Why Burning the Flag Matters

[MineralMan]

[hobbit709]

1. Why I think this is more important than a piece of cloth.

[MineralMan]

5. Which of the people in my photos

are not part of the 99%, do you suppose?

[LaydeeBug]

8. That has nothing to do with the fact that the US Constitution protects this, even though you may not

like it. What's the ONLY proper way to dispose of an American Flag?

Look it up and then please stop this divisive nonsense.

[MineralMan]

20. Of course the Constitution protects it.

I did not say it didn't. You assume too much. Is it always a good idea? I suspect the 99%ers depicted in my photos would probably tell you that it was a bad idea in this case. If OWS represents the 99%, then it deserves some though, don't you think. The flag is a symbol, not of our current government, but of an idea. Burning it doesn't help a cause that is supposed to be for the 99%. See the photos I posted. Who in those photos is not part of the 99%?

[LaydeeBug]

88. It is ALWAYS a good idea to protect the US Constitution. Yes. nt

[MineralMan]

89. Yes, it is. Right now, I'm exercising my First Amendment rights.

I'm sure you are fully in support of those rights. So, I'll just continue to do that, if you don't mind.

[LaydeeBug]

133. Oh, I don't mind at all...you don't mind MY exercising the same right? Right?

Right.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

106. could you point me to where in the US Constitution it says that you can burn somebody elses flag? nt

[LaydeeBug]

132. Could you please point out to me where it is someone ELSE'S flag we're talking about?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

135. And the people who protect the constitution

fly the flag to show which side they're on.

[metalbot]

116. The US constitution protects lots of things

It would be perfectly within my First Amendment rights to go to the mall this weekend, go up to a teenage girl, and tell her that she's just about the ugliest girl I've ever seen.

The fact that I have a "right" to do it doesn't make it "right".

[LaydeeBug]

134. People can burn the flag for a LOT of reasons...especially, retiring it, calling for distress, etc

and The Constitution protects it whether YOU like it or not.

It is always a good idea to protect the US Constitution, Many in my family have served up to and including their lives protecting it, so you'll forgive me if you think imposing some impetus on its freedom, including burning it in dissent, is a bit untoward, to say the least.

[ProSense]

12. Actually,

that's just a "damn piece of paper."

People burning the Constitution (or books) would also be symbolic.

When people in other countries burn the U.S. flag, it symbolizes something. When some U.S. troops flushed the Koran, that was symbolic. If Americans started burning the flags of other countries, it would be symbolic. When the Iraqi journalist hurled a shoe at Bush, that was symbolic (had to add that).

I will never understand the logic behind rejecting symbolism.

[renie408]

35. Actually, the words you used to write that post are just symbols...

Yeah, me either.

And I don't think I have seen ANYBODY argue that they didn't have the right to burn A flag...just maybe not THAT flag (it wasn't theirs to burn). I have the RIGHT to paint my house chartreuse with neon pink shutters...that doesn't mean its a good idea.

[patrice]

60. It isn't necessary to reject symbols to be honest about what they truly are and HOW they work.

That understanding gives you more power over the effects of symbols. That power can be used to construct or destruct the symbol, to make choices about symbols, rather than to be blindly subject to them, oppressed by the fact that we mistake the symbol for the thing itself and, thus, do harm in the name of the symbol only, harm that damages what the symbol ONLY represents.

[demosincebirth]

2. It's a symbol of our Country, right or wrong. nt

[patrice]

44. Symbols are not the same thing as that which they represent, e.g. 2 is not the same thing as I I or

or two of anything, because it's a symbol and symbols are arbitrary, they function only because we agree that they do, there's nothing NECESSARY in the relationships between the symbol itself and what it ONLY stands for.

[demosincebirth]

71. Semantics.

[patrice]

73. Uh . . . anything to do with ANY kinds of words IS semantics. Is your reference to this negative?

If so, you need to consider swearing off of using words.

[patrice]

75. There is a related term "semiotics" that has to do with the meaning of symbols.

Semantics and semiotics BOTH have to do with meaning and meaning is why we use words and symbols, but the meanings of our words and our symbols are not the same thing as those things to which those meanings ONLY refer.

B - l - a - c - k means a lot of different things, one of which is, lacking hue and brightness; absorbing light without reflecting any of the rays composing it, but lacking hue and brightness; absorbing light without reflecting any of the rays composing it is NOT the same thing as the phenomena of blackness itself, the meaning only refers to that experience.

It's the same with all semantics and semiotics.

[Lionessa]

3. Couldn't disagree more. It's just fabric, so long as one is burning one's own flag, doesn't matter.

True patriotism and memorial do not require symbols.

[patrice]

46. Right on, Lioness, you LIVE it. That doing does not require a symbol. It IS the embodiment of truth.

[baldguy]

4. If you honor what the Flag represents, you must accept that some will wish to destroy it.

And that doesn't make them your enemy.

Sadly, too many can't see this self-evident truth.

[MineralMan]

7. Yes, of course. It is our right to burn the flag.

If it meant nothing, people wouldn't treat it as important.

Again, which of the people in the photos I posted are not part of the 99%. Do you want them to join the movement? If so, burning the flag is probably not how to do that.

[baldguy]

19. Sorry, how is the guy who burned the flag in Oakland *NOT* part of the 99%?

Maybe more people need to really understand the difference between America and a mere symbol of America.

