Thank you for the correction
It has been kindly pointed out to me that there is an error (in good faith, based on not checking the facts on another post and/or misreading the post) in my last post on flags. I feel obliged to correct this with another post, because I feel the content of my post still stands even after the factual error has been corrected.
Hillary Clinton did not participate in the attempt at adding a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution. She instead attempted to defuse it by proposing a non-amendment that very narrowly fit the Constitution as interpreted generally by the courts. Consequently, this paragraph,
Why would you celebrate a trait and praise Clinton for—-let’s face it—-pandering like any politician to a characteristic that allows people to be classified by how much they’re willing to suck up to the powerful? Because that’s what flags ultimately represent: they are symbols of the state. And who presently owns the state?
and this paragraph,
Yes, yes, national symbol, unifying (???) force, etc, etc, etc. After this campaign I’ve come to appreciate Hillary more than I used to (but that isn’t saying much about US politicians), and I developed no particular love for Obama by comparison. But a flag-burning amendment is pandering, is tantamount to burning the Constitution in its best and most vulnerable parts, and is above all in the service of the right.
should be corrected by saying that it was not a constitutional amendment, but a non-amendment. However, I do believe that the non-amendment, while it may have been in the "art of the possible" at the time, does not fix the real underlying problem, if indeed the US citizenry are so attached to their flags that it is possible to be politically vilified for supporting freedom of expression over state heraldry.
None of this actually bears on my original point, which stems directly from the Confluence post in question. There seems to be a general belief there that the defense of expression is an act of contempt for the masses. That's the only way I can interpret it.
This is further reflected in some commenters attitude towards Obama's church and Rev. Wright and Michelle Obama's alleged "chip" on her shoulder. Given that, I maintain everything I said about it. If people wish to focus on the factual error, which is a minor part of the piece, then there's not much I can do.