Burn the Flag, Go to Jail!

Do you agree, America?

This question predates Facebook, or even the internet, and yet it still pops up on a far to regular basis.  The underlying presumption would seem to be that the flag of the United States of America is to be elevated to an equal status with the deity of one's choosing and treated with similar if not in fact greater respect.  Anyone who disagrees is at best sub-human, bent on removing God, Motherhood, and fluffy bunnies from the universe.

The flag of the United States, or any other country, is just a symbol.

So, to answer the question: Regrettably, no. The strength of the American flag is its ability to endure any desecration, degradation, or denunciation and continue to fly proudly in defiance, affirming all that is right with the idea that is the United States of America. If it cannot survive unless coddled like a hothouse flower, then it has no power or meaning at all.

If you choose to answer the question in the affirmative I respect your feelings while refusing to support them.  Let me ask:  Do you share the same respect and deference for the flags of other nations, and what those flags mean to the people who by birth or choice live under them?  If not, then I submit you suffer from a bit of a hypocrisy problem.

Establishing a Partial Baseline for 2017 - Disagree With Civility and I Will Always Welcome Your Disagreement

The following is from a conversation I initiated on Facebook January 22:

Original Comment: I remain optimistic that the new President will be able to shake things up in Washington and change "the way it's always been" there for the better. However, the way he comports and expresses himself leads me to the inescapable conclusion that somehow Xxx Xxxxxx has managed to occupy the Oval Office.

Rejoinder: If you think " shake things up" means destroying the progress made toward slowing climate change, removing health care for more than 20 million Americans, preventing women from getting proper advice and help during or before pregnancy, or alienating the U.S. from the international community, then I think you need to study these and other issues more carefully. We are all in this together;it's how we get there that matters.

Response: Respectfully, Sir, I firmly believe that despite the many reservations I have regarding President Trump he is far better for the long-term well being of our country than the alternative choice in November would have been. 

I have now awakened on two consecutive mornings following the inauguration to discover the oceans have not risen, the young and elderly have not all died, all women have not become pregnant and subsequently killed by their undesired parasites, we have not gone to war with anyone, and in the bonus round we aren't even speaking Russian. There is far more Chicken Little than substance so far to the shrill hysteria of the Opposition.

Climate change is unquestionably real. It has been taking place for billions of years before humanity stepped on stage and will undoubtedly continue long after we are gone. Climate change is not exclusively human caused, and no scientist can honestly ascribe a value between zero and one hundred percent that defines what our contribution to the current phenomenon might be. No amount of consensus will change that.

Regarding health care, the "removing health care for more than 20 million" scare relies on the assumption that nothing will be put in place to cover any repeals of the ACA which may take place. Heck the argument even conveniently ignores the false assumption that "health insurance" equates to "health care". There are many who are now insured but can not afford to use that insurance because of the mushrooming premiums, deductibles and co-pays that are a hallmark of the misnamed "Affordable" Care Act. Also, prior to implementation of the ACA and continuing through this very day it is against the law for any hospital to turn away an individual presenting themselves for care regardless of their ability to pay. It is an inefficient and needlessly cost inflated means of delivering health care, but the care is in fact available. Even without insurance.

Regarding women getting proper advice and help during or before pregnancy, I submit that such is in fact available without the intervention of the government. If one is unable to afford a condom, or incapable of insisting upon its proper use, then perhaps both individuals involved should not be engaging in sexual intercourse. Treat our citizens like irresponsible children incapable of making even the most basic decisions for themselves and you will indeed have the country of irresponsible children we find ourselves with today. Demand personal accountability from each and every citizen and it will not be necessary to assume that every failure to attain equality of outcome is someone else's fault.

The jury is still out on international relations, and I will wait to see how things develop rather than render a proactive judgment regarding results not yet in evidence. I will say though that if entities such as Iran, ISIS, and North Korea don't like the way we are treating them then my feelings will not be even a tiny bit hurt. And I certainly will not be at all apologetic over restrengthening ties with old and valued allies such as Israel.

I conclude, Sir, the way I began, earnestly and in all seriousness respectfully. I have given far more consideration to the issues you raise and many others than you appear to credit me with. My conclusions are far more considered than "Barry Bad - Donny Good!!" I firmly believe that the path we as a nation have been on for much longer than the past eight years is inadvisable and unsustainable, and that supporting the Democrat vision of the future would have brought about complete disaster sooner rather than later. I am far from totally sanguine about the map for the road ahead or our currently selected pilot. I do believe, though, that we stand a much better chance for a positive and prosperous future on our current path than on the road not taken in November.

Is This An Unbiased Survey?

I took a survey over the weekend. The further along I got in it, the more disturbed I became by the underlying assumptions that seemed to have been made.

My responses are posted below, but if you are so inclined you may take the survey as well first so your answers are not influenced by what you might read further down:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JPBHPP2

I would certainly be curious to hear comments from those who take the survey - or simply from those who read my responses and simply feel like beating me up! :-)

“Rich and Poor Survey”

1. A person of middle-class passes by a homeless man. Should the cause of the man losing his money (job-loss due to recession vs. gambling) influence the decision for the middle-class person to spare some change for the man?