[MineralMan]

26. I did not say he wasn't. I'm sure he is.

So are all the people in the photos, including the dead ones and their families. Do you not want them to join the movement? Do you reject them because they think the symbolism of the flag is important? Think about it.

[baldguy]

37. If they think a bit of cloth is more important than the future of America, then no.

Last edited Tue Jan 31, 2012, 06:58 PM - Edit history (1)

If they're so easily distracted by inconsequential things, they wouldn't be much of an asset anyway.

Remember, the GOP just loves the politics of division. They'll make a huge issue of any flag that gets burned - just so they can get gullible people NOT TO THINK about WHY someone's burning it.

I'm more upset when I see a US Flag which has been made in China. And you should be too.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. This reminds me of the constant brainwashing I received as a kid

They pretty much forced us to say the pledge of allegiance at my school. America is pure awesomeness and can do no wrong...and don't forget to salute the flag and pledge allegiance.

Brainwashing indeed.

[MineralMan]

10. Look at the people in the photos. Which are not part of the 99%, do you think?

Does burning the flag help get those people on your side or not? That's the question. Symbols are important to many people, like it or not. The 99% will not join you if you insult what they think is important.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. so are you going to tell us why it matters?

[MineralMan]

14. Sure. All of the people in those photos, and even the

dead ones, are part of the 99%. Is that so hard to understand? Insult what they think is important, and you lose them. Is the Occupy movement not about the 99%? If so, it should attract, not repel them.

How's that?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

29. It's a good start, but you're omitting details. Back when you were a bigwig at Free Republic,

you were against anything "disrespectful" being done with the flag. If it's used as a tool of disrespect, the action gets a "sharp rebuke" from you. This is a little different from what you're stating here, no?

So of course I found it curious that you're a new Democrat who feels comfortable in both speaking for "the 99%" and also rebuking them in the same breath, as an erstwhile supporter of George W Bush. I'm really glad you're in the tent with me now though; I think you made a good move.

[Kaleko]

68. MineralMan was a bigwig at Free Republic?

A recent convert after being an avid Bush supporter on that site?

If true, it would explain a lot about what's going on here.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

74. I think he's genuinely a Democrat

But yes, he used to post at Free Republic as MineralMan. At the old DU2, the information was in his signature line.

[MineralMan]

79. Nope. A lifelong Democrat and progressive.

I was in Birmingham in 1965 when Dr. King spoke after crossing the Edmund Pettus bridge. I was at the Pentagon, demonstrating against the Vietnam War. I know who I am. I am who I say I am. You're welcome to read my almost 40,000 posts here on DU, if you wish. You can also probably find all of my posts on Free Republic, where I defended science and opposed bigotry. I left Free Republic in 2006, and was banned there. Six years ago.

Have a nice day.

[MineralMan]

78. I was never anything at Free Republic but someone

who defended science and opposed bigotry. I left that site in 2006, was banned, and have not been back. I've never been a "Freeper," and have always presented my self just as I am. The folks at Old Elm Tree seem to enjoy spreading the meme that I was a Freeper. It's simply not true.

But, you managed to bring it up once again. Someday, folks will get tired of six year old nonsense, I assume.

Have a nice day.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

93. were you, or weren't you registered at FreeRepublic as MineralMan?

There was a user at FR called MineralMan. At DU2, you used to have a tag line that made reference to it, if I recall correctly. So yes, you were a member of Free Republic. So far as I know, being a member of the site confers "Freeper" status. I don't know--maybe I'm mistaken. Are there members of FR who are not considered "Freepers"? If so, maybe that's you.

Nonetheless, you were apparently a liberal in the 60's, participating in Civil Rights movement events and marches. Then something happened, and you went to Free Republic. You were at Free Republic during the years when we at DU were foursquare against the Bush Administration. Something made you go from civil rights marches to one of the cruelest, mean-spirited, and dumbest pro-Bush/pro-Republican sites on the Internet. And you were an active poster.

I'll give you this much--you didn't seem to stray into politics too much while on the site. You seemed to be more about reminding people of rules, letting them know when they were being illogical, and so on. You did, however, also engage in gay bashing, Kerry bashing, and Hillary Clinton bashing. Then you got banned, for whatever reason. And now you're here. So to hear that you're a lifelong liberal just doesn't ring true to my ears. How is it that you've been a liberal all your life, but you were a member of FR in good standing for so many years? Were you just pulling a fast one on them? I'm genuinely curious about the path that took you from civil rights to the Republican party of GW Bush and now back to the Democratic fold.

thank you.

[MineralMan]

96. What does that matter to you? Yes, I was a member there, using the same name I use on

all political forums. You seem to think you know a lot about my time there. Why is that, I wonder?

I did not bash gays. I did not bash Kerry. I did not bash Hillary. I did exactly what I said I did. I defended science, and posted against bigotry.

I am who I am. I am who I have always been. While posting on Free Republic I was still exactly who I am. What did I do there? I got dozens of the worst bigots and cretins banned from that site. I held solidly against bigotry and supported science. I was an atheist there, as I have been since 1965. I even had that in my signature line there, and took the same position I still take regarding religion and religious freedom. I also worked quietly to provoke people into behavior that got them banned at that site. I was acting as a provocateur and disrupter at that site. I was very successful at that.

