Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Thank you Charlotte, for entering this note.  I was just going to enter
    on e on this subject, tho couldn't decide where to enter it.
    
    You are absolutely right.  This absolute absurdidity at its worst.  I
    am furious that the politicians take us for such fools that they
    honestly think we want to pass an amendment to the Constitution (for
    Cr*st sake!!!) on this stupidity!!!@!!!!!
    
    They are simple minded, obnoxious fools!!!!
    
    I have already checked what my two Senators think of this - they are
    opposed thank heavens, otherwise they'd be off my voting list come the
    next election.
    
    This will be an interesting issue to follow.  It will raise a lot of
    heat, a lot of strong opinion.  But I think it will be a great surprise
    to many of those politicos down there in D.C. that people DO NOT agree
    with what they're trying to do.  I do not bellieve in messing with the
    Bill of Rights on this silly triviality.  Get down to some REAL issues
    you politicians!!!!
    

    I caught the tail end of an interview with the senator who is trying to
    do this. I believe it is a modification to the 1st ammendment that is
    being pushed. I was horrified when I heard this. How else will they try
    to modify it in the future? Take away free speech, the right to
    assembly? Holy Horsehockey. I hope everyone will call their senators
    and reps and give a resounding NNNNOOOOO to this. I'm scared to death
    at the thought of what could happen and I agree that the burning of the
    flag is something that shouldn't be done in protest. If you don't like
    whats going on work to change it or leave. This scares the s*** out of
    me though.
    
    Phil

    re: .1
    
    � I am furious that the politicians take us for such fools that they
    � honestly think we want to pass an amendment to the Constitution. . . 
    � They are simple minded, obnoxious fools!!!!. . .I think it will be 
    � a great surprise to many of those politicos down there in D.C. that 
    � people DO NOT agree with what they're trying to do.  
    
    While I oppose a flag anti-defammation amendment, I can't really
    agree that those involved in the political process are "fools".
    And while I understand that many people don't want such an 
    amendment, I think there's ample evidence to suggest that many
    people, perhaps a majority, do.  I think that in this election
    year, few politicians are unaware of the possible impact that
    voting against such an amendment might have on their careers.
    I think that might make them any number of things, but foolish
    isn't one of them.
    
    Steve

    re -1 free speech is pretty much gone and following closely on its
    heels is your privacy, your freedom of religion and your protection 
    against unreasonable searches.  Laws are increasingly being forged
    and enforced by people you don't vote for, (the Supreme Court - all 
    judges at every level, actually), your police force has turned against
    you and now works for the local governments, (raising money), and NOT 
    for you or your protection.  And the government structuring of fines
    and fees, (in which you have no voice), is beginning to amount to
    little more than extortion.  Who you gonna call?!

    re: .4
    
    �  re -1 
    
    By "-1" did you intend to point to .3?
    
    � free speech is pretty much gone. . .
    
    Major disagreement here.  The way you phrase it, it sounds as 
    if there's little difference between this country and, say,
    North Korea or the People's Republic of China.
    
    � Laws are increasingly being forged and enforced by people you don't 
    � vote for, (the Supreme Court - all judges at every level, actually), 
    
    I don't buy this notion.  While it's clear to me that the judicial
    branch has a significant effect upon the law by their interpretations,
    the laws that they interpret are "forged" by a different segment
    of the government.
    
    � . . .your police force has turned against you and now works for the 
    � local governments, (raising money), and NOT for you or your protection.
    
    Would you care to elaborate on that?  It strikes me as an extremely
    generalized statement, but I may be misinterpreting it.
    
    � And the government structuring of fines and fees, (in which you have 
    � no voice), is beginning to amount to little more than extortion.  
    
    I suggest that few if any of us know what it's like to live in a
    society in which we truly have *no* voice.  
    
    Steve

    Well, the deal now, from what I've heard is going on in Louisiana,
    is that it won't be illegal to burn the flag, but the penalty for
    assaulting someone who is burning the flag will only be $25.  They
    interviewed some people on the street about this new proposed
    legislation, they thought the $25 fine was appropriate for the crime.
    
    Gee, I could get twice that for going 50 in the 40 zone.  Such is the
    sanctity of human life. 
    
    I could put in a comment regarding Louisiana's stand on the rights of
    unborn life vs. the rights they give born life....but I don't know if
    it's really worth it.   It doesn't seem like we're talking about
    rational people.
    
    Lisa

    I think the whole flag burning thing is outrageous.  It surprises
    me that politicians that are so rabidly anti-communist can turn
    around and do things as repressive as the countries they condemn.
    I want to make a bumper sticker that says:
    
    		Ideas Before Icons
    		Save the 1st Ammendment

    Anyone know how to make your own?
    	Linda

    
    My take on this thing: it seems our Washington legislators don't
    want to do any *real* work, such as finding a solution to a hard
    (and real!) problem such as the federal deficit.
    
    Nah, much easier to take a non-issue, make it into an issue with the
    media's help, and try to push through a simple 'solution'.

Sandy:

>                     <<< Note 203.4 by SPARKL::CICCOLINI >>>
>
> Laws are increasingly being forged and enforced by people you don't
> vote for, (the Supreme Court - all judges at every level, actually), ...

  Sorry, but it's not that way.  *YOU*, Sandy Ciccolini may not have
  voted for the current complement of the judiciary, but "you" in the
  general sense certainly did.  There was no doubt that the 1984 pres-
  idential election was going to set the course of the Supreme Court
  for the remainder of the Century, and so it did.  The same for the
  rest of the federal judiciary.  And I didn't see any effort to change
  that direction in the 1988 election, so the great unwashed obviously
  approves of the new direction or doesn't give two sh*ts either way.

