Liar, Liar!

This morning as I enjoyed my morning coffee before sunrise, I watched some video of yesterday's news.

Most noteworthy was the White House Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, responding to press corps questions yesterday regarding the indictments of Mannafort and Gates, and, most significantly in the near term, the guilty plea of George Popadopalous.

Anyone who understands the FACTS of the Popadopalous matter knows that this is much more significant than the White House is trying to make this with its deflections, trivializations, and outright falsehoods.

If it weren't so frustrating watching Sanders obfuscate and prevaricate before the press corps, it would have been funny. To me, she is yet another face of evil, telling bald-faced lies to the American public.

As one pundit put it: her statements were akin to Richard Nixon's press secretary, Ron Ziegler, blaming George McGovern for the Watergate break in!

Others have called yesterday's momentus revelations the end of the beginning in this inquiry into the dealings of the Trump campaign and administration.

The White House, in general, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, in particular, get my pants-on-fire award today.

Dump Trump: make America great again.

Today the breaking news is that the first criminal indictments have been made and the accused have been told to report to law enforcement.

Other breaking noise is that Trump continues an apparently nervous tweet storm about how the investigation is a witch hunt and it is Hillary, not Trump, who should be investigated.

Our national embarrassment

Now because you are reading this, I assume that you are at least somewhat objective and open minded (or you are completely objective, tuned in, and know that Trump is unqualified to be president, a liar, pathologically self absorbed, and likely a crook).

For those others, who remain steadfast Trump supporters, who believe his desperate and distracting (and usually untrue) tweets, let's give them time. Up until when Nixon was finally confronted with the unequivocal evidence of his crimes (which led to him resigning rather than face impeachment and conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors), as much as 1/3 of the American electorate still supported him at that time. But in that last week prior to his resignation, many of his staunch supporters finally came around to the reality of who he really was and that he had to go for the good of the country.

Unfortunately, these days it's easier for the emotional reactionaries who still support Trump to hang onto their beliefs. This is because they live in an echo chamber of their own prejudices, their love for Trump, and his destruction of many of our social and governmental norms. The echo chamber of fact-free support is on-line social networking. Many Trump supporters and Hillary haters were influenced by false stories (that is, fake news) circulated on Facebook. Some of that was purchased by Russian fronts. Some was forwarded from propaganda sources like Breitbart news.

Those who still put credence in Trump's pathetic tweets obviously remain relatively fact free, and as a result lack the information necessary to separate truth from distracting falsehoods.

Real news organizations are usually correct in their reporting of current events -- not always, but usually -- and if a given report is wrong, the truth usually comes out rather quickly, and often not only by other organizations, but also by the same organization that initially got it wrong.

This is because real news organizations are professional; that is, they have long-accepted journalistic processes in place to help ensure that they get the reporting right. Now, because they are often at the forefront of breaking stories, they must rely on confidential sources, who may not have the whole story. Yet most real news outlets require at least two independent sources of a story or of supporting facts before they publish.

Even someone who relies simply on USA today will be more factually informed on current events than those who rely on social networks for their news. The best factual sources for news and current events (though they vary in depth of coverage and general focus) include the following (both hard copy and on-line versions):

• The New York Times
• The Washington Post
• The Wall Street Journal
• USA Today
• Major local newspapers (for example, in Detroit we have the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News)
• Time Magazine
• The New Yorker Magazine
• The Economist Magazine
• BBC News
• NPR News
• PBS News
• and others (are you getting the idea?)

[AN IMPORTANT SAME-DAY AFTERTHOUGHT....

I didn't mean to omit several trustworthy broadcast news sources including the following:

• ABC News
• CBS News
• NBC News
• CNN]

Get informed (with FACTS, not propaganda). Vote wisely for those who are objective but flexible enough to compromise reasonably. 

Make America great again -- dump Trump.

Few Bugs on Your Windshield? Great? Think again....

In years gone by, one sure sign of a motorist's summer freeway travels was a windshield, grille, and front bumper peppered with the remains of bugs mowed down by the speeding automobile. This included small flying bugs as well as the occasional butterfly. There was even a product sold by car-wax companies called bug and tar remover.  That product may still be manufactured and sold; I don't know about that. What I do know is that I haven't needed it for many years -- even though I routinely have taken many summer trips on high-speed roads.