I was the same person I am here. I have always been the same person. I do not represent myself in any other way.

You're bringing this all up for some reason, but I must confess I can't imagine what it might be. I will continue to be the person I am, right here on DU. I'm completely transparent. My real name is at the links in my signature line, as is information about what I do for a living and what I do politically. There are no secrets. Why do you suppose I'm still MineralMan? That's my political persona on all the forums I've posted on. I have nothing to hide.

You think you're exposing me? That's silly. I'm not hiding. You can see my words in any of the 40,000 posts I've made on DU since 2008. I'm consistent, and honest with my posts, as I have always been. What I have never been is a Republican. I have never voted for a Republican candidate for anything. Rather, I've been working for Democratic candidates and Democratic politics continuously since 1960, when I was still in High School.

You're wasting your time with this. You can go search for MineralMan on FR. They still have all of my old posts. I don't care. You can read all of my posts here, as well. Same guy. Same politics. I will not discuss any of this further with you. My record is public. Go dig, if you like. But, do your own research. Don't rely on the folks at Old Elm Tree. They have so many wrong things about me over there. Once, they even though I was someone else, and I had to email the owner of that site to let them know that they had the wrong person. There are several people who use the name MineralMan. Only one of them is me. Do your own homework. I am exactly who I say I am.

Have a nice evening, whoever you are. You see, I have no idea who you are. Who I am is an open book. Read away.

[randome]

100. Kudos.

[lonestarnot]

113. Rugh Ro. You supported bushitler over there for whatever reason?

OMG

[ellisonz]

117. Leave him alone...

...I'm much more concerned with those here who think they should use their host powers to silence dissent than I am with having someone like MineralMan at DU.

I am also an open book.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

118. What does it matter to me? Where shall I begin?

First, I have no idea about the Old Elm Tree that you've mentioned a couple of times. But yes, I do know how to do my own research. Specifically, I know how to enter the following (without the quotes) in a Google search: "site:freerepublic.com mineralman". I'm using Google, not this elm tree site.

Why does it matter to me? Just look at what you've said yourself in the very post I'm responding to: "I also worked quietly to provoke people into behavior that got them banned at that site. I was acting as a provocateur and disrupter at that site. I was very successful at that."

What does this tell a logically-thinking person? You were a provocateur, a disrupter. You're saying that you basically lived a lie at Free Republic. I realize we're deep into alert territory, so let me explicitly say that I'm not calling you a liar. I'm saying that you, by your own admission, lied to the fine dolts at FR about who you were, what you were about--it's built into the definition of the agent provocateur. Bravo, by the way.

In that same statement, you said, "I also worked quietly to provoke people into behavior that got them banned at that site." This is the same sort of thing you like to do here. I'm not making an accusation; I'm talking about some of the aforementioned 40,000 posts, in which you like to talk about which thread you would have pulled had you been on the jury, and which decisions you thought were good, bad, and so on. That's your right, but you clearly have a head for the rules, and you clearly like to be in the thick of things. You're one of the de facto leaders here, to the extent that there are any non-owner leaders here, and you're aware of that. You like to be in the game, you like to be all over the rules. And this is the same thing you said of your FR experience. You also displayed it in a great many of your posts there. You have

Logically speaking, we know you misrepresented yourself at one of the two websites. For my part, I actually do believe you were just fucking with the freepers. I primarily believe this because I did read a lot of your posts there, and you mostly just seemed to schoolmarm them, correct people, remind them of the proper forum in which to post items, and so on. I'm kind of surprised that they didn't get you before they did. But please understand that thinking people at this site, with an innate distrust of Free Republic and its denizens, have ample reason to approach this sort of thing with caution, especially given your zeal to have the chance to run some of the machinery. I believe that on more than one occasion, I've read your posts warning of trolls, sock puppets, and the like. So no, I don't apologize for checking, and I never would have had you not made the information public (in your old DU2 tag line). I hope you do have an understanding of why this matters to me, even if you don't care for the interrogatory. Whether you believe it or not, I do appreciate you taking the time to fill me in on details.

Finally, maybe you were just playing a role for the simian crowd over there, but yeah, you did some bashing.

In a FR thread called Gay America Finds Its Place in Nashville, you posted:
Man, now we're going to start getting C&W covers of show tunes. I can see it all now, and it's frightening. Dolly Parton Sings Favorites from Sound of Music
…and then you added
I forgot some of the titles, though:

"My Hills are Alive (with the sound of music)
"How Do You Solve A Problem with Vaginas?
"You're a Dear, A Female Deer"
"You are Sixteen, I'm a Lesbian"

Like that.
URL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587032/posts


In a thread titled Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Privately Owned Dragon Skin Body Armor, you said:
There's something about this that doesn't sound right. Unless I see the orders, I'm not going to accept this as fact. It's all hearsay and second or third hand. I will consider this a non-story until the orders are produced, in writing.
…and then you said
Yeah. Nobody's identified. Nobody knows who said what, when. If orders were issued, let's see them.
After all, Hillary's saying about the same thing. I don't believe her, either.
URL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558527/posts


In a thread titled Whittington Back in ICU (after Vice President Cheney got drunk and shot his brother-in-law in the face with a shotgun), you said:
Man, I hope he doesn't die. The press would have a field day. Even if it wasn't due to the shotgun pellets, it would be a circus.
…and then you said:
"No reasonable person is going to hold this tragic accident against Dick Chaney if Whittington dies." I didn't mention reasonable people, though. Just the press.

