I just read Dianne Feinstein’s editorial in USA Today (http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATODAY/2006/06/20/1646484?ba=a&bi=2&bp=64) and I think I can safely say that she is absolutely right . . . about nothing.
By the second sentence you know that whatever she is about to argue is going to be bull because of her use of the logical fallacy ignoratio elenchi (Red Herring – appeal to emotion, etc.) Obviously Ms. Feinstein ditched class the day they went over things like logic and reason.
But this is only the first in a line of many fallacies that she will make throughout the editorial.
As Leonard Pitts Jr. points out however, perhaps this was meant to be a study of how not to make an argument. See: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.pitts25jun25,0,2658495.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
I am desperate to hear someone make a valid argument for why we should outlaw desecration of the flag. Ms. Feinstein’s final thought is that, “There is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner.”
Why is it I am consistently stunned by the justifications politicians make for their actions? Not that I don’t consult Ms. Feinstein before I express my opinions, but arn’t we supposedly living in the land of the free? Isn’t freedom of expression what this country was founded on?
Writing censorship into the constitution takes the power away from the people and puts it in the hands of the Congress – something I hope never happens.