67 Comments

1. TJIC  •  Sep 18, 2012 @8:10 am
   

   I had a bit of fun ("fun") in the comments section at Kim Dutoit's blog years back. The discussion was flag burning, and several right-wing yahoos were saying : "legal or not, if someone burns a flag in front of me, I'd kick his ass. It wouldn't be free will. I couldn't stop myself – it'd just be an instinct."

   I said "No free will? So even if I was standing there with my 1911 loaded w hollow points, burning a flag, you'd be unable to resist the urge to start a fight?".

   The consensus response seemed to be

   (a) the yahoos in question still would not admit moral culpability for their stated Brownshirt tactics

   (b) yes, through some quirk of Darwin, maybe a 1911 would override their normal instinctive behavior

   (c) TJIC is a communist who hates freedom.

   #reasons_I_am_not_a_right_winger_number_703_in_a_series

2. Dan Weber  •  Sep 18, 2012 @8:38 am
   

   International "Everyone Draw Mohammed Buring A US Flag" Day.

3. Lizard  •  Sep 18, 2012 @8:48 am
   

   A third party which became powerful enough to be more than a gadfly would become identical to the existing parties. I sometimes think a parliamentary system of proportional representation would be better, and I often think that I think this because I'm largely ignorant of the flaws of parliamentary systems. In any event, it won't happen. Because the people currently in charge make all the rules about how to decide who is in charge, they will never make rules that run any risk of removing themselves from power. Short of violent revolution (or the threat of same so certain that sheer self-preservation forces change, see South Africa), we will be stuck with our current form of government.

   The think that enrages me about the hypocrisy of both parties is not so much that they're hypocrites, per se, but that no one with any kind of media influence will call them on it, possibly due to the real fear they'll lose that influence. At best, you'll see partisans call out their enemies, but not their allies, or use the "They did it first!" line, or, my favorite, "False equivalence!" ("How is it false, exactly?" "Hey, look over there! There's a squirrel that looks like Abe Lincoln!")

4. Gavin  •  Sep 18, 2012 @8:54 am
   

   The flag burning thing has always confused me. Not why it happens, but why this particular thing has stuck with us. Perhaps we see it as some kind of half-wit treason imploring other nations to attack us? I've never understood why my neighbor burning some paper/plastic/cloth does anything other than waste their money. Heck, a percentage of the sale of that flag goes to the government anyways. It's kinda like that Catholic Bishop who bought up all of the early English translations of the Christian Bible to burn and inadvertantly funded a much larger printing of them for distribution.

   I've often desired third party success. After thinking far too long about it I eventually came to the conclusion that we'd need to have a significant number of political parties for it to work or else the third party would just cannibalize the votes of whichever party it is closest to.

   I have regularly been frustrated that if I choose a particular party that a certain moral/social value set is married to a certain financial set. My vote then, is all over the board where party is concerned.

5. TJIC  •  Sep 18, 2012 @8:59 am
   

   > The flag burning thing has always confused me.

   Sanctity / degradation.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt#Moral_Foundations_Theory

6. Tim  •  Sep 18, 2012 @9:11 am
   

   Warning: Incoherent Rambling

   I've always been a bit crazy when it comes to flag burning. Most people that I've seen do it – I've often thought – aren't doing it correctly. I've always considered that there are 2 flags to consider 1) The American Flag and 2) The Flag of the President of the United States.

   If you are upset with the policies of the current administration, and you yourself are an American, which flag would make sense to burn in your free speech march in your state?

   I actually believe that with this current Nakoula mess, that the muslims of other nations who would burn the American Flag in this instance are probably spot on in directing their anger. It is the American people, the American culture that has created the environment of their ire – and I think we stand by that environment. Is Nakoula a doucebag that we all hate? Yes. Do we want to change anything? No.

   I wouldn't support any ban on Flag burning, but I would like there to be a better consideration of if the burning the American Flag is representative of your criticism – or if there is a better flag to burn.

7. Gavin  •  Sep 18, 2012 @9:13 am
   

   @TJIC,

   Doesn't really answer the question of why anyone particularly cares about it. Would you or these people also ban Bible burning?

8. delurking  •  Sep 18, 2012 @9:33 am
   

   "A third party which became powerful enough to be more than a gadfly would become identical to the existing parties. "

   This is simply untrue, because you need a majority and not a plurality to get elected. When you have 2 parties in a system where a majority is required to get elected, simple game theoretic thinking shows that the two parties will be nearly identical, because all you care about is 50%+1 votes.

   Once you get to three viable parties, then it isn't enough to get 33.333…%+1 of the votes, you need to get to 50%+1, so you have to differentiate yourself in some real way.

