November 15, 2003
IT'S A GRAND OLD NOOSE:
The General and the flag (Robert Novak, November 15, 2003, Townhall)
The disenchantment of prominent New York City liberals with retired Gen. Wesley Clark's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination hit new levels Tuesday when he endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.Some two months ago, these Democrats were charmed by a general who appeared to take dependably liberal positions on all issues. Since then, they have been disappointed by Clark's performance. But what startled them was Clark's Veterans Day speech at an American Legion hall in Manchester, N.H., backing a House-passed flag amendment sponsored by Republicans.
What does it say about the Democrats that almost twenty years after Michael Dukakis they still can't disentangle themselves from flag issues? Posted by Orrin Judd at November 15, 2003 7:54 AM
In the days following 9/11, Katha Pollit refused to allow her daughter to fly an American flag outside her window. If she qualifies as a prominent New York liberal, things will never change.
Perhaps Kerry should have also discussed burning the French flag - I'll bet he would really slug someone for that. We know his wife would.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 15, 2003 8:43 AMchronosynclasticinfabulation.
The D's have become the party of the Boomer leftovers. It will always be Vietnam, civil rights, free love and marijuana. As they age, they will become even more nostalgic. Their children will be unable to take more than one evening of that stuff per season.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 15, 2003 12:40 PMThe Left are lousy winners. Most of their soical positions of twenty to forty years ago have been achieved, so they whine and complain and carry on like two-year-olds over the few areas in which they have yet to prevail completely.
Stopping flag-burning is silly.
One might require a burn permit, to promote fire safety, I guess.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 15, 2003 4:34 PMThat's the problem with liberty. It allows people to do things.
Most people can't stand it.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 15, 2003 5:49 PMHarry:
Rather the problem is that people want the liberty without any consequences. Senator Kerry had it right when he suggested the proper response to flag-burning is to beat the burners. But we'd need state's attorneys with sense enough not to prosecute.
Posted by: oj at November 15, 2003 5:52 PMMr. Schwartz: I agree with your point, but I believe (having lived through it), that the mantra was 'acid, amnesty, and abortion'. Nonetheless, my teenage children can hardly tolerate an evening with me, whatever my politics.
Mr. Eager: I thought that your thought (with which I disagree) was shaping up to be a haiku. Its lyrical, but five syllables over the limit.
Fred Jacobsen
San Francisco
Or juries that refuse to convict, Orrin.
Funny thing, though. When somebody (Christians, presumably) defaced the most beautiful work of God's hand in eastern America (the Nantahala Gorge) by painting "Jesus Saves" etc. on the rocks, it did not seem to bother anybody.
Yet they worry about the flag.
An odd ordering of priorities.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 16, 2003 3:57 PMHarry:
Are you sure it wasn't "Bobby loves Jo" or "Wildcats Class of '97" or something like that? I've even seen "KKK" and swastikas in the Little River Canyon, and though it is ugly, such is the state of the culture that it is not really surprising.
Now, as to your semi-haiku, I agree. Freedom is frightening. That is why polls taken on the Bill of Rights always find a few that the vast majority find way too liberating. The flag amendments are a dressed-up attempt to speak to this phenomenon. However, I believe burning a flag should entail some risk, whatever the community decides that will be.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 17, 2003 2:32 AM