In a thread titled Want Some of Those Purple Heart Band-Aids?, you said:
Bub? Whatever. Yes, the issue is Kerry's record. It is not about the Purple Heart medal. So, let's discuss his record. Let's not cheapen the medal by using it in this way. There are other ways to make the point, as the Swift Boat Vets are doing. We do not have to lower ourselves to cheap shots.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1203791/posts
Note: you were defending John Kerry to these people, but in so doing, you recommended the tactics being employed by the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”. As you must know, this is an organization that was built on lies in order to discredit John Kerry.

Thank you.

[sabrina 1]

123. Wow, supporting the Swift Boaters??

It's hard to find the words. They were the most vile, ugly liars ever to involve themselves in politics and their goal was vile, to turn a Democratic War Hero into a coward. In my wildest dreams I cannot imagine ever, ever supporting anything they ever did, proven liars although way too late to undo the damage they did to the Democratic nominee.

And all this while most of us were desperately trying to fight their vicious attacks on Kerry. A lot becomes clear from all of this.

[Kaleko]

129. Not just supporting the Swift Boaters years ago,

but using their tactics right here to promote the same arch-conservative ideas. Only the targets have changed; the game of isolating and eliminating certain posters on message boards stays the same throughout the years.

For those who are outraged by such observations, please take up the challenge MineralMan issued in several posts above and do a little research into his posting history. That will make a number of things abundantly clear. For a very fine lesson in how to subtly and stealthily influence group behavior, you might want to click here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8555649#8561248

[Bluenorthwest]

139. From your journal...

"I apologize abjectly.
I did write that, although not in those exact words. I was very wrong to do so, and it is not true. What I wrote was based on incorrect information. I no longer believe that in any way. After writing that, a number of years ago, I learned the actual facts of the matter. I learned that there is no connection between orientation and the likelihood that someone is likely to desire sex with underaged people.

Knowing that, I'm ashamed that I once thought otherwise, and wrote what I wrote. Since the time I wrote that, I've gotten a thorough education on the subject, thanks to some very kind LGBT people I've met. I was wrong. I am very sorry that I ever said such a thing. Since I learned the truth, I have come a long way in my understanding of LGBT issues. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=231858

[MineralMan]

140. Yes, I apologized for that. My apology was sincere.

I'm confused, though, as to why you posted this in a thread from January. It won't bump it to the top any longer, and the thread is almost 10 months old.

My journal is open, and you can reference it any time. That post will remain near the top of it, since that is my intention for it to remain at the top.

I found your post in the My Posts list and could not see an reason for it, given the age of the thread. I am not your enemy, nor am I the enemy of any LGBT people. On the contrary, what I learned since 2004, when that old Free Republic post was written, has had a great impact on me. I'm now active in support of marriage equality and LGBT rights in general, and that support is public and vocal. You can click the link to my precinct website to see a public statement about marriage equality. It is also part of the platform introduced in my precinct caucus and ratified by our DFL state convention. People change when they learn things. I did. I will continue to change based on what I learn. I hope always to do that.

I'm puzzled by this post of yours in this old thread, that's all.

[Enrique]

15. +1

I agree, the pictures don't answer the question in the OP.

[gratuitous]

16. A lot of people you don't know are standing up for some reason

Isn't that enough for you, you dirty fucking hippie? 99%!

Q to the E to the motherfuckin' D!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

30. I knew I should have taken more Latin. ;) n/t

[HopeHoops]

11. I still think it was a staged infiltration.

[patrice]

38. Extremely probable. There is authentic hatred for the Occupy.

And they are easy to disrupt.

[HopeHoops]

45. A couple of things in particular make it distinctive...

1) only the "flag burners" are wearing masks.
2) the guy holding the "Occupy Oakland" sign moves around to position himself between the cameras and the flag.
3) no police until there's a good show.
4) everyone quietly disperses just because they were told to go away.
5) the cop stomps on the flag, which I personally find far worse than burning it.
6) the people cheering it on were in close proximity to the cameraman (not of the still, the video) and you could hear muffled voices further away telling him to stop.

Regardless of the truth behind what happened, the ones in the masks did steal the flag and destroy it and should be charged appropriately. It doesn't matter what side they were on, those were the only two crimes - theft and destruction of property.

The whole thing stinks of a staged event.

[patrice]

48. We had some crap wearing masks go down in our Occupy. POWER tripping stupid stuff.

They are "gone" now, but some of us have good reason to think they were being paid in various ways.

Some mask wearers and a certain well-connected supporter were particularly interested in one de facto "leader" who was trying to talk to unions.

[HopeHoops]

49. If you'll notice, the people getting pepper sprayed and arrested don't wear masks.

Well, other than the one guy in the Guy Fawkes mask.

[patrice]

55. I haven't been big on masks from the start. You want to deal with me? Face to face is the way I do

things. And that goes for sometimes-wearers too. How am I to know, when you are sans mask, that that isn't your mask too? How am I to know, when you're wearing your mask whether the meme I'm hearing is consistent with any other meme you might propagate at any other time that you are wearing your mask?

