Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Neocons and Flag Desecration

I see that Jules Crittenden and Donald Douglas think it's cool to desecrate the United States flag as long as it's used as a bikini on a hot babe. I suppose it's another instance of neocons making their own rules. The US Flag Code has different rules. According to paragraph 8, section D: "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery." I don't believe any exception is made for super-nationalist chickenhawks.

Once again, they show their true colors. These people have no regard for true patriotism. They use the flag, the men and women in the military and anything else they get their blood stained hands on, only to suit their own purposes, including the young woman tragically killed in Iran.

6 comments:

  1. Are you just making a comment about their hypocrisy... or do you really feel it is desecration, regardless?.
    Just asking.
    I wouldn't take that code seriously, but I grant that it's not my flag to say either way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm leaning toward the hypocrisy. But, it does bother me that we've established rules to follow for how we treat our flag and yet routinely ignore them. I hate to imbue what is only a piece of cloth with too much meaning, at the risk of becoming overly nationalistic myself.

    It seems that those who flaunt their supposed patriotism are the ones most likely to abuse that symbol. It always bothered me to see the small handout flags laying on the ground like so much litter after our Memorial Day and July 4th festivities, too.

    I guess the answer is both. My military service was pretty non-eventful. But, I can see where those who were in combat would use the flag as a symbol of what they were fighting for. So, for them it should be treated with respect.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's an interesting answer.

    When 9-11 happened a lot of young people here wore the stars and stripes as bandannas for weeks.
    Your flag has connotations of rock n roll and youthful freedom for us.

    I'm not aware of any prohibitions about how ours is used but people do get very worked up about it, usually in association with war, which bothers me. There has been consideration to changing it too, because it contains the Union Jack which is now irrelevant, and has the 'wrong' colors. One suggestion was that we have no flag at all, which would be a statement in itself.
    I rather liked that idea.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would like to be able to look at the US as an ex-pat. It would be nice to be able to stand outside and watch. I like the idea of no flag, it has kind of a John Lennon "imagine" feel to it. It's hard to conceive of a nation going without one, though. The idea goes back to the Roman standards (or further, I suppose) and risking everything for its safe return. We certainly get worked up over our flag anyway.

    Not knowing much of Australian history, I presume it had a more amicable split from Britain since it retained the union jack.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah... I think you're right. As I understand it Gaius Marius introduced the idea of gold eagle standards during the late pre-empire, which would be the rallying point for legions and for which they'd stop at nothing to avoid losing. Later there were also standards that bore the emperor's image and which he had touched, which were also sacred. This is probably where a lot of the militant traditions regarding flags come from.

    Re your question: The colonies became states that signed into federation in 1901. There was no conflict. Technically we're still a constitutional monarchy and Elizabeth II is our head of state. It's only a matter of time before we become a republic though and the flag will probably change then. Unfortunately the notion of not having a flag probably won't be carried through.

    People still need symbols.

    I'd change tack slightly here and say a lot of the ideology that we both despise is an exercise in ethically barren intellectual symbolism.
    When someone like Hannity says "freedom", he doesn't mean freedom at all. He's referencing a myth of what he thinks America is.
    Now... he's light beer, but the likes of AmPow are full-on moonshine. It's this quest on the part of 'bad' conservatism to own the language - and backfill it with a bucketload of preferential notions of polity - that I find singularly disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you for the response, QuietMagpie. What I ever knew of the Roman Empire, I've mostly forgotten. Someday I hope to have the time to recover it.

    ReplyDelete