I AM A JEW (PART XIII - The Death of Klinghoffer & The Israeli Propaganda Machine)

As the title shows this is the 13th part (actually the 14^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the parts.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Special Bulletin, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI and Part XII.

I have chosen to continue to address the Klinghoffer controversy because it so well illustrates the Israeli propaganda machine.

As I illustrated in my last post this is an invented controversy that exploits the children of the slain Klinghoffer, who would have issued a statement when they first saw the opera in 1991 if they had found it offensive. They issue it now because they have been asked to. The propaganda machine has decided to go into action now, because following Gaza, there is increasing outrage, with the British Parliament (House of Commons) voting 274-12 in favor of a motion for UK recognition of a Palestinian state, and Sweden announcing that it will recognize a Palestinian state.

But it isn’t only the demonstrators; the politicians jump on the bandwagon. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Gov. George Pataki and two U.S. congressmen are among hundreds expected outside the Metropolitan Opera. Did any of them see the opera or is it politically expedient to be there?

Interestingly enough the “The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish group, said the play (Opera) is not anti-Semitic …”  

And this is what the editor of The Jewish Week had to say about it: 

Well, I saw it.

 And I’m not sure which was more of a letdown, the hubbub over the show or the show itself.

 Let’s start with the critics and protesters, since they are responsible ultimately for turning the show into the most buzzed about cultural happening in New York (at least since the close of the Jeff Koons retrospective on Sunday at the Whitney Museum).

 By the time I settled into my seat on Monday night — after months of cries of “anti-Semitism” and “glorification/humanization of terrorists” filling my email box — I was expecting Shylock meets “Natural Born Killers.”

 Not even close. Whatever the original intentions of composer John Adams and librettist Alice Goodman when they created the opera about 25 years ago, the latest production casts the killers as not particularly likable, violent thugs and puts Leon Klinghoffer at the moral center. So much so that the show’s effort to provide a measure of absolution for the terrorists near the end comes off as contrived and heavy handed, and is immediately trumped by the final monologue from Klinghoffer’s wife, Marilyn….

 But after actually seeing the production, this seems wrong-headed: Compared to the anti-Semitic fare widely available on the Internet and Arabic television, this show could pass as an anti-terrorism public service announcement.

But while these distractions from what Israel is doing are being orchestrated in New York, the International community is increasingly concerned about continuing, and even increasing building activity on the West Bank and in Jerusalem.

As I have stated above the UK and Sweden have started to react.

Haaretz reports here and here:

The EU’s ambassador to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, is set to relay the message to Israel…

The two-page document defines several of the EU’s “red lines” regarding Israeli actions in the West Bank:

 1. Construction in the Givat Hamatos neighborhood, beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem: The document said that construction in that area would jeopardize the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as the capital of both states. The EU “cautions the Israeli government not to move ahead with tenders and construction. Such a development would constitute one more grave “fact on the ground” which would be liable to crucially prejudge the outcome of peace negotiations,” the document reads.

 2. Construction in the E1 area between Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem: The document said construction in that area would also jeopardize the possibility of contiguous Palestinian state, and added that it has already publicly and strongly opposed plans for E1’s development.

 3. Further construction in the Har Homa neighborhood in Jerusalem, beyond the Green Line.

 4. Israeli plans to relocate 12,000 Bedouin without their consent in a new town in the Jordan Valley, expelling them from lands in the West Bank, including E1: “The EU strongly urges Israel to put these plans on hold and search for other solutions together with the concerned populations and the Palestinian Authority. The EU underlines that implementing those plans may amount to a serious breach of International Humanitarian Law (IV Geneva Convention),” the document reads.

In the meantime Economy Minister Naftali Bennett told Army Radio that:

...more housing for Jews in the predominantly Arab eastern half of the city as well as a more forceful response from police and security services is the formula for neutralizing the unrest.