Yes, people lie even when they never wear masks, but the probability of being able to recognize lies is higher under that condition than it is when his/her identity is hidden.

Personally, I believe that the "anonymous" mask behaviors are an empty meme. 0. What one does or says under this condition at one moment can be negated whenever by doing/saying the opposite, an affirmation of a meme + a negation of that same meme = 0 AND that equation can be manifested by the same mask-wearer, or any combination of mask-wearers.

I call bullshit!

........................................

P.S. rhetorical "you", of course.

[HopeHoops]

57. Okay, you obviously typed that quickly. Bullshit on me or bullshit on the flag burning?

(Slow down a little - I'm getting older)

[patrice]

63. SORRY!! Bullshit on masks.

And I'm being lazy, using "you" only in the general rhetorical sense, not in reference to you you.

[HopeHoops]

64. Okay, well the Guy Fawkes mask I can understand. Bandanas, no.

It's like Cheech said in "Born in East L.A." - "No, mahn, you look like you gonna rob a 7-11."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain

"Flags are bits of colored cloth that governments use first to shrink-wrap people's brains and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead." Arundhati Roy

[MineralMan]

17. Nice. Now, which of the people in the photos I posted are not

part of the 99%? Can you tell me that? Are they not the very people OWS claims to be supporting?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Are the people in the photos all of the 99%?

Is the 99% a homogenous group of conformists?

I think not.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Nice thread MineralMan

Recommended

[SomethingFishy]

21. Yeah.. respect the flag...

http://images.styleceo.com/all-american-flag-boxer-briefs-for-men-14490908








I have 3 folded flags on my mantel. Given to me at 3 grave sites. Each one representing a man who died in service to his country.

I am not going to get all upset about someone burning it, I find that no more disrespectful than someone using it as UNDERWEAR.

[baldguy]

42. Missed the obvious one.

[lonestarnot]

114. Snort ROFLMAO

I always have the same reaction when I see that.

[stevenleser]

119. Now that REALLY wasn't necessary.

[RC]

21. What you have are pictures of Nationalism.

“A patriot sets himself apart in his own country under his own flag, sneers at other nations and keeps an army of uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people’s countries and keep them from grabbing slices of his. In the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for ‘the universal brotherhood of man’ - with his mouth.”

Mark Twain, The Lowest Animal

na·tion·al·ism n.
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of a particular nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination. na “tion·al·ist n. na ”tion·al·is“tic adj. na ”tion·al·is“ti·cal·ly adv.

[NNN0LHI]

28. You think Nationalism is the reason I saved the flag that was draped over my late fathers casket?

The one that was folded by a Marine, a Sailor and an Infantryman on that cold winter morning at the cemetery and then handed to my mother.

Nationalism?

Really?

Don

[RC]

43. Huh?

What doe nationalism have to do with saving the flag from your father's funeral?

My brother has the flag from our fathers funeral. I have other mementos.

[Stuckinthebush]

27. I must have missed the mass flag burnings lately

while I was waging war on Christmas.

Much ado about nothing if you ask me. I'm not that into nationalism so I don't care if someone wants to burn the flag.

Hey, here is a quick question: Would burning a copy of the constitution be as offensive to you?

[TlalocW]

31. I'm sorry...

Have the skies become so black with the smoke of flaming symbols of our country that flag burning is topical again?

Here are the facts of the matter:
1. Yes, it's protected free speech
2. It's excessively rare. How many American flags have you seen burned (by Americans) in the 20 years when politicians were first making a mountain out of this molehill?
3. It's rare and will always be rare because
a. potential flag-burners know that they run the risk of getting their asses kicked by some Bubba for doing it. We are neither suffering a shortage of flags nor Bubbas.
b. most protesters know that doing so would take away any sympathy toward their cause.

Has there been a flag-burning in the news I've missed?

TlalocW

[stevenleser]

120. Apparently some occupiers,or people pretending to be occupiers, broke into city hall & burned a flag

I agree with your 3b.

"most protesters know that doing so would take away any sympathy toward their cause."

I think that is Mineralman's point too.

[patrice]

32. Allowing one's self to be oppressed by one's symbols, whether your symbol is pro- or anti- burning,

is the opposite of what that flag stands for, the FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE that the flag ONLY represents. The flag and what it represents are NOT identical, flag =/= people. We could have every kind of respect for a flag that it is possible to have and it would still also be possible to be an enslaved people; the experiences that respect for that flag would represent would be the people's experience, lives of living oppression.

That said, an authentically free people would also know that freedom does not DEPEND upon anything, including whether a flag is burnt or not. Burning it doesn't necessarily mean that you are free. Not burning it doesn't necessarily mean that you are not free. Freedom is a necessary, though not sufficient condition, for either act.

[redqueen]

33. This seems to explain in a funny way why burning the flag is such a bad PR move.

[Electric Monk]

47. Awesome. I hadn't seen that before. Thanks for sharing. nt

[Bonobo]

34. Ewwwwwwww.

Just wanted to post my first reaction while it was fresh.

Just so you know.

[Bonobo]

36. So no country should burn any flag nor ANYTHING that SOMEONE holds sacred.

all symbols as long as SOMEONE devotes RITUAL ATTENTION to them, should remain inviolate.