I don't see bugs on my vehicles any more.

Another thing I've noticed is that I no longer see any butterflies in my yard or on my walks in the summer. Moths, yes; butterflies, no.

Something is changing.

This is one more of those "ecological" things that may not be noticed. However, once we are aware of it, it behooves us to consider possible implications.

Fewer butterflies and flying bugs in general may mean what? Well, let's consider the bee colonies that are at risk. For the urban or suburban dweller, fewer bees may mean one less summer annoyance -- or risk, if one is allergic to bee stings. However, for farmers and other horticulturists, who depend on bees to pollinate their crops, they probably recognize that this is a threat to our food chain, which is fundamentally based on plant foods.

Dead bee

Perhaps in a similar way, a diminishment of flying bugs in general may be another bellwether of a similar ecological threat. After all, in the natural world, little creatures serve as food for bigger creatures. As flying bugs become more scarce, this may have an impact on bigger animals.

Yet wing nuts including Trump and the current EPA head, Pruitt, are busy dismantling environmental regulations. They are either stupidly, ignorantly, or self-servingly (likely a combination of all three) blind to the realities of rapid and potentially catastrophic climate and other environmental changes. When an unimaginably-large sheet of antarctic ice breaks off and falls into the ocean (it's just a matter of time), we'll see a significant and immediately-measurable rise in sea level.

When this baby finally breaks off and falls into the water, coastal areas beware!

Further, the Trump administration's re-opening of the flood gates for corporate polluters will speed the melting of polar ice. Temperatures will continue to rise. The immersed "island" of collective microscopic plastic particles in the Pacific Ocean will continue to grow, harming wildlife and increasingly present in our own food chain. Land-based pollution will continue to rise harming both wildlife and increasing human disease rates.

Actions taken by individuals and businesses to self-limit environmentally-irresponsible actions is commendable and needed. It's also insufficient.

For every person, company or corporation that does the right thing environmentally, there are untolled numbers who will shortsightedly not do the right thing. This is the entire reason that we need a strong, wise government to make appropriate rules, regulations and guidelines to ensure that our freedom to do what ever we choose is limited sufficiently to ensure our long-term survival and prosperity.

It is extremely foolish and short sighted to opt for short-term prosperity through deregulation that will threaten our long-term health and prosperity.

If the dismantling of the Trump administration doesn't proceed quickly enough through legal prosecution for whatever reasons, they must be stopped via political means. Vote wisely, with long-term interests in view. Keep the big picture in mind. Be peaceful, but get active. Get involved.

Dump Trump, those of his administration and others of his ilk.

Compromise: an American Political Necessity

When I left the Republican party behind in the early 1990s, it was not because my fundamental political and social beliefs had changed. I still believed in fairness, equality, fiscal responsibility, conserving natural resources, and so on.

I left the Republican party because they had,
in actuality, left me and other reasonable folk.

I left the Republican party because, under the House leadership of Newt Gingrich, Republican had morphed into the party of obstruction and division. Please let me repeat that for emphasis:

The Republican party has become the party of obstruction and division.

For example, for much of the Obama administration, republicans have been braying about the horrors of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), through which millions of uninsured Americans have been able to have health insurance. The Republicans attacked this program unceasingly, saying they had a better idea.

Yet when Republicans acquired control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, what was this brilliant plan they had in waiting for the past seven years?

Crickets. Nada. Bupkis. 

When they finally came up with alternative plans and related legislation, they couldn't pass it despite their control of  the administrative and legislative branches of the federal government. This is because for all those years of attacking the ACA, claiming they had a better idea, they really had nothing but negativity, obstruction, and division. They had, really, no ideas at all except that Obama and Democrats were bad.

Obstructionism Clogs the U.S. Political Process

Are you unhappy with Congress? They can't seem to get anything done? Welcome to the club. Most Americans see it this way. But don't blame Congress. Blame the Republican party.

Our entire system of government is based on the necessity for compromise. I admit that when I was younger, I did not understand this. I held George H. W. Bush accountable for his promise not to raise taxes and then his reneging by signing tax-increase legislation. Yet it was I who was foolishly ignorant; it was Bush senior who was being reasonable and willing to compromise.