9. Joe Pullen  •  Sep 18, 2012 @10:06 am
   

   Burning, stomping/spitting on, or otherwise desecrating a US flag doesn’t undermine the basic tenants on which our country was founded any more than burning a bible undermines the tenants of Christianity. It seems to me that those who believe otherwise lack the strength of conviction of their own belief in those underlying tenants. In short I see it as nothing more than excuse to raise an act against inanimate object or symbol to the same level as a direct act against a person.

   Personally I think both parties are idiots.

10. Michael  •  Sep 18, 2012 @10:55 am
    

    D. Rosenberg in an 'Educated Man' sees the Torah as the equivalent of Moses eternal mummy. I suppose burning of sacred books or symbols thus might be seen as desecration of the mummy which, now that I have gotten this far out on the limb, may have been why the Nazis' burning books so resonates in historical retrospective.

11. EH  •  Sep 18, 2012 @10:56 am
    

    One wonders how someone like Lizard can avoid committing suicide with that perspective. They appear to think themselves mature and above-it-all, yet what I read are the words of a failure and a coward. I'm unsure whether their predictive abilities (or lack thereof) are related to this.

12. AK  •  Sep 18, 2012 @11:45 am
    

    This is not my position, but I can offer a coherent argument for why flag-burning can be prohibited but anti-religious statements cannot.

    Consider the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    The free exercise of religion is explicitly protected, and the exercise of one religion pretty much amounts to a statement that all other religions are inferior. Most religions – including most known to the Constitution's framers – have some form of proselytizing component. So it's safe to say that inter-religious debate and criticism is baked into the cake of the First Amendment. And make no mistake, that's what this movie is. It's speech. It's not the physical act of desecrating a Koran or destroying a religious artifact, symbol, or instrument.

    I won't get into too much detail about why the First Amendment doesn't protect flag-burning – substantially because I believe the First Amendment does. But there are arguments that the act of burning a flag isn't really "speech," it doesn't convey a political message except in the broadest possible sense, and those who decry the protections symbolized by the flag should not get to enjoy their protections.

    These are not good arguments. But religious speech is arguably closer to the core of the First Amendment than destructive conduct.

13. ZK  •  Sep 18, 2012 @12:03 pm
    

    Whoah, @EH. I think you took that a little too far.

14. Joe Pullen  •  Sep 18, 2012 @12:12 pm
    

    @ EH – just curious what part of Lizards post did you take specific objection to?

    The part about where Lizard states “parliamentary system of proportional representation would be better, and I often think that I think this because I'm largely ignorant of the flaws of parliamentary systems.” Or the part "Hey, look over there! There's a squirrel that looks like Abe Lincoln!" or something in between?

    If you’re going to call someone out on something then be specific. What do you disagree with and why. Dining on snotty comments with an extra dollop of sarcasm is entertaining but only if there is real “meat” underneath.

15. Gavin  •  Sep 18, 2012 @12:16 pm
    

    @Joe Pullen:

    Here Here! Run for office.

    @Delurking:

    It won't be identical to either of the parties but it will be closer to one than the other. This puts both of those parties at a disadvantage to the third party that is more differentiated, by your same logic.

    This is why we need a serious number of alternatives rather than just one new option. The problem is that the two monopolies are too big to break up and the only people with the authority to break them up, is them (or made up of them).

    And even then, how should they be broken up or divided? Who gets to decide that? How do you prevent the same quagmire brought up with gerrymandering? How do you make minor corrections in the future to fix the problem and how much damage gets caused until it is resolved?

    The truth is, sticking with this mockery of a democratic system is just a heck of a lot easier than fixing legitimate problems that could eventually usher in a gold standard of democracy where everyone really does have a voice.

16. David Schwartz  •  Sep 18, 2012 @12:27 pm
    

    AK: You can't make a movie just by speaking, you also have to do stuff. I don't see how you can argue that the stuff done in the making of that movie is speech just because it was used to send a religious message and yet the stuff done when burning a flag is not speech.

    If physical acts whose primary purpose and sole significant effect is to send a message aren't "speech" deserving of 1A protection, then you can ban flag burning but you can also ban movie making.

17. Joe Pullen  •  Sep 18, 2012 @12:33 pm
    

    @Gavin – only if they pay me more than I make now to put up with the inevitable BS.

18. AlphaCentauri  •  Sep 18, 2012 @12:34 pm
    

    Well, IF we trusted electronic voting — there's now the ability to have a one-step primary/general election that would allow someone to specify their first, second, third choices, etc. If no one gets a majority, the votes of the people who voted for the candidate in last place then go to their second choice candidates (with the last choice candidate no longer in the running). If that still doesn't put anyone over the top, the new last place candidate's votes are redistributed. Your vote for a third party is only "wasted" if you don't specify enough second choices to get down to one that is in the final running. While a nutjob may well get into the final running because the rational candidates split the rest of the vote, since nutjob is usually the first choice of a fanatical minority but not anyone's second choice, he is very unlikely to win the final tally.