                                   Atlant

    I absolutely agree that focusing attention on this issue
    takes legislators attention away from issues that I consider
    to be far more important and, to some degree, I think that
    some of those people feel it's an "easy" issue to deal
    with.
    
    On the other side of the coin, I wonder what you, as a 
    legislator up for re-election, would do when letters and
    calls by the thousand start to pour in urging you to support
    such a flag protection amendment.  What would you say to
    those about choose between voting for you or your opponent?  
    
    By the way, your opponent supports the amendment.
    
    Steve

    .8 hit it right on the nose.  
    
    Of more import to us all - spending dropped for the third month in a
    row nationwide.  Although using the R word seems to be met with 
    derision, this really is an indicator of a recession.  Do you suppose
    that this will be front page news?
    
    Something's wrong with the media.  They provide the soap-boxes.
    
    

    Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think that burning an American flag
    is an especially meaningful gesture of protest, I just think that
    amending the constitution to protect the "rights" of an inanimate
    object like a flag is silly, very silly.  I wish the elected officials,
    if they must amend the constitution, would do so in a meaningful way,
    not in order to make political hay with constituents who can't tell the
    symbol from what it symbolizes.  And I would rather they spend my tax
    money doing something real!  There are plenty of real, urgent problems
    around to be solved.  Flag-burning is NOT one of them!
    
    On the other hand, if I was feeling more cynical than usual, I might
    say that if these politicos are spending all their energy on this silly
    non-issue of non-importance, at least they aren't doing active harm to
    anything else.... though you could view it as an attack on the
    guarantee of free speech (and be right, too).
    
    But I am feeling angry instead of cynical.  I would rather have an
    amendment to make unconstitutional silly laws forbidding me to carry
    things over a certain weight, or to work more than a certain number of
    hours straight (which are still on the books in some places;
    Massachusetts, for all its faults, has a state ERA already) while not
    forbidding my husband, a tiny man several inches shorter than I am with
    a bad knee, who was on crutches up until a month or so ago, to do the
    same things.
    
    /Charlotte, again

    If I were a legislator faced with mail on this, I'd probably make
    up a form letter, and start it off with the quote about disagreeing
    with what you have to say, but defending your right to say it.
    Followed up with the quote that the purpose of government
    is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
    
    
    <set mode semi-sarcastic>
    And then blather about what current work I'm doing on issues *I*
    regard as important - like increasing government spending in our
    district. 
    
    Alison

    re .11-
    
    > Something's wrong with the media.  They provide the soap-boxes.
    
    Bingo!  The politians couldn't get away with so much demagoguery
    if the press didn't pander to them.  When is an investigative
    journalist going to really find out why the Justice Dept isn't
    going after the S&L crooks?  When is the corruption of the national
    legislature going to be hammered into the electorate?  Why is the
    4th Estate pandering to the entrenched elites?  They're going along 
    to get along.   This nonsensical flag amendment is typical.
    
    DougO

re Note 203.13 by FSHQA2::AWASKOM:

>     <set mode semi-sarcastic>
>     And then blather about what current work I'm doing on issues *I*
>     regard as important - like increasing government spending in our
>     district. 
  
        Your opponent would probably use an out-of-context quote
        from this letter, or a paraphrase, in a campaign ad. :-{

        "The Flag" is an incredibly emotional issue for many people. 
        As recent elections have demonstrated, the emotional issues
        are the ones that seem to motivate voters.  The "Bill of
        Rights" is more of an intellectual issue for many people
        (many wouldn't recognize the First Amendment if you showed it
        to them).

        Note that we celebrate "Flag Day" (which happens to be today;
        how convenient that the Supreme Court announced its decision
        the Monday before Flag Day!).  We don't celebrate "Bill of
        Rights Day" or "Freedom of Speech Day."  This year is the
        bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, and the only organization
        which seems to be celebrating it is a tobacco company (for
        possibly ulterior motives).

        Maybe I'm not a real, red-blooded American.  I probably would
        not get that upset if I saw somebody burning a flag in
        protest.  I would and do get VERY upset when I see an
        individual proposing to limit the First Amendment.  It is the
        latter that would offend me to the point that I would be
        tempted to assault the perpetrator.  To me, tampering with
        the Bill of Rights is very close to treason.

        Bob

        P.S. Real red-blooded Americans get angry when the right to
        own assault weapons is threatened.  Perhaps if I owned one of
        those, then I really would have the right to say anything I
        pleased! :-}

    re: .13 (Alison)
    
    � . . .the purpose of government is to protect the minority
    � from the tyranny of the majority.
    
    Now that's an interesting idea.  One question, though: what
    is government's role in representing the majority and protecting
    it from a tyranny of the minority?
    
    Steve

    a question........
    
    I understand what you are discussing but am puzzled as to how it
    relates to the title of this topic.
    
    		Holly
    		a puzzled Aussie
    

    re:.4
    
    	� Laws are increasingly being forged and enforced by
    	people you don't vote for, (the Supreme Court [...] �
    
    I disagree with the sentiment. The Supreme Court seems to me to
    have been (at least with most of its decisions in the last couple
    of decades, at least) quite fair and objective (much to the chagrin
    of the Executive Branch, too). With respect to the subject that
    prompted this topic, recall that the whole reason behind the
    legislators wanting to amend the Bill of Rights to outlaw flag-
    burning was *because* the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning
    was a freedom protected by the First Amendment.
    
    --- jerry

    A new discussion of the role and purpose of government has started in
    206....
    
    Please take further discussion on that topic there....
    
    -Jody
    

    re: .19 (Holly)
    
    I apologize for getting sidetracked (in .17) by an earlier
    comment.  I've created a new topic for a generalized 
    discussion on the role of government (206, thanks for the
    help, Jody).
    
    Steve