 “It’s quite acceptable to think that what motivates our enemies is despair,” he said. “On the contrary, they are driven by the hope and aspiration to evict us from here. And they think that if they commit more terrorist atrocities then we will throw our hands up in despair and flee.”

 “What we need to do is to say, ‘We are staying here, we’re building in our capital,’ and I call on the prime minister to expedite the approval of construction permits,” Bennett said. “Without sovereignty, there can be no security. There’s no need to wait for a terrorist attack in order to put down the iron fist, and we have the means to do so.”

But what is the true nature of Jerusalem? What constitutes Jerusalem?

Jerusalem Online helps us to understand. Israel’s definition of Jerusalem is invented. As the article explains:

Forty-seven years ago… a decision was made that would dubiously be accepted quietly today: to annex the Arab areas of the city that were under Jordanian sovereignty, and several villages nearby along with it… From 6 square miles it has become a city of 70 square miles... since 1967, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians under Israeli sovereignty have a special status of residents without full citizenship. (Emphasis added)

And even while the Israeli government’s Economics minister talks about more oppression, more confiscation, Gazans can‘t even get drinking water.

From the Times of Israel:

There is a serious humanitarian crisis in Gaza and water is at its center. Holding water issues hostage to the conflict will have dire consequences for Palestinians in Gaza, Israelis and Egyptians. Directly due to the hostilities, an estimated 1.2 million Palestinians in Gaza have no running water. There exists insufficient electricity in Gaza to treat or pump out sewage. This will no doubt result in even higher than present levels of drinking water contamination that risk the outbreak of pandemic disease, such as cholera and typhoid. The health risk is compounded by the present inability to even chlorinate drinking water

 This situation requires an urgent response if the outbreak of pandemic disease is to be avoided. Pandemics risk Palestinian, Israeli and Egyptian populations.

And what’s ahead! More building on Arab land; more confiscation of Arab land; more oppression.

And an unending attempt to distract Americans of all faiths and creeds and political orientations from the crimes being committed by the Israeli government, by having a fabricated controversy over an Opera that will be seen by less than 28,000 people, if its seven performances are sold out to include standing room.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.

Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have (Discussion)

On May 5^th 2014 I posted my latest commentary on my blog under the heading "Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have." This can be accessed here.

Almost immediately comments started coming in.

Nicole Scheller of Lawrenceville, NJ reacted with this:

An issue close to my heart. I even keep a stash of bags at school, so if I take the kids shopping, we're not forced to use plastic. I'm still considered weird for this, but I'm ok with that. I do hear a lot of folks excusing their use of plastic bags because they are recyclable now, but as you know recycling takes energy and the end product will find itself in a landfill eventually.

Joel Wiener of Arlington, Virginia expressed the view:

Some stores charge for plastic bags, while others give the customer a small credit for using their own bags.  I prefer to use paper bags since they decompose quickly and I use the empty bags for recycling newspapers.

Plastic bags can be recycled if disposed of properly.  

The problem, like with most things, is with compliance and a sense of personal responsibility.

To which I replied:

You are making an assumption that is commonplace. Please read the article here where you will find that paper bags don’t really have much of an advantage over plastic. To quote from part of the article:

“Before you brown bag it, consider these environmental disadvantages of paper:

•                Causes pollution: Paper production emits air pollution, specifically 70 percent more pollution than the production of plastic bags [source:Thompson]. According to certain studies, manufacturing paper emits 80 percent more greenhouse gases [source: Lilienfield]. And, consider that making paper uses trees that, instead, could be absorbing carbon dioxide. The paper bag making process also results in 50 times more water pollutants than making plastic bags [source:Thompson].

•                Consumes energy: Even though petroleum goes into making plastic, it turns out that making a paper bag consumes four times as much energy as making a plastic bag, meaning making paper consumes a good deal of fuel [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Consumes water: The production of paper bags uses three times the amount of water it takes to make plastic bags [source: Lilienfield].