    As far as the flag burning issue — the laws don't stand because they are predicated on the reason the flag is burned. Burning is considered a respectful way of retiring a worn out flag. Once the intent has to be considered, it becomes a matter of free speech.

19. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Sep 18, 2012 @12:47 pm
    

    Over at Reason I suggested that flag burners should be treated like any other person who lights a fire in a public place without a permit (which, from my understanding, would mean a ticket and not an arrest), and stirred up an absolute storm. I'm not at all sure why.

    Flag Burners are treated entirely too seriously. Handing them a ticket involving a smallish fine seems about right in terms of reaction. Treat them like any other public nuisance.

20. Gavin  •  Sep 18, 2012 @12:57 pm
    

    @Joe Pollen:

    I'm sure you can make more money at it then you do now, you just have to not be the ethical person I'd like to vote for.

    @Alpha Centauri:

    For the sake of efficient elections you'd want to limit the options somewhat. The idea of having limited options allows people to review the serious candidates more thoroughly and choose between the likely viable options. If we could get over ten options, that would be fantastic.

    @C. S. P. Schofield,

    I agree, I do think police are pretty afraid of doing anything about it anymore. The headlines, "Such and such persecuted for free speech demonstration" would be too attractive to the media.

21. Gavin  •  Sep 18, 2012 @1:02 pm
    

    @C. S. P. Schofield,

    To clarify, I don't think any of this is sound. We don't kill or jail people for things like this. People (albeit misguided) who want to ban flag burning would likely want to see fines, not a death sentence like Sharia law commands.

22. David Brant  •  Sep 18, 2012 @1:45 pm
    

    It does hurt my (formerly military) little heart to see the US flag burned by … oh, just anyone who wants to do it. That said, I wouldn't declare it "unlawful".

    It does make me want to spend good money on flags of Iran or Libya, get out the video cam, and spend a few minutes chanting insanely about my dislike of whatever nation … and lighting the flag up.

    I'll never do that, of course, because I just don't have that thirst for revenge … and I'm just too lazy, at any rate.

23. Lizard  •  Sep 18, 2012 @1:59 pm
    

    @delurking: Precisely. Because we have a two party system, a "third party" would come to power by de facto replacing one of the two parties, and thus, would inherit the same problems of needing to appeal to a sufficiently large segment of the population that ideological strength would be lost. Our "two parties" each include numerous wings/factions that, in other countries, are separate parties/movements/blocs. (I suppose you could argue that each major party has a kind of parliamentary system within it, where the sub-factions must form coalitions to get anything done.)

    Also, I'm not sure of where you get the idea you need a majority to get elected. I'm not aware of any election thrown out because no party got more than 50% of the vote; while it's rare for a third party to get any meaningful %age, when it does happen, the party with the most votes, even if it's less than 50%, wins. (Wilson won with 42% of the popular vote in 1912, for example, albeit with a ridiculous majority of the electoral vote.) I'm not going to claim this is something I've studied extensively, so perhaps you can provide some other references? The "Winner take all" system in America, where you get 100% of the power regardless of how large a %age of the vote you won, does tend to drive towards a two party system, as people don't want to "waste" their vote, and there's also a tendency to try to change/influence one of the existing parties from within, leveraging their infrastructure while altering their direction — see my comment about pseudo-coalitions, above.

    @eh: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If my personal happiness was dependent on my hopes for radical change in American politics within the foreseeable future, then, yeah, I guess I would kill myself, since that's on par with my personal happiness being dependent on my winning the lottery. (In both cases, I'd LIKE it, but I'm not EXPECTING it.) Fortunately, my personal happiness is NOT dependent on either of those things, and so, I remain reasonably content with my lot. I can imagine much better worlds than this, and also much worse.

    Nonetheless, I'll be happy to take your suggestion under advisement, and give it all the careful consideration it deserves.

24. Lizard  •  Sep 18, 2012 @2:08 pm
    

    @AK: It's a good thing you don't plan to defend banning flag burning, because that's a pretty weak argument. The thing is, it's tautological. The fact that burning a flag conveys a statement (hatred of that which is symbolized by the flag) makes it speech. No one wants to ban burning flags regardless of which flag is being burned, or without regard to the context or circumstances. It not the physical act of lighting cloth on fire that is at issue, it is the visceral expression of an idea, and that means that it is speech within the general context of the First Amendment. (Not to mention how silly such laws would be if applied. Could I burn a flag with 14 stripes, or 51 stars? Can I burn a book that has a picture of a flag on the cover?)

25. Dan Weber  •  Sep 18, 2012 @2:20 pm
    

    I don't mind so much the President being elected by something that encourages a two-party system. There is only one President and he is going to have to be a compromise that has managed to get as many to accept him.