Gotcha.

[renie408]

39. The First Amendment gives you the right to burn a flag, not steal one.

Period. Full stop. The end.

I don't think anybody on the DU would argue with anyone's right to express themselves in any legal manner they wish to employ, up to and including burning the American flag. There might be some intelligent discussion on whether it is a smart thing to do. Might be, but won't because everybody seems like they have to be so crazy one sided about this thing.

However, no one can argue that people have the right to steal, vandalize or trespass to express themselves. Because if OWS has that right, then so does the Tea Party. And I really don't want them to be able to do that stuff.

[MadHound]

40. Wow, putting a symbol ahead of the values and ideas that it stands for.

Making a cult, a fetish out of the flag, that is what is done in the hypernationalist circles.

What makes this country great is that we can indeed express ourselves in almost any way imaginable, so long as it doesn't cause harm to others. This includes burning the flag. That you are putting symbol ahead of substance says a lot about you, none of it good.

[FarCenter]

41. Burning the flag is speech. Who is the audience? What is the flag burner saying to them?

[riverwalker]

50. What did it accomplish?

If I'm supposed to look at it as a "courageous revolutionary act of defiance" (of which flag burning is now just another symbol)........give me a break, anyone with a book of matches is now a "revolutionary"...

[patrice]

70. Precisely!

[TahitiNut]

51. Clue: Burning is the legally prescribed method for disposing of a flag ...

... that's been soiled, tattered, or otherwise desecrated. YOU shit on it and I'LL burn it. Simple.

[baldguy]

53. It could be argued that the Flag from Oakland City Hall was desecrated by Mayor Quan

When she ordered (allowed?) the police to deny the OWS protestors their First Amendment rights.

[TahitiNut]

109. Bingo.

[kctim]

52. Well MineralMan, at least you tried

Apparently the 1% who support and protest with the occupy groups don't need any more support.

[Angry Dragon]

54. Tell us why it matters.............

[Cali_Democrat]

58. Because the children pledge allegiance to it

[Bonobo]

67. And just how fucked up is it to force children to pledge their allegiance to a flag!

Man, just THINK for a minute.

That is some really fucked up stuff.

[renie408]

92. You really are just totally immune to sarcasm, aren't you? n/t

[Bonobo]

95. No, I got that that was sarcasm, thank you. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

56. yes, it's an important symbol. But part of the problem w/ the human animal is our difficulty

in distinguishing the extremely effective and potent symbolic web with which we construct and define our reality, and the reality itself.

You don't have to look too far to see examples, all over the place- of people confusing the menu with the meal, the map with the territory. We live on a planet where a large # of people think it's perfectly rational to stage violent murderous riots over cartoons they deem offensive, of all things.

What this is, is a 'teachable moment'- not to the people who "need to respect my feelings about what is sacred" (although destroying someone else's property is a different story) so much as it is to the people who need to understand that it's okay to have symbols and totems and whatnot which you consider important, but the whole world isn't going to necessarily always agree, and you need to remember that 'important' is an internal, subjective opinion or judgment.

Getting people to consider the difference between their symbols and the things or ideas they represent isn't such a bad idea, at this juncture in human history- language and symbolic representation have brought us far; but we need to be aware of the constraints and limitations imposed by such a system, or set of tools, even as we plumb the depth of its usefulness.

This is not to say I think flag-burning is a good idea. But people need to remember that a flag is a symbol, and nothing more.

[patrice]

72. Dr. Chomsky, is that you?

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Yes

Gnome Chomsky, that's me.

[drokhole]

86. Holy shit, this!

You had me at "the map is not the territory." I came across Korzybski by way of Robert Anton Wilson, and have had the message crystallized thanks to Alan Watts and Aldous Huxley. You wrote/covered everything that came to my mind. And what you cover is really the fundamental (and overlooked) issue of the entire matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002247884

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Wilson got me into Korzybski, too.

I probably owe that entire post to those guys.

[drokhole]

94. And you articulated it brilliantly.

I owe the fact that I grokked your post to those guys.

Not sure if you're aware, and kind of off topic, but boingboing just finished a pretty stellar RAW appreciation/remembrance week (that extended into the greater part of a month):

http://boingboing.net/tag/raw-week

[morningfog]

59. Exactly why it matters. And why burning it should always be protected.

Because it is so venerated as a symbol of this country, we have the protected right to express ourselves by burning that symbol.

[KamaAina]

61. That's why I don't burn flags.

However, for me to try and stop someone else from doing so would be downright... un-American: precisely the sort of thing the flag stands in opposition to.

[msongs]

62. America Love it or Leave it syndrome, flag division. More idolatry on display nt

[justiceischeap]

65. The bigger point: Those that burned the flag do not represent the majority of OWS

And I think the majority of people realize that. The people who will be bothered by this, probably wouldn't support OWS anyway.

When police brutality at these OWS events is reported, many are quick to say, don't paint ALL police with the brutality broad brush; the majority of police do good. I see it time and again. Well, the majority of OWS participants aren't burning flags, or being destructive in any way.

[whatchamacallit]

66. Emotional poppycock

Let's not use any issue we can find to derail a vital movement.

[cthulu2016]

69. Depending on the phrasing I may or may not agree

These photos are indeed Why Burning the Flag Matters. If the flag was not a powerful symbol there wouldn't be much point in burning it, would there?

