I've always thought of flag-burning as a fourth amendment issue, though no-one else seems to. In other words, if the flag is your personal property, you can burn it, and under the fourth amendment, the government is bound to respect personal property.

Unless you choose to burn it at a gasoline factory or something where the fire is a danger.

That's true LYT. But when in comes to mockery of symbols, flag-burning is as chiche'd as it is reliably provocative. It's like a lot of rebelious, teenage, you-have-to-love-me-even-though-I-maxed-your-Visacard-on-camping-gear behavior. Hatch is a dick for being precious about symbols, but flag burners are disingenuous in their surprise that symbols themselves have meaning to people.

Hatch is a dick for other reasons, too.

Amy: "You're Thomas Jefferson's worst nightmare."

Jefferson himself wasn't exactly a wet dream. From his "Notes on the State of Virginia":

"I advance it as a suspicion only, that the blacks whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstance, are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both body and mind... The unfortunate difference of color, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people."

LYT: "I've always thought of flag-burning as a fourth amendment issue"

The 4th amendment covers our right against unreasonable searches and seizures. An arrest for flag-burning (which is usually performed in a public place) could happen without a search or seizure of personal property.

Flag-burning is a little too Sproul Plaza for my tastes. I believe that Martha Stewart has advised people engaging in this vague and dramatic gesture to play Jimi Hendrix's version of the "Star-Spangled Banner" in the background. Bong hits are preferred to Chablis as an accompanying refreshment.

Lena's bottom line? "Burn, baby, burn. Disco Inferno!"

I find it wonderfully ironic that a person advocating First Amendment protections would prefer that Thomas Jefferson not express himself. There are powerful arguments visible to all that can be used to illustrate his point; not the least of these is that the American governmental system and rules of law are Western European, and have no contribution from other continents. Then, what are the crime rates for Asian-Americans, or any other "hyphenated" citizens?

Still, to address the issue: I regard flag-burning as mere rabble-rousing hate speech, right there with those wonderfully-civilized behaviors like bombing abortion clinics and throwing paint on fur coats.

There are legal avenues which these people won't use because it's not *easy*.

In short, those who burn a flag are hypocritical, professing to reject the American system of liberties and rights they enjoy.

I predict that shortly, someone will start calling our soldiers (you know, our neighbors and friends) "baby-killers" and such because the someone doesn't like what their boss is doing.

"...and perhaps of faculty..." is the operative phrase there, right? Hideous as it is, does it earn eternal banishment from Lena's Hoppin' Disco of respect? If all racist impulses were presented as "suspicion only," Earth would be paradise.

The Hitchens book speculates (apparently/haven't read it yet) that Jefferson fell head over heels for a black teenager, bought her a fortune's worth of frocks in Gay Paree, raised her children lovingly and fulfilled his promise that they live as free men.

When people are looking for a reason to be cruel to others, race is a popular choice. But it can't last, because there are stronger forces at work. Camelot mook Arthur Schlesinger Jr puts it like this: "Tension will be mitigated even more by intermarriage. Sex -- and love -- between people of different creeds and colors can probably be counted on to arrest the disuniting of America."

This will probably work for religious fanaticism, too. The State Department should have had Britney do a tour through Iraq before she got pregnant, just to get the footage on Al Jazeera... It would have done much to crank up the tensions between youthful westernization and aged theocracy in the Middle East, tensions which grind to our benefit. As do Britbrit's thighs.

Raddy: See Durbin, Dick. You need look no further than your own Senate.

Radwaste: "I find it wonderfully ironic that a person advocating First Amendment protections would prefer that Thomas Jefferson not express himself."

2 questions:

Where exactly did I express a preference that Jefferson not express himself?

How does the statement, "the American governmental system and rules of law are Western European" support a claim that blacks are inferior to whites?

Because I wouldn't burn a flag doesn't mean I wouldn't defend everyone else's right to do so -- under the First Amendment -- or to speak their mind, no matter how ugly. What you can't do is incite riots -- but if you stand for free speech, there's no editing allowed.

See Lebowitz, Fran...on genocide and snowflakes.

"Tension will be mitigated even more by intermarriage. Sex -- and love -- [...] can probably be counted on to arrest the disuniting of America.""

Arthur "Summer of Love" Schlesinger is going to have to learn to live with some very tenacious tension: The U.S. Census shows that whites marry whites about 97% of the time, blacks marry blacks 93% of the time, and Asians marry Asians 70% of the time.

By the way, Crid, the "Britney Does Iraq" tour is a brilliant idea.

And thanks for the link to Lena's Hoppin' Disco of Respect. Hans Haacke once wrote in Art Forum, "the Mudd Club set pursues politics with the zeal of a panty raid." He meant it to be a scathing criticism, but for me it was a great source of pride!

And now we have blogs. Activism sans body fluids.

I know the fourth amendment deals with searches and seizures. But the full text of it also says that the government must respect an individual's property, which is the basis for then stating there shall be no unlawful searches and seizures.