    I'd like more parties in one of the houses of Congress, but like Lizard maybe I'd really regret that if I experienced it.

26. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Sep 18, 2012 @3:57 pm
    

    Gavin;

    What we need is a police chief, somewhere, who is willing to go on record saying something like "We aren't persecuting freedom of speech. We're PROSECUTING moving into a public space and comprehensively trashing it. We had (name of some organization that used the same park recently) in that park a while back, and they picked up after themselves."

    Of course the same town should offer the protesters the opportunity to pick up their trash in lieu of a fine….

    I have a particular bone to pick with flag burners (ANY flag). They light a non-trivial fire in a public space and get a pass because of their 'Statement" (which I frankly think usually boils down to 'Look at ME!'), but somebody who fires up a hibachi without a permit gets fined. I don't want the Flag burners punished MORE then the weenie-roasters, I just want them held to the same standard.

27. Grifter  •  Sep 18, 2012 @4:39 pm
    

    Do the weenie-roasters usually actually get fined, or just a talking to, though?

28. James Pollock  •  Sep 18, 2012 @4:52 pm
    

    I strongly suspect that IF a third-party ever gets traction in this country, it will be regionally, not nationally. That is to say, they will dominate the politics of one (or more) state(s), and have almost no power anywhere else. From there, it will be interesting to see if they can expand. I've suspected that either party might fragment this way, but at present I think it's the Republicans that are in danger, with the social conservatives going one way and the fiscally conservative, socially moderate small-government folks going another. The social conservatives seem interested in driving the moderates out of the party (as though they don't realize that social moderates form the largest bloc within their party).

29. Lizard  •  Sep 18, 2012 @7:39 pm
    

    Attempts to weasel around the First Amendment with artfully crafted "public safety" laws have not been well received by the courts. In the 1990s, Florida tried to ban many practices of Santeria via laws controlling "ritual slaughter" and so forth. In the words of a Scooby Doo villain, they might have gotten away with it if they hadn't written it so as to only include those forms of animal slaughter practiced by Santeria, and not any other, even if they violated the ostensible goal of the law.(http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/12/us/supreme-court-animal-sacrifice-court-citing-religious-freedom-voids-ban-animal.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)

    When it comes to weenie roasts, first, I think we live in a ridiculous nanny state where the cost of risk prevention grossly exceeds the cost of the risk. That said, it's reasonable that laws, in general, are not simple booleans. The balancing act is the degree of risk vs. the importance of the banned activity. If we rate "risk of a fire" on a scale of 1-10, then, banning weenie roasts might require a risk factor of, say, 2, while banning expressive speech — especially the highly political speech that is flag burning — might require a risk factor of 5. I'm not a lawyer, or a judge, and I don't pretend to be an expert on any of this, but as a marginally educated layperson, I can see sound reasons to say that a law which prohibits BBQs requires a much lower bar than a law which prohibits flag burning. (When I lived in North Carolina… NORTH CAROLINA, for Darwin's sake… the apartment complex I lived at had a few grills set up about 100 yards from any part of the housing, and all residents were forbidden to grill on their decks or patios. In frakking SAN FRANCISCO, the local rules were less odious. What the smeg, man? I mean, what the smeg?) (It may have been the apartment complex's rules, rather than the law, but still, the irony meter is pegged.)

    @James: At the state or local level, what you usually get is heavy control of one of the two major parties by more strongly ideological factions. Again, this has a lot of elements of a "third party" in terms of the ability of a small group to use their local control to exert influence by providing key swing votes, but it's within the formal party structure. There's been a lot of attempts to "take over" a state, or even a county, by various ideological groups, but they tend to come to naught. The power of a national party is just too damn tempting. I mean, if you believe in a goal or an ideal, you'll do whatever is needed to bring it about. If you've got the numbers and organization, it's a much better use of your resources to win control of local races within one of the two big parties. They greatly magnify your reach and influence. They keep you from having to expend tremendous effort just to get ON the ballot, so you can focus more on winning. Oh, sure, you'll have to compromise to get some things done… but isn't that better than getting *nothing* done? There's all that power, just sitting there, waiting for the *right* person to use it for the *right* reasons. Why let the corrupt fatcats and insiders be the only ones who can tap into the national organization? You could do so much more if you worked within the system…

    In addition, the political parties are a lot more like baseball teams than they are actual philosophies. That is, the "Yankees" of 2012 have none of the same players of the "Yankees" of 1970 (at least, I assume, I pay no attention to sports), but they're still "The Yankees", somehow. The names remain; the institutional power remains; but the composition and actual policies are constantly in flux. In other words, the next "Third Party" is going to be called "Democrats" or "Republicans" — it will just be one which has slowly altered its positions and values until it's become something other than what it was. (Are today's "Republicans" the same party as Lincoln's "Republicans"? Are the modern Democrats the same party they were in 1900?)

30. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Sep 18, 2012 @7:42 pm
    

    Grifter,

    I have lived in several jurisdictions that took fire permits VERY seriously. It isn't (as I recall, anyway, and from secondhand accounts) a big fine, but a ticket was pretty much automatic. One of my Lady's company picnics ran aground on that very problem, because her employer had dropped the ball. Very embarrassing.

    I think what annoyed me most over the Occupy (insert place name here) protests was that where the police did anything they did the wrong things and too much. I certainly didn't hear of any fines for littering, and the pictures I was made the various sites look like the littering olympics.

    Maybe I just missed that detail, though.

31. James Pollock  •  Sep 18, 2012 @9:25 pm
    

    Lizard, I was thinking of a couple of historical events when I predicted a third party would arise from a regional power base. First, T Roosevelt's attempt to split off from the Republicans, and second, the pro-segregation Democrats in the South splitting off from the Democrats. In the latter case, Republicans were able to make a case and snatch up most of the former Democrats, but I think that the political marriage between small-government Republicans and social conservative Republicans is a shaky one, and I have a hard time picturing either one joining with the Democrats. I could see a socially-conservative "Dixie" party dominating the south, after ditching the Republicans for not having enough conservative purity, and I can see a newly-central Republican party being competitive everywhere else (except maybe California).
    This is not to say that I actually expect any of these things to happen… just that, IF a viable third-party emerges, THAT'S how I think it'll happen.

32. James Pollock  •  Sep 18, 2012 @9:35 pm
    

    Re: fire permits…
    Your attitude on them probably varies somewhat in relation to how much of your surrounding countryside is currently on fire.

    The Willamette valley in Oregon is home to most of the commercial grass seed production in the country. At the end of every growing season, after the seed has been harvested, they burn the fields. This produces columns of smoke thousands of feet high, thick enough to obscure visibility, and the practice is highly limited now largely as a result of A) repeated complaints by people who suffer from breathing difficulty, but mostly B) public reaction to a 50 or 60 car pileup on I-5 caused by not being able to see anything in the smoky haze of a field-burn.
    Most flag-burning protests happen in places where the risk of wildfire is fairly low.

33. AlphaCentauri  •  Sep 18, 2012 @9:44 pm
    

    It's not like there are that many flag burnings that need to be dealt with. I get the impression the number of attempted anti-flag-burning laws far outnumbers the incidents of domestic flag burning.

    The irony is that all these attempts to legislate homage for the flag have turned the American flag into an emblem of intolerance. You see far fewer people displaying flags on holidays now than you used to. If you fly an American flag now, many people assume you're a Republican.

34. James Pollock  •  Sep 18, 2012 @10:34 pm
    

    "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." — U.S. Flag Code

    Many, if not most, domestic "flag burning" protests are in compliance with the statute, in the sense that the burners have come to believe that the flag is no longer a fitting emblem for display AS A SYMBOL.
    Now, overseas they do some pretty disrespectful things with it.

    The flag code also specifies that the flag is not to be used as an element in advertising… think about that next fourth of July. It's also not to be used as an article of clothing… watch for politicians who LITERALLY wrap themselves up in the flag.

    Finally, the phrase "desecrating the flag"… for this to happen, the flag must first be sacred (by definition). So, I would argue that for those members of religions which forbid consecrated idols or icons, desecrating a flag is NOT POSSIBLE. But "disrespecting the flag" doesn't have the same punch.

35. Lizard  •  Sep 19, 2012 @6:01 am
    

    @James: As I said, some laws can and should be circumstantial, in the sense that the necessity or wisdom of a law can depend on the environment.

    Also, on the issue of third parties splitting off, I'm aware of your historical examples, but I think that the increasing power of government and the constant accretion of barriers to entry of anyone truly outside the system make similar events increasingly unlikely. History repeats in patterns, but not in specifics. At the same time, it's certainly possible that there will be some unexpected shift or change that renders my conclusions moot. Was it Yogi Berra who allegedly said "The problem with predicting the future is that it hasn't happened yet."?

36. Luke  •  Sep 19, 2012 @6:50 am
    

    @Joe Pullen – "Burning, stomping/spitting on, or otherwise desecrating a US flag doesn’t undermine the basic tenants on which our country was founded any more than burning a bible undermines the tenants of Christianity."

    Well said sir.

    In a way, burning a flag in America reinforces the basic tenants on which our country was founded.

37. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Sep 19, 2012 @6:51 am
    

    James Pollock,

    Your points about Flags and burning are well made. I don't particularly care about the American Flag as a 'sacred' symbol, although I do get a little tired of 'protesters' acting in ways that they know perfectly well would get them jailed (or disappeared) in a Fascist State, and won't get them anything of the kind here, while complaining about Fascist Amerika. They remind me of nothing more than a tantrum-throwing six-year-old crying "You don't love me!".

