Inappropriate Content: On the Flag

So, like a phoenix from the ashes—or, more accurately, like Freddie and Jason—the Flag Burning Amendment is back.

In a statement that would strike Jason Voorhees himself as ghoulish, California Republican Duke Cunningham said, "Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment." This comment prompted Andrew Sullivan to ask "Can these people sink any lower?" and then answer himself, "Hell, yes."

But even worse than the congressmen who are actively trying to destroy freedom in this country are the good men and women who are doing nothing to stop them. Hillary Clinton's sound bite reminds us that, "As I have said in the past, I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer."

Riiight. Normally, I'm not that upset when politicians tack to the center; that sort of pressure helps keep our government in check. But this is not social security or even abortion. This is a plain and simple assault on freedom.

Random Fate:

I only have time to write this one thing: This goes to show that at least 286 Congressmen do not understand the fundamental principles that motivated the First Amendment and the structure of Constitution itself, or if they do understand the principles, they abandon them to pander to the extremists.

This is beyond stupid.

This is beyond partisan politics.

This is attacking the foundation of our freedoms.

And Peter David:

I mean, this concept should be elementary. This should be American Citizenship 101...You can't burn the flag of the United States by burning a representation of it any more than you can burn the Declaration of Independence by burning a copy of it.

You can, however, incinerate the concept of freedom of speech in this country by making a constitutional amendment banning a form of expression for the worst possible reason: It upsets people. No other reason. No one's reputation stands to be defamed, no money lost. No child's delicate mind is going to be threatened from the sight. No panics from "fire" falsely cried in a crowded theater (indeed, nowadays the major challenge is finding a theater that's crowded.) There's no cover here. It's naked censorship, a throttling of free expression by the very governmental body that's sworn to protect it.

All true. But it gets worse:

I got a call from the elementary school administrative assistant this morning.

"Mrs. Jaworski?" I could hear her tapping a pencil against the desk.

"Uh yes, and it's Ms., please."

"Your son, 8, has been suspended for the day. Come here and pick him up."

She didn't give me time to answer, to ask questions, her voice disappeared as if someone cut the line. I stood in the kitchen, my bare feet aching from yesterday's marathon, and I took a deep breath. My son can be a nut at times, but he's never done the kinds of things that troubled kids do. He doesn't talk back, he doesn't pick fights, and he's never destroyed property. I couldn't picture him doing anything scholastically evil. Maybe he stripped and ran around the school naked, I thought. I grabbed my keys and headed out the door.

The principal met me in her office. She closed the door tightly behind me and invited me to sit in a stuffed orange vinyl chair.

"Mrs. Jaworski, 8 has been suspended from school for one day." She wore an arctic blue power jacket over black slacks, and I self-consciously tried to pull my hooded sweatshirt further over my pink pajamas.

"It's Ms., please. And sorry for my attire, but I ran a marathon yesterday and I'm too sore to change this morning." I tried to infect her with my smile, but she wore a tight-lipped expression as frosty as her jacket. "So, anyway. What did he do?" I picked at the hem of my sweatshirt, looked just to the right of her face. I couldn't meet her eyes. I felt nervous. I felt underdressed. I wondered where 8 was.

So she told me what he did. And as she told me, I started to laugh. I didn't laugh a little, either, but I belly-laughed and grabbed my stomach. My son stood with his class this morning, put small right hand over heart, faced the American flag, and recited his own personal pledge of allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Federation of Planets, and to the galaxy for which it stands, one universe, under everybody, with liberty and justice for all species.

"Mrs. Jaworski. This isn't humorous. The Pledge is an extremely important and patriotic moment each morning in the classroom. I am ashamed of your son's behavior, and I hope you are, too."

So, from the highest levels to the lowest, federal government: bat-shit insane.

The story above has a happy ending, sorta. The more his mother thought about it, the angrier she became, and went back in to take it up with the principal and the teacher. They let the son off with a warning; apparently the only reason the kid got in trouble in the first place is that a parent complained—the boys classmates very maturely didn't give a shit.

The story of the Flag Burning Amendment, on the other hand, is not over. A San Francisco-based Democratic strategist (and we all know what I think of them) named Chris Lehane is quoted as saying, "Democrats ought not put themselves in a position of fighting symbolic fights that are meaningless."

Meaningless, of course, unless you like your first amendment rights. In keeping with the spirit of the little boy who pledged allegiance to the Federation, let's remember what Captain Picard had to say about personal freedom: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."