You've probably seen the reports: some companies don't want their employees to display flags on the desks or on company vehicles. In a couple of cases, students were told to stop displaying flags. Things like that.

The defense that they typically use is either that (a), it might offend some people (especially foreigners) and (b) especially in the case of journalists, it might create the impression that you are part of the government.

The first is silly. IF these foreigners don't like the flag, or think that America is evil, why'd they move here in the first place? "Live and let live" works *BOTH* ways: I'll fly my flag, you choose not to, and each agrees to respect the opinions of the other.

If you CAN'T respect my opinion and my right to free expression, then you aren't much of an American.

(I have always been fascinated at the sheer hypocrisy of the Leftists, who claim to support free expression, but who, in fact, are some of the most totalitarian censors known to man, because they are opposed to the expression of ideas and the use of symbols that are contrary to what they believe.)

(B) troubles me more. It's a shame that more Americans don't fly the flag; it *IS* mostly flown at public buildings. As a result, some people have gotten the idea that the flag *represents* the Government, when in fact, it represents the NATION. The nation and its people.

By their logic, when our Olympic atheletes win a gold medal and our flag and national anthem are used, they are "agents" of the government. No, they're not: they are representatives of the American People (and the best of us at that) -- a fine, but critical distinction.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

Answers

It's chic to be anti. Always has been among the lazy of mind. Cheap way to get out front without doing the work of thinking things through.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

And you know, like flags are jingoistic and, even worse, they're just not cool.

Good points Stephen.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

Last week I was asked "Hey, where did you get those flags, I can't find one anywhere?"

Ummm, I already had them.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

[As a result, some people have gotten the idea that the flag *represents* the Government, when in fact, it represents the NATION.]

Here we go again. I tried to draw this same distinction when the Washington Post stated that the Bush tax cut "deprived *the nation* of billions of dollars". And sure enough, Anita simply couldn't see the point. For those whose viewpoint is shaped by the likes of the Post, there simply is no distinction between the nation and the government. As though those *paying* the taxes are being deprived of nothing at all, not being part of the government.

As for the Post being an agent of the government, that's a tough question...

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

Flint,

I think Anita's point was that the entity spending the money has a negligible impact upon the economy. That is, whether the govt spends the money after collecting taxes, or you/the-nation spends/saves the money after receiving a refund, the effect on the macro-economy is a wash. No one would argue that the benefits accruing from the spending might differ depending upon who spends the money.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

A:

OK, you've got me confused. If the spender makes no difference, what real distinction is there between capitalism where private individuals make the spending decisions, and communist states where the government makes all such decisions? After all, it's spent either way, right?

Yet the impact on the macro economy is huge. In a nutshell, the difference is in efficiency of resource allocation. The Bureau of Mines has had no mission for over 100 years, yet continues to draw its yearly allocation of millions of dollars, spent to do NOTHING! Yes, they are an extreme example, but the principle of efficiency still prevails.

Now, whether the initial tax refund is large enough to have macroeconomic impact, this seems rather doubtful. It's a drop in the bucket -- but not so small that the Washington Post doesn't bewail the "loss to the nation". The effect may not be large, but it is not a wash. Instead, we as a nation GAINED thereby, where the Post sees a loss. This distinction, both in the economy and (more important) in point of view, is critical.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

A few years ago at a baseball game I saluted the flag during the opening ceremonies. A bunch of people looked at me weird, but that is what I have done for decades. It always takes me back to the finale retreat of Basic Training when I got a lump in my throat and felt overwhelming pride in being in the service of my country.

Since I became a civilian again I have been struck by the lack of outward show of respect for the the flag and patriotism. My parents always flew their flag on the appropriate days. I didn't have one to hang outdoors I'm sorry to say.

I was sad to realize that most pole don't even know there are a set of rules to follow in displaying the flag. I watched "The View" were they had to tell the rules and explain the etiquette. Such as not wearing a flag as a headscarf.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

I was sad to realize that most pole don't even know there are a set of rules to follow in displaying the flag. I watched "The View" were they had to tell the rules and explain the etiquette. Such as not wearing a flag as a headscarf.

Yes it is sad. Thing is, no one is taught such things anymore unless they are in the military. Why do you think that is true?

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Cherri,

Didn't someone post a link here to a flag "how-to" site? Might be a good idea for someone to re-post it.

The most common mistake I see made by people who do fly the flag is placing it in the improper position with respect to other banners (such as a state flag or corporate insignia). But I'm so glad to see them flying it, I don't complain. :)

I was a Boy Scout just long enough to figure out that I wasn't the outdoorsy type.[g] But I still remember how to fly the flag, when it should and should not be flown, things like that.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

While there are rules and regulations concerning flying the flag, recent court cases (I believe) changed the rules. For example, it used to be unlawful to put the American flag on clothing, but it is now permitted. Also, I believe a person can no longer be prosecuted for wearing a flag scarf on their head either. No, I can't cite the cases.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Flag etiquette --

http://www.usflag.org/flag.etiquette.html

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Thanks for the link.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

ABC: I appreciate the defense on my behalf, but you were incorrect in your assumptions.

