Author: Greg Saunders

Close your eyes and imagine the wingnut response if John Kerry had said something like this in a speech :

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War is raging” in Iraq. “The whole world is watching this war.” He says it will end in “victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.”

The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.

Yeah, I know it’s a bit of a straw man argument, but let’s be serious here. If John Kerry had said the exact same thing last year, Republicans would have gone hoarse shouting “Kerry agrees with Bin Laden?!” and accused him of emboldening our enemies or other such nonsense.

Kevin Drum is right to point out this piece of Christopher Hitchens idiocy :

Come to think of it, what happened to the loud and widespread demand that gays be allowed to serve in uniform? Surely that was not just a Clinton-era campaign to be dropped in favor of gay marriage at just the time when the country needed troops in Afghanistan (generally agreed) and in Iraq (much disputed)?

I don’t intend a taunt in the above sentence (it’s more of a tease, really, as well as a serious question to which I have heard no answer)

If you haven’t heard an answer, it’s because you aren’t paying attention, Mr. Hitchens. Pretty much every progressive blogger I know has written numerous posts about how “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” hurts the war on terror (mine are here, here, and, here). It was also addressed by Wesley Clark and John Edwards during on the Democratic primary debates a year and a half ago.

Since it didn’t sink in the first hundred or so times, here’s the crux of the liberal argument. According to various inquiries into the 9/11 attacks, the government’s lack of qualified Arabic translators is “one of the most serious issues limiting the Intelligence Community’s ability to analyze, discern, and report on terrorist activities in a timely fashion.”(PDF), yet gay translators are still being discharged. This is a serious issue that goes well beyond gay rights, yet the President is too cowardly to stand up to the hateful segments of the Republican party do the right thing. Considering that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a Presidential order away from being overturned, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the George W. Bush’s homophobia is hurting national security.

Count me among those who think a ban on flag burning is both un-American and unnecessary, but the thing I find so fascinating is how untenable a ban would be as well. But let’s take a step back for a second here. One thing that is important to keep in mind is that the amendment in question doesn’t actually ban flag burning at all. Supposing that the amendment that made it through the House passes through the Senate and is approved by the state legistlatures of two-thirds of the states, the only change would be the addition of this sentence to the Constitution :

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

So if everything goes as the conservatives plan, the only thing they’ve gained is the ability to pass a law that prevents flag desecration. Once that’s done, they have to go back to square one and define the words “flag” and “desecration”. For example, take this picture that was posted at BoingBoing :

Is this an American flag? Technically, no. The flag above the 49 stars and one circle. It’s a snarky point since we can agree that the American flag has 50 five-sided stars on a blue field with 13 stripes alternating between red and white in color, but even given this rather strict definition, does that make this an American flag?



Well, it’s got the correct number of stars and stripes and it’s got the colors right, but the stars need to be in the upper left of the flag. Perhaps this is a flag then?



Nice try, smartass. That’s a t-shirt with a picture of a flag. Even though we’ve got all the details right, the object in the picture above isn’t a flag because what surrounds the red, white, and blue rectangular image makes it a shirt. How about this then?



There are flags with yellow trim, so I assume that doesn’t disqualify the image above. But if we can conclude that this isn’t a picture of a flag, but a patch, then would that mean the difference would be the material, the size, or the purpose of the object above? If that’s the case, then does this let the President off the hook for this infamous bit of flag desecration?

I would say “no”. Despite all the nitpicking about size, layout, shape, and material, the pictures above meet the common sense definition of flag desecration. Even then, should what the President did be considered a crime? That’s where the two sides differ. Conservatives think that it’s okay to arrest and/or fine someone for being disrespectful to our national symbols. Liberals on the other hand think that just because the President is acting like a jerk doesn’t mean he’s a criminal.

Even if the conservatives get their way with this stupid flag desecration amendment, they have to follow this bit of feel good pandering with the hard work of defining exactly what a flag is, what constitutes desecration, and what the penalties should be. That is, of course, unless Congres decides to punt the issue to the courts by passing a law that’s incredibly vague. This is what they do with abortion laws in order to get some election year kudos without having to worry about crafting a law that actually works, but those of us who actually take this stuff seriously should be asking these questions now.

So for the time being, it’s open season on flag burning. If you burn a flag around me, however, be prepared for a verbal or physical backlash. Unlike the babies in the Republican party, if somebody pisses me off by insulting our country, I’m not gonna go crying to the government for protection.

Heh. My previous post was awarded with a mention on CNN’s “Inside the Blogs” segment that perfectly sums up why reporting on blogosphere activity is such a stupid idea :

SCHECHNER:^[1] Now, we should also mention that now there’s outrage on the left because they say that Dick Durbin had nothing to apologize for and they’re mad at him for being weak on this issue. One of those doing a little parody^[2] is Greg over TheTalentShow.org. This is cross- posted at Tom Tomorrow’s This Modern World, and he basically parodies, with an analogy that has to do with a statement saying, if I read this to you and didn’t tell you it was a U.S. senator speaking, who would you think it was? So, a little play there, but they’re not happy on the left, now, with Dick Durbin. Ed?

Jeez, they’ve done a brilliant job squeezing all the funny out of my original post. Not that I expect them to quote the whole thing verbatim, but this mention was about as meaningful as saying “In the comedy world, Chris Rock has some interesting things to say about race relations noting that black people often do things one way while white people do the same things differently. Funny stuff, Ed?”

Seriously though, this whole “Inside the Blogs” business is ludicrous. The fact that a professional worldwide newsgathering organization is devoting any time to an unpublished amateur like me should be seen as the equivalent of waving a white flag. If the opinions of bloggers are so valuable, invite Glenn Reynolds and Duncan Black to co-host a “Capital Gang” type show or something. I’m grateful to reach a larger audience, but for a company with the staff, experience, resources, and reach of CNN to go trolling around the blogosphere looking for content to fill five minutes of airtime every day is just sad^[3]….

---

^{1 : The transcript notes that Schechner’s title is “blog reporter”. I’ve never been one of those people who thinks being a blogger makes me a journalist, but if paraphrasing what I said makes her a “reporter”, doesn’t that merit a de facto promotion of some sort? Perhaps “self-published columnist” or something.}

2 : Since the primary purpose of my original post was to make a political point and not just score a cheap laugh, I think the term “satire” is more appropriate here, but whatever…

3 : Especially when the rest of the day is spent on live press conferences with the family of a little boy who isn’t missing anymore or Larry King’s multiple interviews with psychics.

Due to the reaction he received to remarks that were wholly accurate and appropriate, a statement was released today that said :

“Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line…To them I extend my heartfelt apologies.”

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was a United States Senator responding to critics who justify the use of torture, you would most certainly believe this must have been said by a coward, a wimp, or a chicken who has proven himself incapable of defending the truth against an onslaught of right-wing badgering. Sadly, that is the case. The quote above is from Sen. Dick Durbin, who won’t stand behind his own words…even when they’re right.