Lyt, below is the "full text" of the 4th amendment. Where does it say anything about the gov't respecting anyone's property? (I'm beginning to sound like a clerk for Scalia!)

"Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Right now I'm thinking of the contexts in which flags are usually burned (eg, political rallies), and I just don't see how it applies. Because the burning is right out there in the open, no search is necessary, and the flag (or its ashes) doesn't need to be seized.

Please elaborate!

Re: "Where exactly did I express a preference that Jefferson not express himself?"

By suggesting that his commentary and influence are undesirable.

"How does the statement, 'the American governmental system and rules of law are Western European' support a claim that blacks are inferior to whites?"

Every culture that attempts to adapt to existence in the US must deal with this one, living here, and there is no cultural background and/or history to help them. As a group, African-Americans have the toughest time as indicated by crime rates of all kinds. Illiteracy and illegitimacy is highest among blacks *even where blacks are the civic leaders and school administrators.* Can you suggest a metric - of any kind - that shows there is equality of *performance* between peoples of different ethnic backgrounds? I think not - and not just because of the correct emphasis that all men are equal before the law. Amy, quite correctly, is amazed that anyone could be surprised by the news that men and women are different. Differences show up *everywhere* artificial "rules" are absent.

Where does the assumption that your property is yours come from? Western Europe. Everything was the property of a king, and then this was evolved to make every man a king. This evolution was not performed anywhere else. You need only observe the numerous kleptocracies around the world to see that; of course, many people are busy making excuses about that. It's pretty simple, really: the only governmental system that lets you burn a flag is the one you have the very least reason to overthrow for any reason. Though it is not popular - and getting less so every day - the US is the only place you may speak of individual rights being superior to powers of the State(nation); this is the principle I push every day. Discrimination occurs on an individual basis, whether you are sizing up a friend or enfranchising a voter, and so the individual must be assessed independently of origin.

By the way, the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on government, not on the people, and "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" neatly answers your question of LYT.

cannit rad. this law is a smarmy emotional ploy along the lines of requiring children to pledge allegiance. "but he voted against banning flag burning! he must be a terrorist!"
flag burning should be as legal as lighting fire to anything in public is. bibles, korans, debbie harry records...

sorry, don't cannit. temporary loss of control.

Re: "Where exactly did I express a preference that Jefferson not express himself?

By suggesting that his commentary and influence are undesirable."

If I wanted to silence his commentary and influence, I wouldn't have quoted him as carefully as I did.

As for the other stuff, well, it's late right now and I'm trying to wind down. I'll be back tomorrow.

Kittie- I draw the line at Debbie Harry records- Island of Lost Souls and Maria are staples in my library....

"If I wanted to silence his commentary and influence, I wouldn't have quoted him as carefully as I did."

I apologize.

I am alert to fallacies, and so didn't notice your care. It remains that the great part of America was bettered by his participation. JFK was said to have commented on this at a White House dinner for Nobel Prize winners - that "this is the greatest collection of minds to dine here since Jefferson ate alone" - or some such.

Anyway - to discredit an idea because the speaker is diliked for some other idea is just bad logic. There are those who must note that Mr. Clinton was a skilled political operative even as they detested his person.

About the law, though: I am tired of people clamoring for laws to protect them from being offended. It's always a bad idea, because it sets a precedent that can be used against anyone. California is full of such laws, at odds with its reputation as a state of "freedom".

I don't see why they have to ammend anything. Every little town in every little state probably already has a law against starting fires in a public place. So all we need is a little police action. When they see someone light up a flag they come in and put it out and haul the idiot off to jail. He's not going to jail for burning a flag, but for acting in a risky or negligent manner. A few punchs to the ribs and the stomach on the way to the big house, and a cozy sell with bubba might further deter such behavior.

Radwaste you putz. I forget, is Jefferson the one who had over a dozen interracial kids with one of his slaves?
You sound like you swallowed the Moynihan report through your ass.
And Clinton is a 'skilled political operative'? On what, inactivity? Rent Hotel Rwanda, or read a book, until then shush.
And if you want to use statistics, use them correctly. African Americans aren't the ones filling the prisons- we're the ones on tv every time we get arrested. In actuality, Native Americans have the highest in prison body count to date.
And California is one of the most racist states in the country, where are you getting this 'free' shit?

In my opinion, burn a flag, don't burn a flag, I'm not going to, but it's up to you. I think it has as much effect as those nuts who burned Harry Potter books as 'evil'. I mean you still have to buy the damn thing don't you? Unless you steal it, but we all know that there's a big ole law against that. ^.~

Oh and Raddy, whites have almost the same illiteracy rates as blacks and Hawaiians have the highest literacy rates in the nation. Aloha!
And get off your big word wave, this is a blog not the BBC.

Does "President of the United States" mean politically unskilled? No.
Use statistics correctly? Better YOU should visit the Bureau of Crime Statistics Web page.
Sorry, Lia. I'll use smaller words for you so you don't have problems.