•                Inefficient recycling: The process of recycling paper can be inefficient -- often consuming more fuel than it would take to make a new bag [source: Milstein]. In addition, it takes about 91 percent more energy to recycle a pound of paper than a pound of plastic [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Produces waste: According to some measures, paper bags generate 80 percent more solid waste [source: Lilienfield].

•                Biodegrading difficulties: Surprisingly, the EPA has stated that in landfills, paper doesn't degrade all that much faster than plastics [source: Lilienfield].

But that doesn’t mean that plastic is better, as the article goes on to say:

However, plastic didn't get a bad reputation for nothing. Here are some environmental disadvantages of plastic: (and then lists many).

There simply is no substitute for making use of re-usable bags, which we should all do voluntarily as I, my wife and my daughter do. 

But this issue is far too important to allow for voluntarism.  As my original post has indicated many governments have instituted action to discourage the use of disposable bags of any kind and that we need to do the same.

I personally would favor a significant tax on every bag issued by a retailer. I would urge a minimum of 25¢ per bag and preferably a $1.00 assessment. That would be an effective inducement to the use of re-usable bags. It is essential that we, as a society take action against the blight of waste and its devastation on the environment."

Which prompted this response from Wiener:

I suppose that canvas bags would also have an environmental impact due to their manufacture and the printing found on them:

The common message throughout all of these facts is to re-use bags, and the more they are re-used, whether paper, plastic, canvas or mesh, the less impact on the environment.

I think that the addition of a per bag tax would not be much of a deterrent, since even at a buck a bag, most people will forget to bring their bags and will have no choice but to pay the tax and get the bag, as opposed to carrying an armful of loose groceries. 

Which prompted this further observation on my part:

Your point is well taken. The key is "to re-use bags”.

But I don’t agree that a "buck a bag" would not be a deterrent. Even 25¢ a bag would be. We can see this from the extent to which people clip coupons and use store member cards to get discounts. But the common 2¢ or even less a bag does nothing.

The idea that "forgetting has its costs" is a wonderful way to jolt the memory.

(Some good slogans there.)

Albert Nikemkin of Vienna, Virginia chimed in with:

Thanks for sharing this.

IKEA has the solution to this problem. I was at a local store yesterday: it doesn't provide any bags at all for purchases. However, it does SELL reusable bags at the checkout counter for those who want them and/or forgot to bring one. I think that would certainly get the message across and solve the problem. However, a single merchant can't make this work. A municipality or state needs to outlaw the free distribution of plastic bags. That would either mean a return to paper, or adoption of the IKEA approach.

Prompting me to write:

Ikea is the correct solution. But as you point out an occasional responsible retailer or an occasional responsible consumer will not solve the problem. It is a societal issue and must be dealt with societally. Only a tax on disposable bags, both plastic and paper of at least 25¢ and preferably $1.- will begin to deal with this issue.

Elaine Krigsman of Montclair, NJ prompted this exchange by writing:

While I agree with you that a tax would be the best way to solve this problem, the chances of this actually happening are slim to none.  We can't even get a gas tax passed here in NJ that would begin to address our needs.  Stores should just stop providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe.  IKEA's system is not original but it is effective, even if it is just one customer at a time.  

Which caused me to reply:

Unfortunately, the likelihood of stores no longer "providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe” is also slim to none. First it is up to us to act individually to use re-usable bags, and second we need to keep working to achieve societal and political goals even if at the moment they seem out of reach. The stupidity of not raising the gas tax is beyond compare, as was the failure of Christie to allow new rail tunnels between NJ & NY even though the Federal government would pay for it, a project that was first proposed by Christie supporter, former mayor, Giuliani.

And then Christie won by a landslide. 

Simply throwing up ones hands accomplishes nothing.

Prompting this final concurrence:

I agree with you on all points!