*I* purport that 1.5 trillion dollars are scheduled to leave government funds in the next 10 years. These monies are expected to be paid to the taxpayers who paid into the system. Flint LIKES this idea, as he feels he's over-taxed. I DON'T like the idea because the remaining funds of the government left little "wiggle room" for emergencies, and we've just learned we had absolutely NOTHING in reserve for the emergency situation we just had.

So what do we do? Well, it's apparent that we "borrow." Borrowing [in this instance] means that not only will we not be lowering the debt currently owed, but incurring more debt and paying more interest on that debt. Maybe this is how Flint enjoys his current lifestyle, but it sure as hell isn't how I enjoy mine.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

I'm sure this won't advance the discussion or win me friends, but what the hell...

I don't get this flag waving business. Fly it if ya want. No problem. Enjoy. Invest emotion into it. It's a ritual, a tradition. Go for it.

But any given flag IS just a piece of cloth or nylon or whatever yours is made of. I'm not and have never been moved to salute it or sing to it. Just doesn't elicit pride in country within me. No tears well up at the sight of it. I love this country and the life I'm allowed (more often than not) to live. Cloth and strategically placed dye don't get my boat afloatin'.

The general manager of the company I worked for in VA demanded the flags of Virginia and the U.S. be put up and taken down each day. He had a tall flag poll installed out front of the building. The newest hire was given the 'honor' of flag duty. It was rookie hazing of a gentle nature.

Now this MFer wanted the flags flown for business reasons. So that HIS company would look patriotic in the eyes of the community. None of the workers gave a rats ass whether they flew or not. Nobody wanted that duty. I asked each person at various times during my employment in case inquiring minds want to know.

I guess I just don't buy into symbolism of this type and practice. And hence I do not truly understand the enormity of the patriotism provoked by the mere sight of the American flag. Then again, I've not fought in defense of this great nation in time of war. Nor have most people I know, nor have most posters here I presume. But perhaps that is what it would require for me to 'GI' (pun intended).

On the other hand, I do understand the yo-yo who burns or threatens to burn the flag. A button pusher is he.

As to Stephen's mention of employees IN AMERICA who have been disallowed the choice to reasonably wear their patriotism on their chests, so to speak - I couldn't agree more. Tis absurd.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

If any foreginer in this country is offended by the American flag, I suggest they go back to their country of origin. I fly many flags at my home including the Confederate flag.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

I have been trying to buy flag decals for my car windows but can't find any.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

If I flew a Confederate flag I'd remain anonymous too. Maybe wear a matching set of sheets around the house so as to recapture the feeling of the good ol' confederacy. You want out of the Union Bucko? Take your own advice and skat. I hear engaging in slavery is a popular pastime in parts of Africa. Call your local travel agent for more information.

Lars, walking through Times Square Saturday I saw American flags in a multitude of configurations being sold everywhere I looked. If you have a contact in NYC, I'm sure they can fill and send a large manilla envelope with stickers for ya. Can't buy reefer there anymore though. What is this country coming to?

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Rich,

While I do not support the flying of the Confederate flag in general (with the exception of it being in historical context), it seems hypocritical to criticize that while at the same time saying you feel no emotion when you see the Stars and Stripes and that any flag is just a piece of cloth. There seems to be a conflict here.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

I saw a thread on TB2K today that discussed flags that have been stolen while flying outside homes. It seems that this is not an uncommon phenomenon.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Good catch, Buddy. Whilst I squirm in my seat, let me state that the Confederacy was an abomination, IMO. Those whom I've known while living in the South who displayed flags/bumperstickers of the Confederacy were bigots one and all. Bigots are people who have no place in my life and are open to scorn when they cross my path. So, perhaps I can weasel out of it by stating I'm a victim of conditioning? ROTFLMAO!

To defeat my own weak argument in another way, I suppose waving an American flag does not a patriot make. Displaying a Confederate flag does not a scumball make (typed through clenched teeth).

You're right, Buddy. Thanks for pointing out that inconsistency in my rather labored thinking.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Anita, my guess is at least some of the flags I saw for sale on the street in/around Times Square were stolen. The little flags on wooden sticks are everywhere. Pretty simple to pop 'em off cars in particular.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Patriotism is more than flag-waving, Don Feder.