    I am seriously tired of 'protesters' getting away with behavior that is both dangerous and stupid. Throwing things at people should be treated as assault. I don't care if its hippies throwing shit filled baggies at cops or Pro-Life activists throwing blood (or blood-like liquids) at people near an abortion clinic. That in now way fits the meaning of 'peaceably assemble'.

    Fire is another hot button for me. I grew up in Ohio, and can't help but notice an element that usually gets omitted from accounts of the Kent State incident; the night before the Guard was sent in 'protesters' set fire to the ROTC building and interfered with firefighters on the scene. I'm sorry for the idiots who got shot (who stays on a campus on which crap like that is happening?), but that was no longer a 'protest'. That was a riot, and needed to be shut down before those witless children started a 'symbolic' fire that burned down the town and converted the town residents into long-pig BBQ. People who use fire as a symbol in a protest make me extremely nervous. Especially if I question their judgement in the first place.

38. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @7:08 am
    

    @C. S. P. Schofield,

    Besides, everyone knows that peeing and pooping on a flag is far more offensive. This is why I'd like you to invest in my company, that I just thought of and that doesn't exist. Our product is called, "Flag Toilet Paper" that has any flag or flags printed on each sheet. If you pay for my relocation and security detail we can also produce versions that include images of any prophet you can imagine… (what's sad is that I feel like these would make money and could really result in a few deaths too).

    @James Pollock,

    Yes, a third party would have to start off small. This would have to be in a region where the party that the third party most resembles would have to be in the vast majority so that the vote cannibalism wouldn't give the other main party an inherrent advantage. The conditions would have to be perfect, but I would vote and usually do vote for any moderates I can.

    Seeing the extreme polarization of the two political parties I'm no longer seeing my candidates getting the spot. I wonder if we'll ever have regular candidates in the middle again in my lifetime?

39. mojo  •  Sep 19, 2012 @7:54 am
    

    Burn all the flags you like, dude, from any country at all. It's just a scrap of cloth.

    But I don't write the party platform, so cut me some slack.

40. Paul A'Barge  •  Sep 19, 2012 @8:12 am
    

    I tell you what. You want to burn a flag? I'll strike the match for you, if you'll agree to push the launch button on the drone that will fly over every Mooslim country in the mid-east having an anti-American demonstration and vaporize every one of them.

    How does that trip your trigger?

    the third party thing? Dementia and you know it. Let's bury the Democrat Party and elevate the Libertarian Party instead.

41. Andrew M Lale  •  Sep 19, 2012 @8:17 am
    

    Erm, why would the people who populate third parties be exempt from the perpetual tendancy of people to be hypocritical and give exceptions to themselves?

42. BruceT45410  •  Sep 19, 2012 @8:17 am
    

    I've always thought that "insensitivity" should be taught instead of "sensitivity." The reason being that one never can tell what will offend the most sensitive of people, however, if all were taught to be less sensitive, than the risk of offense would be reduced. Plus, it makes for a stronger being in the long run…kind of like the critters that reside inside of lava tubes at the bottom of the ocean.

43. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @8:23 am
    

    The Hell?

44. johnny drama  •  Sep 19, 2012 @8:28 am
    

    I am a free speech guy, and will always vote that way, so to me, if you have the right to burn a flag and I retain the right to roll down the window and tell you what I think about you burning the flag, we're all good.

    BUT. having said that, its a stretch to think you have a constitutional right to burn stuff. You cant burn leaves in my neighborhood without getting fined. Maybe I hould pretend I am protesting the EPA ?

45. Chris R.  •  Sep 19, 2012 @8:29 am
    

    What's a Mooslim?

46. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @8:34 am
    

    @Paul A'Barge,

    So, let me get this straight, you'll approve of/assist in the burning of a rectangular piece of cloth/paper/plastic with particular markings on it in exchange for the killing of anyone protesting us in other countries? Any particular reason why you spell Muslim "Mooslim"? I've heard of the older spelling "Moslim" but never mooslim. Is it done on purpose just to be silly or is it actual ignorance (perhaps malice?).

    Yes, let's create a libertarian party. Then we'll get to see the Republican party and the Libertarian party fight over 50% of the conservative votes while the Democrats enjoy their current 50% and beat the other two parties every time. I'm so glad everyone thinks through the things they say!

47. CitizenEgg  •  Sep 19, 2012 @9:27 am
    

    The obvious reason for banning the burning of flags would be for health and safety. Witness the Pakistani man who died as a result of smoke inhalation. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/160074

48. Donavon Pfeiffer  •  Sep 19, 2012 @9:52 am
    

    I might look at those members of the ruling class who propose banning burning the flag a little differently if they didn't spend so much time wiping their asses with it.

