making me a slave today.” Oh, and he was black.

I feel as though I cannot say a single word or make a single expression… not a knowing nod (yeah… parents) or a sort of “quit complaining” (kids complaining about nothing) shrug.

Hm.

I found something curious about this blog entry. (I have “LaRouche” marked in bloglines.)

For the purpose, I’ll post from an online encyclopedia wikki thingy.
LaRouche did not stop all political activity while in jail. He ran for president again in 1992, met with international personages, and gave interviews. During part of his imprisonment he shared a cell with televangelist Jim Bakker, who later wrote of his astonishment at LaRouche’s detailed knowledge of the Bible. LaRouche was released on parole in 1994. Jim Bakker (born January 2, 1939 in Muskegon, Michigan) is an American televangelist, Assemblies of God preacher, and evangelist beset by scandal, and the former host of The PTL Club (PTL being an acronym for Praise the Lord and People That Love) with his then-wife Tammy Faye Bakker.

Hence, it’s noted here.

OR:

One of his cellmates was disgraced televangelist Jim Bakker, who later described LaRouche as amusing, erudite and convinced their cell was bugged. “To say that Lyndon was slightly paranoid,” Bakker wrote in his autobiography, “would be like saying the Titanic had a bit of a leak.”

Which is probably the only documentation about the Bakker — LaRouche relationship.

excepting this deleted comment:

Saw Bakker on Larry King one night after his release. He said he learned alot from ‘ol Lyndon!

Curious as to what this means, and suspect it means nothing. (Another weird factoid: in a list of “Saturday Night Live reoccuring characters, Al Franken is listed as having played Lyndon LaRouche.)

…..

Any response to this?

So what if I use some of LaRouche’s arguments for destroying any credibility that free-trade might have in the eyes of human beings?

No? Didn’t think so. Scaredy Cats the Whole Lot of You!