And finally Joanna Cooke of Jackson, Wyoming expressed this view:

I haven't commented in years, largely because I feel way out of my league in terms of understanding the issues you've explored. But this one I have an opinion on. We regularly use cloth bags--some have been in use over eight years at this point. I also reuse the plastic bags for when we get things in bulk for new bulk purchases. Whatever bags we do use, plastic or paper, get reused in some fashion, for example, for garbage in the bathrooms (and I often simply empty out those bags and use them again for the same purpose).  I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic. Our local natural food store gives a credit that can be donated to local community foundations, and even the box grocery stores give some kind of credit, a few cents per bag or something. I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic (emphasis added).

To which I replied:

Allow me to address some of the concerns you raise. You "wonder about the economic concerns." I don’t see that there are any realistic ones. Even a dollar tax on each bag would not cause people to shop less, but it would, in most cases, cause them to bring their own bags.

As for your question as to "what the best forms of education are on this topic” I really don’t know. The environmental community must spend resources on education. Unfortunately they have not invested very much on this issue. I do not have any influence in this community. Those who do should use that influence to get them to speak out more aggressively.

The main obstacle to imposing a significant tax on disposable bags is the general aversion of the public to all taxes and the antigovernment mood created by Reagan’s slogan, “Government is not the solution, Government is the problem” and the anarchic anti-societal attitudes that have arisen from it, particularly within the Tea party, but within the Republican party in general. They have a no lose strategy, because the more outrageous their behavior in the councils of government, the more they bring government into disrepute, which strengthens their anarchic and anti societal agenda. Since the public instinctively hates taxes, this too feeds into their opposition to all tax increases and supports their constant call for fewer taxes until in the words of, Grover Norquist, "I just want to shrink it (the government) down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Politics has its cycles, and in time the public may recognize that without government to regulate our food and drug supplies, to protect our environment and to guarantee competition, etc. capitalism cannot function.

I will be happy to entertain any further comments anyone else cares to make.

Iraq Redux II

On April 15 I posted my latest commentary on Iraq.

The comments which I received convincingly argued that a phased withdrawal is a sin qua non for any progress in stabilization. That is clearly not the Administration’s view, but the remarkable thing is that not a single Republican candidate for President is supporting a phased withdrawal, and it appears that despite the President’s incredibly low approval ratings, Republican candidates appear to be vying for who can be the closest clone to the incumbent in the White House.

For example, the Republican front runner for the nomination, Rudy Giuliani, charged that if a Democrat were elected, they would “wave the white flag” in Iraq, cut back on surveillance of terrorists, restrict the ability of law enforcement officials to gather intelligence and limit interrogation techniques, curtailing their effectiveness. He neglected to say how he would deal with what he called, “the defining conflict of our time.” We can, however, get a good idea of how Giuliani would deal with the situation. He would do exactly the same as what Bush is doing and I guess the theory is that in the Republican primaries the American people will not be voting. A small hard core of Bush supporters will be voting and the aim is to get the nomination. After that there will be time enough to flip and flop and say he didn’t really mean all the things he said in trying to get the nomination. But the American people must not have short memories. They must reject the liars. We have had enough of those during the past six years.

But let us analyze the meaning of his attacks. “Wave the white flag.” What does Giuliani mean by not waving the white flag. Does he mean we should keep the troops in Iraq until hell freezes over? How long Mr. Giuliani? For four more years? For eight? For ten? Six years ago the man whose clone Giuliani now aspires to be, declared victory, flying on to an aircraft carrier to dramatize that “victory.” See BBC News dated May 2, 2003.

Now four years later after having told us every few month that victory is just around the corner; that things are getting better, we now have the “surge,” and things are getting worse. More Iraqi’s killed! More Americans killed, but they tell us that just proves things are getting better. Give it a chance. How long Mr. Giuliani? And tell us where the troops will come from. Even now troop deployments are being extended more and more because your clone has broken our once proud military. Will you call for a draft? How will you sustain this deployment?

“Cut back on surveillance of terrorists.” Would Mr. Giuliani tell us who wants to cut back on surveillance of terrorists? This is a favored tactic. Set up a straw man and knock him down. If Mr. Giuliani means that Democrats object to giving the President authority to snoop on American’s without court warrants, and he favors it, he should say so. That is certainly a useful way of spying on political opponents as Nixon did, but it has nothing to do with terrorists. 

“Limit interrogation techniques.” Is Mr. Giuliani advocating the use of torture? If so let him say so. It is a matter that should be debated openly, not by indirection.

Who is this hero who runs on his record of 9/11. The media, which is always looking for heroes, whether it is Private Lynch or Pat Tillman, turned Rudy into one after 9/11. What did he do? He stood on the ruins of 9/11 with a bullhorn and gave speeches and posed for photos. Ah yes, these people are good at photo ops. But did Rudy do anything to prevent this catastrophe from happening? If he did it is a well-kept secret. It isn’t as though an attack on the Trade Center could not be anticipated. They had tried once before and failed. But neither Bush nor Giuliani learned a thing from that. 

When the attack came the radio frequencies of the police and fire departments prevented effective communications causing untold confusion and casualties. Where was Giuliani’s leadership then?

Following the disaster the air was dangerously polluted, but Mr. Giuliani let the responders work without masks causing untold additional casualties.

Before the disaster happened Giuliani had the foresight to create an extremely expensive and ultra-sophisticated Emergency Operations Center, which he perched high up above many large tanks of combustible fuel in the Trade Center. And when the planes struck he didn’t do the things that need to be done except in his fictitious telling of events in the book he published. But then he was always good at one thing, and that is in promoting himself. But read the real story entitled, “Rudy's Grand Illusion What Giuliani likes to remember about 9-11—and what he actually did (or didn't do)” which you can find here.

But even before the myth of 9/11 Giuliani was working on his image. Before 9/11 he bragged about how he had brought crime down in the City of NY. Indeed crime had come down. Of course it had come down throughout the U.S., thanks to Bill Clinton’s national drive against crime, under which the Federal government provided money to increase police departments. So just how much credit Rudy deserves is problematic. But he did effectively attack crimes that reduced the quality of life for New Yorkers and that was not a National trend. He did it by appointing William J. Bratton as his police chief, and Bratton was good. He devised police methods that stopped a lot of petty crimes and that carried over to more serious crimes. But then he started to get too much credit. With Giuliani only one person gets credit for anything and we know who that is, so he fired Bratton. Who did he hire? Bernard Kerik! Who is Bernard Kerik? He was Rudy’s Correction’s Commissioner, where he did an undistinguished job, but he was a Giuliani loyalist and so he became police commissioner, and when Rudy left his job as mayor and started a consulting firm he made Kerik a partner and they both became rich. But what is Kerik’s background. According to Wikipedia, Kerik was chief of investigations for the security office at King Faisal’s Specialist Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from 1982 to 1984. In 1984 he was fired and deported after an investigation by the Saudi secret police. In May 2003, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Kerik was appointed by the George W. Bush Administration as the Interim Minister of Interior of Iraq and Senior Policy Advisor to the U.S. Presidential Envoy to Iraq, L. Paul Bremer. On December 3, 2004, Kerik was nominated by President Bush to succeed Tom Ridge as United States Secretary of Homeland Security. But on December 10, after a week of press scrutiny, Kerik withdrew acceptance of the nomination. It turned out that there were questions about his past which included Kerik's sale of stock in Taser International shortly before the release of an Amnesty International report critical of the company's stun-gun product; a sexual harassment lawsuit; an affair with Judith Regan the aborted publisher of O.J. Simpson’s “Why I did it”; allegations of misuse of police personnel and property for personal benefit; connections with a construction company suspected of having ties to organized crime; and failure to comply with ethics rules on gifts.

By his friends though shalt know him!

What does this tell us about the Republican Party?

A Constitutional Amendment To Ban Desecration Of The American Flag

H.J.Res. 10, a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag recently H.J.Res. 10, a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag.  passed the House but got almost no coverage by the media. This may be because since the 1960s when flag burning was a frequent expression of opposition to the Vietnam war such resolutions passed the House many times but failed to get the needed 2/3 majority needed for a Constitutional Amendment. The difference now is that with a Senate which is more right wing than at any time since the ‘60s this could pass the Senate as well.

Much to my consternation, I discovered that my Democratic, liberal Congressman Steve Rothman, not only voted for the amendment in the House along with 77 other Democrats, including my former Congressman in Montclair, Bill Pascrell, but he was a cosponsor of the amendment. Accordingly I sent him an e-mail expressing my dismay.

I quote  his response below:

“Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to 
H.J.Res. 10, a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the 
American flag. I appreciate hearing from you and I welcome the 
opportunity to respond.  

"I understand and share your concerns about threats to First 
Amendment liberties and freedoms. However, while I am a strong 
defender of our First Amendment rights, I believe that the 
Constitution (and our Founders) meant for "reasonable" lines to be 
drawn, limiting some forms of "speech" such as shouting "fire" in 
a crowded theater, public obscenity, threatening a person or a 
group with bodily harm, and child pornography. I believe -- and 
certainly other reasonable people of good will could disagree -- 
that the unique national symbol of America's hard won freedoms 
and liberties should be protected. In that regard, it is obvious but 
important to note, that there are many other ways to express 
disapproval for our government's actions, to oppose political 
leaders, as well as to "protest" about one's general frustration with 
our country's policies. I believe that a reasonable civil penalty 
would be appropriate for those who would desecrate our national 
flag. 

"As you may know, on June 22, 2005, I voted for and 
Congress passed H.J.Res. 10, a proposed Constitutional 
amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag, by 
a vote of 286-130. I know how seriously you and many other of 
my friends and respected colleagues may disagree with me on this 
issue. However, I hope you are also aware that we hopefully agree 
on the vast majority of other important issues facing our country 
on a daily basis. And while we may disagree on this issue, please 
know that I will continue to value your input on all the critical 
issues facing Congress and I will be sure to keep our shared 
support for the importance of free speech very much in mind.  

"Thank you again for contacting me. As your 
Representative in the United States Congress, it is a privilege and 
an honor to serve you and to act as your voice in Washington.  
Please feel free to contact me again with any other issue or matter 
that concerns you. You may also want to visit my website at 
www.house.gov/rothman where you can sign up for my e-
newsletter and keep current with my latest Congressional activities 
and policy statements.”

I did not let the matter rest there but wrote to him again as follows:

“Dear Mr. Rothman,

"Thank you for your kind response to my letter on H.J. Res. 10, the constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag. 

"You are quite right that we agree on the vast majority of other important issues facing our country on a daily basis but I can not accept this issue of being of anything but fundamental importance. 

"I wonder if you or your Democratic colleagues, who supported this amendment, have considered some of its ramifications. 

"I recently received a small replica of an American flag in the mail. Will I be violating the law if I throw it in the wastebasket or would I have to keep it in order not to break the law? "If I wear a sweatshirt with the flag on it distorted will I be a criminal? If I have a flag that is old and dirty and throw it into the incinerator will I be guilty of flag burning? If I walk over a carpet bearing a likeness of the flag what would be the consequences.

You talk of this new crime being subject only to civil penalties. Is there a provision in the amendment that limits the penalties to civil ones and if so does it prevent the penalties from being excessive? 

"Is our National Anthem any less our National symbol? If people sing it, but distort the words so as to change the last line of the Anthem to, “Over the land of slaves and the home of cowards?” would you support an amendment to ban distortion of our anthem? 

"A few years ago the Brooklyn museum had a display that deeply offended Catholics. Then Mayor Giuliani felt it should not be allowed to be shown. Would you support such a ban? 

"If someone published material denying the Holocaust and saying while it isn’t true it, it would nevertheless be a good idea to kill all Jews, do you think our laws should make this criminal, (as it probably is in present day Germany) or even attach civil penalties.

"I do not see how you can support the flag amendment, which you not only supported but sponsored, without asking yourself, and answering these questions.

"I would be grateful if you would let me have a detailed response even though no form letter could serve this purpose.”

At about the same time there appeared in my local paper, the Fort Lee Suburbanite the following letter to the Editor:

Senators must support flag protection

"TO THE EDITOR: 
"Once again, a large majority of the U.S. Senate is committed to send the Flag Amendment for an up-or-down vote by representatives of the people. Once again, this majority may be just shy of the required two-thirds. And, once again, a few "swing" senators are coming up with old excuses for stifling a uniquely democratic process of constitutional lawmaking. 

"These senators say they agree with most Americans: Congress should be allowed, as in the past, to protect the flag from physical desecration. They say there's a need to protect the American flag from defecation, urination and burning. They do not claim it would somehow erode free speech to do so. But, here is where the excuses come in. 

"First, they insist there's another way. A flag protection statute, they say, would be better than a constitutional amendment. This misses the point. The point of the constitutional amendment is precisely to permit the enactment of a statute. A senator who supports a statute must support the amendment. There is no way around it. 

"The reason, of course, is that a bare (5-4) majority of the Supreme Court- for the first time in our history, 15 years ago - held that specific statutory protection of the flag is impermissible. The five justices said that physical desecration is "speech" and that singling out the American flag for protection amounts, in itself, to favoring one point of view over other competing points of view. Under this reasoning any flag protection statute will be invalid. 
 
"The "swing" senators claim disagree with the Supreme Court. But they are reluctant back up their disagreement with their vote. Instead, they want to imagine the court never did and said what it did and said. When pressed on this point, they move on to a second excuse for blocking progress of the amendment. The court, they imagine, will soon change its mind. This is a fantasy. 

"Four Justices have joined Supreme Court since it last faced the flag protection issue. Of them, three (Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) would surely stick with the previous decision. Along with two others (Scalia and Kennedy) who were in the majority 15 years ago, that makes a majority of five. If the fourth new Justice (Thomas) were to agree with Scalia, as he often does, that would make six. 

"What is more, the three Justices thought most likely to retire in the next several years (Rehnquist, Stevens and O'Connor), were all in dissent on the issue. Their replacement with pro-flag protection successors would make no difference at all. 

"Again, there is no alternative. The "swing" senators either must accede to the court's continued ban on any statute specifically protecting the flag, a position with which they say they profoundly disagree. Or, acting on their professed support for flag protection, they must allow the 50 states to vote on the proposed constitutional amendment, thus permitting correction of what they say is the court's mistake. 

"Of course, an amendment ought not be undertaken lightly. It ought to have sustained, very substantial popular backing before being sent to the states. Not many could pass that test. But the Flag Amendment does. For a decade and a half, the overwhelming bulk of the American people have supported it.

"The "swing" senators say they, too, support flag protection. Now, the time has come to see if they really do. 

Richard D. Parker
Professor of Law
Harvard Law School 

I couldn’t resist and wrote my own Letter to the Editor which was published in Friday’s edition of the paper as follows:

“The letter to the Editor by Professor Parker of Harvard Law School which appeared in your July 8, 2005 edition is notable for the fact that it goes on paragraph after paragraph extolling the desirability of a Constitutional amendment to limit the First Amendment so as to allow Congress to pass legislation banning flag desecration, without ever discussing the pros and cons of such an extra-ordinary act other than that it is popular.

  "That it is popular is true, but it is equally true that it is popular because its consequences have never really been discussed and discussion has been suppressed by labeling anyone who does not support it as being something less than patriotic. But support of free speech by words or symbols is the height of patriotism. It is what our flag stands for.

"I recently wrote a letter to Congressman Rothman, who represents this district and I believe I can best address this issue by simply quoting my letter to the Congressman…. “

I then quoted the letter to the Congressman omitting, for brevities sake, the part about the Holocaust.

It will be interesting to see whether the Congressman responds. In the meantime I would be very happy to have comments on this controversial subject.