In my earlier years I was an uncompromising idealist. I had my views and was extremely unwilling to budge. I'm sure that many of my acquaintances -- especially those who disagreed with me politically -- found me obnoxious. In fact, I was obnoxious -- exactly like the uncompromising Republicans of those years and of today.

If one has a rather extreme ideology, then it is unlikely he or she will convince a majority of others to agree. But if one then insists on adhering to those beliefs without the possibility of  granting a little leeway, then no agreement can be reached at all. This is the story of the American experiment.

For our government to work, officials of diverging beliefs must be able to give a little to find common ground. If this doesn't happen, no agreements are reached, no legislation is passed, no problems are solved, no progress is made. You have gridlock in govenment. Feel familiar? That's what we've got.

Republicans Are to Blame

Over recent years, Democrats have demonstrated a reasonable willingness to be flexible. Many times they've tried to meet Republican demands somewhere in the middle. Yet Republicans -- especially those who represent the ideology of the Tea-Party wing of the GOP (which is not, as is commonly believed, a grass-roots movement; it has been initiated and carefully nurtured by a cabal of billionaires and their front organizations, with the intention of promoting Libertarianism -- a process of de-regulation, which would free them to pillage the land and their countrymen in the pursuit of greater wealth) -- the republicans have refused to yield.

Thus we have our unending governmental gridlock.

Pretty much, this has been the type of position Republicans have
taken for going on nearly 30 years: all opposing ideas are rejected
without a willingness to compromise.

The willingness to compromise is essential in American government. If you are tired of governmental gridlock, then stop voting for persons who are so ideologically fixed that they are unable to find common ground. Encourage others to do the same. Explain that compromise is essential for our government to work.

****

Dump Trump, Pense, Pruitt, the Trump administration, and the Republican party. It's for the good of the country.

On Limited Government....

For many years, one of my major, overriding political philosophies was the concept of limited government.

I professed that I loved my country, but I feared my government.

Though a bit paranoid on the surface, this statement isn't really so over the top. Governmental power is easily abused in terms of restricting individual liberty, excessive taxation, and over regulation that is inhibitory to economic prosperity among other potential abuses.

I heard on MSNBC's Morning Joe program this morning (25 Oct 2017) that one senator was giving Trump accolades because for every new regulation that he's imposed, he has eliminated 16 others. Trump: the great deregulator, the champion of limited government.

Do you feel better? I do not. In fact, I fear my government today more than ever.

There are several reasons for this. First of all, Trump seems to have had little understanding or respect for the U.S. Constitution, which is the document that stands between the citizens and governmental authoritarianism.

Trump?

Another major reason Trump and his administration worry me is that he's taken the concept of limited government and turned it into near anarchy. As a former Libertarian, I stand on fairly solid ground when I say that anarchy or Libertarianism is not the only path to limited government.

In fact, the U.S. Constitution is a document that, when properly implemented, ensures limited government.

However, that doesn't and shouldn't prevent the government from taking actions to do things that must be done. This includes conscription into military service in times of threats to our nation. It includes raising taxes to do things that are necessary.

I don't like to pay unnecessary taxes any more than the next person. However, if there is good value offered in return, this can be a reasonable investment. Often the persons who disagree with this fall into the camp of limited vision, where all they care about is their desires alone and give little value to impacts on the entire social body in the present time or in the future -- including the welfare of their descendants.

The fact that Trump is daily sacrificing our future environment on the alter of short-term economic benefit (in his view, not necessarily in fact) is an abandonment of one of the major responsibilities of government. He is derelict in his duties.

Trump is failing in his responsibilities as leader and head administrator of our nation's welfare.

He appears to have little long-term vision except for what may be good for him personally (and his billionaire peers).

Republican regulators

In the 18th century, the founding fathers of our country couldn't foresee individuals so wealthy, corporations so vast, industrialization so toxic and a world-wide population so large that they could collectively endanger the long-term welfare of the entire world. Today there are still those, who through greed, ignorance, stupidity, or some combination do not recognize that the government has to limit individual and organizational activity to the extent that they are not an imminent or eventual risk to the world remaining a supportive home to its inhabitants.