But it's not a bad way to start.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Anita:

You've made some false assumptions. Yes, we are vastly overtaxed. The reason this leaves no "wiggle room" is because past government expansion has painted us into a corner. Over 2/3 of total federal expenses are composed of entitlement payments and interest payments. And Lord knows we can't reduce those entitlements -- those are *real voters* being subsidized by the productive people in this country.

So it's NOT that we have nothing in reserve for emergency, it's that the voters sucking on the public teat are NOT WILLING to do without a single damn benefit (at others' expense). And these people, trained to be grasping and selfish by a lifetime of transfer payments, would promptly vote out of office any politician foolish enough to spend that money on real emergencies as required, and return the rest to those who actually earned it in the first place. Once politicians start paying protection money, they have a tiger by the tail.

But you're quite correct about what we do in practice. We're like an alcoholic who suddenly needs bus fare. There are two immediate options here -- spend the booze money on bus fare, or buy the booze and steal the bus fare. We as a nation choose the latter.

So the difference is, I believe we can and should give up the booze and return the stolen money. You believe the booze is *not optional*, that booze money must be spent FIRST. If this leaves us broke, we must borrow and this is a Bad Thing, so we should raise taxes. To me, a necessity is what we can't do without. For you, a necessity is anything enough freeloaders want so as to represent a "third rail" voting bloc.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Flint: Why is your concentration on entitlements rather than on interest? I haven't looked into which consumes more of our tax dollars, but I will if I must.

BOTH entitlements and interest have been lowered in previous administrations. With entitlements, at least SOME poor soul is benefiting from our tax dollars. With interest, NO ONE benefits except the lender.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Anita:

I regard the interest as less flexible. The entitlements we can discontinue at any time. We can also stop borrowing at any time, but I believe we should repay what we have borrowed already, because what we lose exceeds what we gain if we default.

As for people benefitting from entitlements, this is true only in the sense that if you give a man a fish BUT do so every single day without exception, soon enough the very idea of learning to fish for himself because at least an insult. I'm not saying people never suffer misfortune, only that government has proven itself much better at compounding than rectifying misfortune. By subsidizing and thus purchasing need, we get what we pay for. We have paved our road with good intentions. It's nice to have a big heart (as you do), but not at the expense of a small brain.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

My heart is actually quite small, Flint. We might disagree on SS being an entitlement [I think that it's something that folks have paid into for years and expect to get what the statements we all receive from SS say they'll pay]. If I'm not going to get that, yeah, I want the money back that I paid in.

As for the REST of "entitlements", I think of the children, and not the adults. Yeah, some folks will goof off and spend the money foolishly, ignoring the children, but others will do the best they can to make that money stretch to feed, clothe, etc. their children. I don't think that we should look at the worst of the bunch and stereotype.

My oldest daughter wants to move to California for a while. She's really being pressed by her boyfriend here. They plan to leave on Oct 1. She's quitting her job, quitting school, and taking off on what she coniders to be an "adventure." I'm not at all opposed to adventure. I've engaged in many, myself. However, KNOWING that she couldn't count on me OR her father to help her out if an emergency ensued, she called upon her younger sister to "pledge" funds in this emergency situation. The younger daughter called me today to complain, asking if it was "okay to hate my older sister." My recommendation was to just say "No." My goodness, if she can't raise the funds for an emergency situation beforehand, she might as well not go.

So much for big hearts, eh?

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

We might disagree on SS being an entitlement [I think that it's something that folks have paid into for years and expect to get what the statements we all receive from SS say they'll pay]. If I'm not going to get that, yeah, I want the money back that I paid in.

Missy Anita, have I got a deal for you.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

Anita, you could 'wire' the money in a heartbeat and not depend on your youngest.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

Flint: When you mentioned entitlements, did you also have the following in mind?

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

LOL.

Flint is leaving out some facts that anyone who has actually read any of the condensations of the Federal budget knows. And I think he knows this.

He is trying to imply (kindly note I said imply, Flint, you are a grand master of implication, and I defer to this) that a great deal of the Federal budget is entitlement payments to n'er do wells who are sucking the public tit while giving back nothing, and who never paid a penny of tax in their lives.

Again, I said, IMPLY. He'd never say this, because he knows its false.

My brother, who is quite wealthy, and retired, is the recipient of two of those entitlements.

He draws both a military pension and social security.

WOW. And here he's paying more taxes right now in a year than I'll pay in the next five. And I'm not exactly poor, adjusting for local costs of living and so forth puts me nicely into that top quintile of income you hear so much about. Guess its true, the rich are deadbeats. Or something like that.

Military pensions, VA hospitals, Social Security - every one of these is an entitlement, because the govt. has promised to pay them out to people who have EARNED them.

I suppose the alternative is to steal the money already paid in, tell the people who EARNED these things "sorry, we lied", and give Flint a 30% tax cut?

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2001