49. willis  •  Sep 19, 2012 @9:56 am
    

    While I may or may not object to burning our flag and may or may not be a hypocrite or anything else you can think of, the film-maker did not break the law. I do believe that murdering people is the punishable offense here and should be the topic of outrage. Our media seem to think the offense was that offending muslims and disrupting Obama's campaign.

50. willis  •  Sep 19, 2012 @9:58 am
    

    "What's a Mooslim?"

    Free speech.

51. James Pollock  •  Sep 19, 2012 @11:28 am
    

    "Yes, let's create a libertarian party. Then we'll get to see the Republican party and the Libertarian party fight over 50% of the conservative votes"
    Unless, of course, not all Libertarians are conservative, in which case this newly-invented Libertarian party can draw off conservatives who don't think the government should be enforcing the moral values, the liberals who think Democrats spend too much, and the non-voters who agree wtih both of them and thus didn't support either Democrats OR Republicans.

52. thornharp  •  Sep 19, 2012 @11:58 am
    

    To make any flag the focus of reverence so intense that harm to the flag is harm to the reverent is, simply, idolatry. Offense to feelings is not harm to self, unless you're a Salafist jihadi. And then, of course, if someone makes fun of you, your tribe, your book, or your prophet, you're obliged to kill them.

53. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @12:17 pm
    

    @James Pollock,

    At the end of the day, it will pull more from one group or another and there are only two outcomes in that situation: Either it doesn't draw enough to gain legitimacy for itself while ruining the party it is most closely affiliated with or it gains enough, magically (because there are more people who vote according to party lines than you think, just because someoen uses a certain name for their affiliation), and ends up destroying the party it is most closely affiliated with and gaining a huge majority in the political sphere.

    The former is far more likely than the latter, it'd be an easy way to destroy the Republican party though, as there are a lot more libertarian conservatives than Democrats (who typically believe that the government needs to provide for the poor and other entitlement plans, let me know if I have misjudged the majority of liberals). Unlike our Islam discussion, I actually am fiscally liberal. I think the real problem facing us is government inefficiency, not that we're trying to have national healthcare measures in plan (again, if a politician ever stood up and said, "The problem with government departments is that they have to meet or exceed their budgets or fear getting cuts the following year. My goal is to incentivise the decision makers to come in at or below budget while placing safeguards to avoid slashing areas that should not be cut.", I would campaign for them.

    The healthcare issue is it's own beast. Insurance companies are actually incentivized to drive costs up because the profit off of percentages rather than just blank amounts, so a bigger pie means more money for them even though it's at the cost of their customers. Figuring out ways to lower costs and how to expose hospitals to market conditions by giving customers a choice between providers and incentives to choose cheaper options is key. I think the government will need to step in to resolve this blatant problem)

54. David W. Nicholas  •  Sep 19, 2012 @1:01 pm
    

    I'm in favor of a flag-burning ban, sort of, but I'm aware that it probably will never happen. My main impetus is less symbolic and more philosophical than most. It's my belief that no political speech should be banned, with one exception. If someone advocates banning other speech, they ought to be stopped. I see flag-burning as the symbolic version of this. You're essentially expressing contempt for the Constitution, and as I see it the First Amendment. You're saying your free speech rights trump everyone else, to the point that they must remain silent so that you can continue to speak, and impose your speech on everyone else.

    Maybe I'm extrapolating too much, but that's how I've always seen flag-burning, and it's how I see it now.

55. James Pollock  •  Sep 19, 2012 @1:55 pm
    

    Mr. Nicholas, you're imposing your interpretation of what flag-burning means, and then using your interpretation to justify banning it. What if my justification for burning a flag is not contempt for the Constitution, but rather, contempt for my government's failure to adhere to it? My contempt for mainstream Americans for allowing it to happen? What if I'm just expressing my belief that red, white and blue are a TERRIBLE fashion choice and we should have gone with something more along the lines of green and gold?
    The fact remains that burning a flag usually involves no actual harm to anyone. Our nation has survived many flag burnings, and I daresay that it will survive many, many more.

56. Joe Pullen  •  Sep 19, 2012 @8:08 pm
    

    @Chris R. – a Mooslim is an Islamic Moose. After all moost be.

57. wgering  •  Sep 19, 2012 @9:25 pm
    

    I think a flag-burning ban would be counterproductive; if burning the flag is criminalized, people will just think of other things to do with it.

    I can think of several right off the top of my head:
    -Using it as a bib whilst dining on roasted bald eagle in a rosemary veloute sauce.
    -Fashioning it into a garment that touches the bare skin of any member of the Kardashian family
    -Fraying the ends and wearing it as a hipster scarf
    -Bondage ties

    Although, it would be really funny to have a law that specifically prohibits using the flag to tie up and/or gag your (consenting, of course) sexual partner(s).