But we are at that point. Government should be and is limited. This does not mean it should not regulate. A function of government is to protect the greater good -- even if that imposes some limitation on our activities including those to maximize profits at the expense of the world itself.

It's time for those who are asleep to wake up. It's time to recognize the need for extensive governmental regulation -- especially in the area of environmental conservation and protection.

What good is unlimited freedom if, collectively, we are poisoned to death as a consequence?

Wise and far-sighted governmental regulations can not only be a good thing, they are essential in the modern age. Once again Trump and his administration is on the wrong side of the issue. They are promoting coal and other fossil fuels, when most persons know this is a dead-end road. The future is in renewables. We, the U.S.A. could be a world leader in the development and manufacture of this technology that is certain to be the way forward. Yet the Trump administration seems blind to this fact, and determined to encourage anachronism.

The 1950s and 1960s are over. We cannot return to those times and their short-sighted, profligate practices.

Dump Trump and his entire administration before it is too late. Elect wise and far-sighted persons to lead us into a safe, healthy, prosperous future. Vote wisely. Engage peaceably. Be a true patriot, not a reactionary anachronist. Do not let the country be highjacked by self-serving billionaires and political wing nuts.

Dump Trump (and all of his ilk) as soon as possible.

It's the Climate, Stupid! (Oh Yeah, and Avoiding Nuclear War)

Today's political waters are roiled and muddied -- primarily by Republican climate-change deniers. Not long ago, Trump, armed with his delusional set of "alternative facts" said that climate change was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Unbelievable. Ridiculous. Embarrassing.

At the behest of billionaire dark-money puppeteers behind much of the so-called conservative-political movement, Republicans are denying climate change, and dismantling as much possible and as quickly as possible the Environmental Protection Agency's powers and mandates. Reactionary dark money is also driving as much as possible a libertarian agenda, which serves mainly the moneyed class, and certainly not the mass of Americans. (Bear in mind that I'm not a flaming liberal. I must confess that I was a conservative Republican-type voter for many years until the early 1990s, when I believe the Republican party's trolley completely jumped the tracks. It has only gotten worse as time has gone by. At this point that trolley is atomized, completely unrecognizable. Today I am comfortable suggesting that the Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln, or of conservatism, for that matter -- which by definition would not be so comfortable destroying the environment or rattling sabers in response to the childish threats of an unbalanced Korean autocrat. This is a time for cool heads and judicious tactics: think JFK and the Cuban Missle Crisis.)

The Trump administration has largely become a science-free zone, and what was once a debate based on rational evidence has now become politicized and ridiculously subjective -- turning a deaf ear to the mass of respected scientists, who continue to sound the climate alarm.

What is disturbing is that even if today we got to a point of climate-neutral carbon and methane emissions, the climate-change trends would continue for some time. Also disturbing is that by the time that Miami, much of the remainder of southern Florida and other coastal areas are under water, the climate-change deniers of today will have likely passed on and won't have to answer for their short-sighted foolishness that sped us down a path of destruction.

A dark money wet dream?

At the time of the 2016 presidential campaign, of the two final main candidates, there was only one who understood the climate hazards ahead. (By the way, that candidate was not Trump.) That alone should have scared the beejeebers out of any voter tempted to vote for the Republican candidate. Even if one hated the Democratic presidential candidate, there was only one responsible choice (again, not Trump). There were so many other reasons that the Republican candidate was a poor choice -- completely unqualified for the office (which, if you've been paying attention, has been proven week in and week out since he took office).

The real question, though, is how far are we going to let the Trump administration speed us toward climate disaster -- that is, if he doesn't first blow up a significant number of humans by starting a war with North Korea (which is something that he seems foolishly, childishly, recklessly determined to do).

If humanity survives intact the Trump administration (and I'm serious about that concern), it is important for Americans to take their voting privileges more seriously and not vote out of ill-informed anger and frustration, happy to "blow up the system" by electing, without regard to the potential consequences, other ill-informed, psychologically-defective candidates.

I humbly implore you to take action where ever you can: contact elected officials, donate to worthy causes, protest peaceably as appropriate, and act for responsible environmental action and diplomacy rather than short-sighted hostility. (The fact that Trump has control of the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal, and in this matter there's no one who can act as a check or balance against his oft-demonstrated irrational, petulant nature -- well, that should certainly disturb one's nightly sleep.)