If the OP is meant to say, "Here is why burning the flag is bad politics" that's true enough. It is egregious politics.

Perhaps the OP means, "Here is why we must burn the flag" because people idolize it and that irrational love of the flag is symbolic of a nasty authroitaraian bent in American life.

I'd agree with any of those. Burning the flag is potent, it is terrible politics, and it should be done as often as possible... unless one is trying to be political, in which case it's a terrible idea.

[REP]

76. J-I-N-G-O Jingo!

Ever occur that maybe, just maybe that included in defending America and the Constitution and all that is defending the First Amendment? The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone against being offended. Post all the children, graves and elderly veterans that can found with an image search - maybe throw in some sad-eyed puppies and freshly-baked apple pies for good measure - and burning the flag will still be protected speech. Some might even say protected speech worth fighting and dying for.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

77. Thank you

...from a guy who doesn't always see eye-to-eye with you. I find myself happy to see a point of agreement.

Thank you.

[marmar]

80. Great post.

[deutsey]

112. Agree

[marmar]

82. Nobody is dishonoring them by burning the flag......

...... If anything, they're exercising the freedoms they were fighting for. (Or at least the freedoms their leaders claimed they were fighting for).

[mike_c]

83. think I'm gonna go home and burn a flag or two tonight....

I mean, COME ON. There are lots of things we need to work on in this country that really do matter, but flag burning isn't one of them. This is one of the most pathetic attempts to smear OWS that I've seen yet. Next up-- let's condemn them for JAY WALKING! Or TALKING OUT OF TURN! Or simply for consuming oxygen that might be better spent on a millionaire's children.

The one percent uses all kinds of issues to divide us. Flag burning, huh? Sheesh.

[rustydog]

85. The flag is a symbol period. I leave symbols to the symbol-minded (george carlin)

If you allow your undies to get in a bunch because someone burned the flag, that is your right.
Just as it is the flag-burner's right (free speech) to burn the flag.

The hardest part of free speech and our "freedoms" is defending the ones that offend the hell out of us, but they MUST be defended.

[sibelian]

87. When the symbol becomes more important than the thing it's symbolising...

It has stopped being a symbol and has become a fetish.

[dana_b]

102. I agree. I posted this in another thread and found it

to be insightful. It's from one of the interfaith protestor/leaders who was locked up for over 50 hours:

On Jan 31, 11:30 am, Sri Louise <[e-mail]> wrote:
hello all,

i am too tired having been held hostage for the last 50 hours under
florescent lights, sleep deprived in a an air-conditioned room going cold
to share my coat with others so that they could feel warmth...
...
please do not talk about gandhi or satyagraha until i actually see those
talking about it dare to confront the system in the way that gandhi and his movement did....
where is our moral courage? not morality. i do want our classist, religious
morality. i am asking where is our moral courage?
... i was in detention for 54 hours, effectively disappeared.
where is your outrage? we have a new national defense bill that could make this more
common place than it already is and what we continue to focus on is always some
minuscule vandalism? really people? ... are still going to go on about this?
the only life i known is one in which capitalism has destroyed everything i
hold as dear, just and beautiful. look around. look at the mountain tops,
at the forests, at our oceans, our air, we live in a disappearing world. do
not stand idley by while they allow life form and your civil liberties to
become extinct.
extinct! not broken windows or some bullshit graffiti, EXTINCT. we are
talking about a climate change that is already too far gone for us to
reverse it. we will inevitably lose entire nation states. islands, their
culture and their people will vanish...when are we going to get out of our
privileged denial; we are in catastrophic times...hello?
the suffering of the world is unbearable and we are going to go on about a
fucking burnt flag in city hall after they illegally kettle hundreds of
protesters, make illegal arrests, hold these people in hand cuffs for 6
hours, detain them without charge or booking so their name, their very
being is denied by system for 48 hours? torture them in custody, deny them
a phone call for 36 hours...the stories that continue to emerge will make
you shake your head and heart in such deep despair.
i successfully carried an orchid the entire day yesterday...it was ripped
out of my hands by the OPD for no reason other than they cannot stand to
see me in my beautiful defiance...luckily an angle, a comrade, someone who
many of you want to dismiss as violent or separate yourself from, this very
same person, the one i call my guardian angel pulled me from behind. that
person risked arrest so that the police were not able to grab me and beat
the shit out of me as they did molly, so if anyone wants to talk about violence
or property destruction, can you please start talking about that?
i am ever more committed to occupy oakland and do you know why? those
people who you dismiss, who you turn your nose down at are the very same
people who spent 24 hours outside of santa rita cheering their comrades as
they walked out. there was a huge buffet of food and beverages and they
made sure that everyone had a ride home. those "anarchists" and diversity of
tactic folks, who everyone dismisses, could really teach the interfaith
group a lot about love, brotherhood and community...
in prayer,
sri

[Bluenorthwest]

90. It is fitting and proper to dispose of a flag using fire. That is the way it is done.

So the action itself, required in proper flag handling, is not some awful thing. In protest, it says that this flag is dishonored and in need of proper disposal, a powerful statement.
In the weeks following 9-11-2001, the streets of Los Angeles, the gutters were filled with flags of all sizes, which were discarded or which fell off the cars from which they were displayed with jingoistic abandon. This OP, in the way it exploits the flag and the respect show it by others reminds me of the gutter flags and the freeway flags and the trash can flags.