Yes
No

Why?
The decision to aid should be based upon need, not the cause of that need. Also, how many people are going to get involved in an extended discussion to determine how the homeless man came to be in his circumstances?

2. The government is considering to pass a law obligating households of middle-class and higher to pay a tax to assist people in the lower class. Do you agree or disagree with passing this law?

Agree
Disagree

Why?
Redistribution of wealth does nothing to ameliorate the plight of the less well off, and punishing success does not encourage others to strive for success in their own right.

3. Would a person of higher-class be more responsible for providing charity for the poor than a person of middle-class?

Yes
No

Why?
Charity is a matter of conscience, not class. Having more perhaps permits one to give more but certainly does not obligate that increased giving.

4. Would a higher-class person with inherited money have more responsibility to give charity to the poor than a higher-class person that has earned their fortune with hard work?

Yes
No

Why?
Of course not. How one's resources are obtained does not dictate how those resources should be deployed. To carry the question to a ridiculous extreme, is the lower-class person who benefited from charity more obligated to share their resources than an equally resourced lower class person who has obtained their money without the generosity of others?

5. Does the rich give or take from society?

Give
Take

Why?
It is trite, but true: wealthy people employ people, poor people do not.


6. What is the purpose of charity?

In my never to be confused with humble opinion, charity should first be a private concern and not a function of any government. Charity should strive to help those who are incapable of helping themselves and stabilize the condition of those who need a hand getting back on heir feet becoming self sufficient once again. In no case should charity ever enable the recipient to feel comfortable or complacent in their poverty.

7. Is universal equality ideal? Why or why not?

Universal equality is the worst possible thing that could ever happen to any society. When all are absolutely equal there is nothing to strive for, no reason to better oneself or one's position. Such a society would inevitably find itself in a downward spiral toward extinction.

8. Should we focus on non-financial aid more than financial aid? Why or why not?

Aid should be given in whatever manner most effectively accomplishes the aims of helping the helpless or aiding those who can become productive once again but need a hand in overcoming their present circumstances.

9. Should the rich give to the poor? Why or why not?

What is the imperative behind the "should" in this question? If the assumption is that simply having resources obligates one to share those resources then the answer is absolutely not. If, however, the questioner is posing the question based upon the assumption that a society comprised of productive achievers functions to the ever increasing benefit of rich and poor alike then by all means the rich should give to the poor. Not due to any moral or societal obligation but because it is in their own self interest to do so, with a by product being that it benefits not only the recipient of the charity given but other members of society as well.

So That's My Problem

In a March 27, 2010 opinion piece in The New York Times, Frank Rich goes to great lengths of hyperbole to take some completely gratuitous cheap shots at Karl Rove, John Boehner, and others.

Frank's Momma should have also taught him that even more important than not being a sore loser is to not be a sore winner. Grace and dignity will win you far more cosmic brownie points in the long run. Though if that is a lesson he and his ilk refuse to take to heart, I'm okay with that.

Mr. Rich did, however point out one little fact in his essay that until now I was completely unaware of. He notes, "The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from."

All along I've been thinking it was the shredding of the Constitution, the Federal Government takeover of private institutions and constraint of freedoms, and the economic policies that leave us the option of experiencing bankruptcy as a nation either in either the near future or even sooner than that with which I disagreed.

Instead, it seems I'm just a garden variety Racist Sexist Homophobe (who also happens to believe in God and owns a gun, can't forget that!). So much simpler than actually having to waste cognitive effort on coming up with reasons for disagreeing with those in control.

I do have one question for you, Mr. Rich. If your thesis is accurate then why do I also feel the same way about Harry Reid and his policies as I do about Pelosi, Obama et al.? As the slam dunk winner of The Whitest Boy in America Pageant, I should be calling him up and asking if he'd like to chug a few brewskies with me at the next NASCAR event. Shouldn't I?

Email to the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America

The Speaker of the House has her (his, too, when it is a man?) web site, in addition to her congressional web page. I have taken advantage of the Speaker's page to contact her, as it invites me to do. I have done so fully understanding that she is no doubt disinclined to respond in any event, but also aware of the admonition from her district web site that ". . . the rules of Congressional courtesy prevent Representative Pelosi from replying to emails if she cannot determine that you are a constituent,. . .".


Speaker,

It is no longer surprising, yet continues to be distressing, that you seem compulsively incapable of opening your mouth without uttering a misrepresentation of fact. Your complete lack of honor and integrity diminishes you as a human being and arguably disqualifies you for the office you hold. More importantly, your actions demean that office in a way that is unfair to your predecessors and those who will follow after.

One more recent example of your non-existent ethics:

(http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/pelosi_breaks_pledge_to_put_he.asp)On September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that she was "absolutely" committed to putting the text of the final House bill online for 72 hours before the House votes:

TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?

PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.

But tonight, when asked if Speaker Pelosi will leave the bill online for 72 hours after we see what's in the rule, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: "No; [the] pledge was to have manager’s amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that."

Apparently Pelosi's agreement to leave the "final" bill online "at the very end" of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge.