O'er the Ramparts

You know it, you love it, at least insomuch as it does not conflict with your moral, social, or patriotic conscience. It is the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and it guarantees that you can say pretty much anything you want. However, there is a growing public movement that seems to want to limit this. I am directing this at you, the person who is angry about those treading upon or burning the Stars and Stripes, or flying the Confederate flag. 

I've tried not to throw the full weight of my opinion onto the fire that's erupted in the past several months over flags because, lets be realistic, my opinion will fall on a bunch of deaf ears. Regardless, I'm sick to death of seeing person after person that I respect tread so freely upon the very document that the Stars and Stripes represents. 

The first argument to develop came from Facebook posts showing videos of people walking on Old Glory. The outrage was instant. People like you screamed in anguish over having the colors a) intentionally laid on the ground and b) then being walked upon. You posted (and continue to post) memes and angry comments that stopped short of being actual threats against the people in the videos. Some tangentially, and very incorrectly, justify violence against them by virtue of their political speech. 

Images such as Figure. 1 began to creep up, trying to establish that a lawful code of conduct respecting flags (though inferentially limited to the U.S. flag) existed. 

It does not. 

Figure. 1

Figure. 1 is in fact an excerpt from a now-repealed Arkansas State law, which was modeled after the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which failed to become law due to its unconstitutional nature. The actions prohibited by the Act were deemed lawful and protected political speech, so long as they didn't violate other state, local, or federal laws (such as destruction of property, theft, or ordinances banning the setting fires in public). The Supreme Court of the United states has ruled twice on this issue, and with the same result (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)). Desecration of a flag for the purposes of political speech is completely lawful.

Accept that. 

The next argument to arise came over the Confederate flag not being lowered to half-mast following the murder of nine black church members by a teenage white supremacist. The debate that followed, and continues now, has evolved from whether it represents racism into who should be allowed to fly it, or who should not be allowed to fly it. It has even raised questions over whether Confederate War Memorials should be defaced to remove important political and military figures from their representation. I cannot even fathom the absurdity of this argument, much less convey its depth. 

Again, the unpopular nature of the Confederate flag has blinded people like you to the principle concept of their argument. In effect, 'The views of people who support and cherish the Confederate flag are invalid and may not be spoken of publicly'. That is the core of all calls to remove the flag from public places. That very efficiently ignores the fact that it is neither your right nor responsibility to declare how a person may express their political views. 

The people who do not share your opinion don't have a responsibility to do so. No amount of rabble-rousing will ever impose such a duty. Their political speech is theirs to spread or display, so long as they do not violate state, local, or federal law like the ones mentioned above. 

Time and again, the Supreme Court has affirmed that if you disagree with a situation, you have the right to publicly voice your position. You absolutely have the right to disagree with people who do not share your values. You absolutely have the right to persuade others to share you viewpoint. So do the people with whom you disagree. 

What you don't have the right to do is incite, suggest, or commit violence against them. Yet, repeated incidences of violence are occurring. You also don't have the right to demand that they cease their speech simply because it's offensive to you. Yet, that's what the violence I just mentioned is aiming to do. The only way that you, my friend, can have what you want is to give up all rights to political speech. The only way to silence people you dislike is to accept silence yourself. 

Recognize that the freedom to express ourselves is the greatest single freedom we have. It is first among our Amendments because it is so powerful at affecting change and ensuring liberty. When you demand that people be silenced for their views, you demand that the very document the American flag represents be suppressed. Yes, in protecting the flag against desecration or demanding that it have no competition for loyalty, you pervert the spirit of its greatest authority. The People.

Accept that.

Love, the Verb

I recently had a talk with a colleague about the cost of doing business. However trite it may be to say, you can be screwed out of your investment. Capitalism has sidestepped this unfortunate truth by finding ways to recover that cost on the next go-round, which usually results in a greater cost to the end user.

The cost of microchips go up when a factory in Japan gets flooded. Gasoline ticks up a few cents a gallon because a refinery blows an o-ring. Ice cream becomes worth its weight in calories because of a listeria outbreak. These are the things that we, as consumers, understand about free market economy. Someone experiences a loss and everyone else who is interested in that product gets stuck with the fallout.

Funny how that tends to be true of emotions as well...

I know. Comparing emotions to a commodity... How bourgeois of me.

Think on that for a minute though, and you may start to see some truth in it. Happiness, sadness, even love, are all degrees of responsiveness subject to market saturation, demand, and costs of doing business. I'm sure I've lost you...

Think about someone who is keen on being in love. They get hurt, perhaps several times. They've lost their investment. To reinvest takes [emotional] capital that they may not have, so they have to borrow in the hopes that the next investment will pay off. If it doesn't, they have an account to settle and have lost yet another investment. Their cost of doing business goes up with each failure.

On the other side of that, because of their cost of doing business, loving someone who has been hurt requires a greater investment in the hopes of seeing a return on the same. Had this been a first try, or the other person had not been badly hurt, the emotional capital is more likely there and takes less commitment from a second party to free up the proverbial purse strings.

These are the costs of doing business.

Then there's the investment that one just keeps pouring capital into. The asset has devalued, no one else is interested in it, except that one faithful little soul that keeps it going with everything they can muster.

On paper, this looks like a terrible investment, but that's because it is. At least at the individual level. But there's something to be said for keeping the market strong. Love is occasionally a positive, purposeful action that we carry out in spite of the dividends it does not pay. And sometimes, it simply comes to pass that no amount of active love will bring it back to life.

But was it worth it?  In the me-centric society we've cultivated since the 1980's, most people will stand back and declare it a loss. When measured by what it yielded, they're right. Love though, isn't measured by what we get out of it.

No one watched The Notebook and called James Garner a loser. That's because the capacity and endurance of love is judged by how much of it we're willing to give. The strength and power of love is given substance by the shit we'll endure when we know that there is nothing coming back to us.

In that instance, love is beautiful for what it was. There is nothing that says a thing must endure to be memorable, or never fade to have been beautiful. We all have to accept that we're going to lose the things we love. It may go the way of the Dodo because of personal growth, personal mistakes, or even death. What is inescapable is that an end will come for everything we hold dear.

The question that you're asking yourself, "is the pain of loss worth the opportunity to experience the love", isn't really a question. It's a selfish attempt to categorize love as an enduring object. Love, in my humble view is much more accurately realized as a verb than a noun. Ultimately, loving is something you do, not something you own. And when it ends, hurting is something you will do, too. And then you'll eventually stop hurting.