[Skwid]

110. Our neighbor has a terribly weatherbeaten old flag hanging over his front porch. It needs to be

disposed of. I don't have any special reverence for a piece of cloth but I do think if someone is going to make a public display of it, they at least ought to do it properly...this one has been up 24/7/365 for about 4 years now. These are the same people who have Jesus this and Jesus that all over their bumpers and mistreat their animals. Vile knuckledraggers is the only descriptive I can think of.

[ZombieHorde]

97. You're right. Social movements need to consider the sensibilities of others,

no matter how silly those sensibilities may seem.

[MineralMan]

98. It depends on what their goals are, really.

If their goals are to build a movement that attracts large numbers of people, then considering the sensibilities of those they want to attract is important. If that's not a goal, then it doesn't matter. My assumption with an organization that claims to represent 99% of the people is that they want to attract people from that 99%. So, probably the sensibilities of a large part of that 99% are probably fairly important. I don't know, though, what they are really trying to do, to tell you the truth.

I've been to the Minnesota Occupy gatherings several times. Lots of good energy there. It would be a pity if a small percentage of that group kept the bulk of the 99% away. They're on to a good thing, if they can keep it and keep growing.

But, it's caucus time, now, and the election is coming up. I'll be working in that arena for the next several months. Our DFL precinct caucuses are next Tuesday. It all begins now, and doesn't end until November. Lots of work to do.

[ZombieHorde]

99. I hope you succeed. Republicans are lame. nt

[Bonobo]

101. Spin. Spinning. Spinnerific! nt

[MineralMan]

105. The only spinning I do is fishing.

And I enjoy doing that very much.

[Bonobo]

108. Don't be so modest.

Pretending now that this OP was about people's reaction to the action of burning the flag instead of about the pseudo-religious ritual attention nonsense that posted about is a very clever and smooth job of spinning.

You went from a schmaltzy and pathetic Lee Greenwood "love it or leave it" kind of a feeling to a more pragmatic-seeming argument after you saw how badly your initial offering flopped.

I applaud you.

[Puglover]

128. You noticed that too.

Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Subtle but not that subtle.

edit:correct typo

[joshcryer]

107. Civil disobedience is rarely pragmatic, you're arguing for them to "be pragmatic" and somehow...

...oust people who randomly come and go as they please and act autonomously. It's a sort of new purity test where if you don't behave a certain way you're not allowed to call yourself an Occupier. Yeah, that's one way to "build a movement."

[Taverner]

103. Awwww how cute! Are there puppies???

[joshcryer]

104. This is really why not owning the flag burning matters.

Every single time someone perpetuates the meme that it was agents, they are diminishing the act of free speech, and acting as if the flag is a sacred cow. It's not. And some of those people in those pictures actually made sure of that.

[Logical]

115. My dad, a WWII vet, said that he fought for people to have the right to burn the flag if they....

felt this country was letting them down. I agree with my dad.

[Bonobo]

121. "Shit on the Constitution, just don't burn my flag!"

If there were such an animal, that would be the mating cry of the yellow-bellied freep.

[stevenleser]

122. It's amazing how many of you missed MineralMan's point and created all kinds of strawmen

Let's run down the points and strawmen

#1 - MineralMan never opined either way whether the burning of the flag was legal or Constitutional

#2 - MineralMan never opined either way whether it was a potent statement to burn the flag

His point, which seemed obvious to me, was that burning the flag in protest pisses off a large amount of people in this country. Too many for a movement that is competing for the country's hearts and minds. I've spent a fair amount of time on several occasions with those occupying Wall Street. Occupiers are smart folks. None of the folks I spoke with would have been dumb enough to do this. Its unfortunate that a small number of idiots decided on their own to do something that could give the movement a black eye across a broad swath of this country. It's a potentially devastating blow.

We can talk until we are blue in the face about what we believe people SHOULD think about burning the flag. The fact is all of us here on DU would be in violent agreement on that. That isnt the point. The point is regardless of what think other people SHOULD think about it, most of them DON'T THINK THAT WAY.

A movement, even one that is as right as OWS is, can destroy its effectiveness with boneheaded PR mistakes.

Now, was that really that difficult?

[EFerrari]

126. No, the larger point is people can be manipulated by images, including the ones in the OP.

And since we don't know what happened yet, it's too early to claim OWS made any bonehead mistakes.

[Kaleko]

127. What's really amazing is how you could have missed

the fact that you are dishing out backhanded insults to a majority of posters on this thread by suggesting they don't realize that the OP is a dog whistle intended to stir up misplaced outrage against the entire OWS movement.

And then you top it off with, "Now, was that really that difficult?", which is the height of condescension in an altogether self-aggrandizing demonstration of one-upmanship.

[Taverner]

130. What I saw in those pictures was flag fetishism and blind devotion

Same thing I see at a Christian Rock concert, or at Mecca

Not something I feel very good about, btw

[Kaleko]

131. Hey, but you're supposed to be brow-beaten

by patriotic fervor and thereby rendered devotedly numb.

That's the purpose of the OP.

[T S Justly]

124. : )

[donheld]

125. Oh please.

get a grip.