58. AlphaCentauri  •  Sep 19, 2012 @11:25 pm
    

    @Gavin, as far as limiting options (for electronic voting that includes automatic second, third choices etc. if the first choice is running last): I don't know if it's essential to limit choices. First elections in formerly oppressed countries tend to include long lists of choices (complicated by the need to help illiterate voters recognize the party by symbol rather than name, and that fact that they are voting on pieces of paper in actual ballot boxes). Our computers have the power to handle a massive number of choices and still spit the result out in minutes.

    And imagine an open primary/general election where all voters have to choose among the same twenty candidates. The candidates wouldn't be running against each other so much as running against their own anonymity. They would have to spend their political ad time defining themselves instead of slandering their opponents. Even the incumbent would have trouble holding a seat if all he did was negative campaigning, because when he chose to criticize an opponent, he would be improving that candidate's name recognition.

59. John D  •  Sep 19, 2012 @11:39 pm
    

    I've always wonder what those who defend burning the American flag would say to me if I were to go out and burn say….a Mexican or Palestinian flag?

    If I did it in downtown Berkeley would they stand by me?

60. Grifter  •  Sep 20, 2012 @12:13 am
    

    @wgering:

    You alley-ooped this one:

    If burning the flag is criminalized, only criminals will burn the flag!

61. Grifter  •  Sep 20, 2012 @12:16 am
    

    @John D:

    I doubt you'd be arrested for burning those flags, though.

    I won't "stand by" a person burning the flag, but I'll vehemently defend their right to do it if that's infringed.

    I don't think that creating a law against burning other countries' flags is now, nor ever has been, a plank in a political party.

62. Gavin  •  Sep 20, 2012 @8:10 am
    

    @Alpha Centauri,

    Having some limit on options allows for more educated decisions. The lack of knowledge of competition can lead to throwing away a vote for someone you think would be good without knowing that voting for a comparable candidate would more likely result in success rather than a candidate you don't want winning.

    So too many choices do present a problem of their own. The only way to know who is the top choice would be via the media and then you end up having a situation where different media sources really could significantly change outcomes.

    I'm not saying these problems can't be overcome. Just that these would be significant difficulties in large numbers (even defining what qualifies a large number would be difficult).

63. James Pollock  •  Sep 20, 2012 @1:25 pm
    

    There were, like, 250 candidates for governor of California when Davis was recalled.

64. Gavin  •  Sep 20, 2012 @1:33 pm
    

    How did that work out (seriously asking, I don't know if it was a debacle or if it worked well)?

65. richard40  •  Sep 20, 2012 @2:40 pm
    

    I admit the conservatives are also sometimes inconsistent on free speech, when it is something that offends them. That is one reason why I am conservative/libertarian, rather than straight conservative, since libertarians are the only ones that always stand for free speech, no matter who is offended, even them. But at least it is nice that most conservatives are standing for free speech in this offending muslims battle.

66. wgering  •  Sep 20, 2012 @5:35 pm
    

    @John D: if you do it in Berkeley I'll bring supplies for s'mores.

67. Gavin  •  Sep 24, 2012 @7:52 am
    

    @James,

    There were 135 qualified candidates and the whole thing worked like a circus. They even had some reality TV shows spin up for a single season. Potentially good candidates were drowned under a sea of other potentially good candidates and crap and the voters went with the face that stood out in that sea as recognizable. Legitimate candidates also dropped out left and right before ever getting to the election for fear of cannibalizing votes for their party. It all became a sort of game that the two parties played against each other by privately trying to put their best foot forward.

    There does need to be a limit. I don't know what that needs to be, but 135 options is not acceptable. Just look at the ballot.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c6/Sample_ballot_for_CA_recall.png

    Imagine it being thousands. We need do need more options to vote for but we need to figure out a way to prevent legitimate candidates from dropping out just because "their" party would be harmed if they stuck in. Even just 8 candidates would be great. Perhaps if our primaries took the top 3 from each party instead of just 1. That might be interesting but could result in a loss if one party got more votes but the other party only had one strong candidate who individually got more votes (E.g. The democrats get 66% of the vote with the lead only getting 30% of the total votes. The republican party only has one good one that gets 32% because one candidate died and the other is revealed to be a pimp which should have been obvious from the start with his cane, purple suit, and attractive but bruised entourage).

    Interesting, it is certainly a complex problem to solve. My hope would be to abolish the two party system so that such a concern isn't valid.

2 Trackbacks

• Sep 19, 2012: Instapundit » Blog Archive » THERE’S NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED, except when I’m offended….
• Sep 19, 2012: Taking The Offense | Daily Pundit