Trump's fantasy over N. Korea?

Trump made lots of promises on the campaign trail that his actual policies have countered. He also made many assertions and recommendations that were directly opposite to the spirit of the constitution and our basic principles such as the rule of law.

He and his administration are best voted out of office (or perhaps prosecuted to the full extent of the law for any crimes that we find they have committed), removed safely far away from the halls of power.

Make America great again -- dump Trump (and Pence and Pruitt et al).

Trump Offends Soldier's Widow

Last week's news cycle brought to light the latest gaffs by Trump. I think this episode served to emphasize two things that many of us have come to realize about this TV personality turned politician.

Before I elaborate on those two things, I want to defend Trump on one issue: I don't think he intended to offend in his condolence phone call to a soldier's widow. But that actually makes his tactless buffoonery even more troubling.

This episode indirectly highlighted the fact that Trump continues to display no intimate knowledge of the difference between truths and falsehoods. Nothing he says can be taken as true without complete fact checking. Regarding his statements about presidents calling soldiers' widows, he fumbled the ball once again by making false claims about past presidents not making condolence phone calls.

This willingness to make statements without knowledge or understanding of the pertinent actual facts should not be surprising. Trump has long demonstrated a willingness to make untrue statements absent factual underpinnings. One doesn't have to do extensive research to understand this. Simply going back to Trump's birther allegations about President Obama are sufficient to put an exclamation point on the assertion that Trump is comfortable, even relishes, making uninformed, false statements.

If one followed the presidential campaign leading up to the 2016 election, it was also apparent that Trump is more than a profound ignoramus; he is an inveterate liar. So both the American public and the rest of the world including world leaders, who must interact and negotiate with Trump, know about his pathology regarding the truth, and must deal with him accordingly. I don't know how you feel about this, but personally, I find that extremely worrisome.

Regarding Trump's actual offending statement in his condolence call, there have been reports that prior to the call Trump consulted with Mr. Kelly as to what Trump might say. Apparently Kelly, in his discussion with Trump, used words like soldiers know what they are signing up for. A reasonable person will understand the meaning of those words, but a person with even an average amount of empathy for others will also know that these are not even close to what will bring comfort to a grieving wife.

In fact, just by Trump's need to consult with another person on what to say in a condolence call to a
grieving widow suggests that his self-absorption pathology is so deep, that he cannot understand the obvious things that must be said. Further, he has no rational filter. He blurts out whatever comes to mind without the ability to weigh the impact on the listener. This is bad enough when making a condolence call, but think about the potential consequences when interacting with world leaders on more volatile matters such as a potential nuclear showdown with an irrational despot.

Anyone with any sense of empathy would know that what Trump should have said would include the following:

• We are saddened by the loss of your husband
• We are deeply aware of you sorrow and loss
• We humbly and respectfully thank your family for the service and sacrifice for the country
• And so on...

Most would also know that is would not be helpful, appropriate, or comforting to say that the deceased knew what he was signing up for!!!!!!

This episode is just one more stone on the mountain of evidence that indicates how unfit Trump is to hold the high political office to which he was elected by an unfortunate confluence of several circumstances.

Football, Metaphors, the Flag and Free Speech

As a life-long sports fan, one of the most commonly-used words that that I've consistently heard sportscasters use is momentum. A team that shows a winning trend has momentum. A team that was playing well but has demonstrated a downturn, a regression in their play, has lost momentum. We've all heard this, I'm sure.

But what is momentum exactly?

Those who know physics understand exactly what momentum is. And if you Google momentum, you will get a definition like the following:
"...a quantity of motion, measured as a product of mass times velocity."

So momentum is literally the mass of an object (mass is a quality that, for simplicity, can be thought of as weight) multiplied by its velocity (that is, speed of motion).

Now, does a sports team literally have momentum? No. The term  momentum, which is too frequently over used and almost just as frequently is misunderstood, it has no literal meaning in sports. A team has no measurable mass and no measurable velocity; thus it has no literal momentum.

Momentum in this sports usage is a metaphor. Googling the word metaphor gives the following definition:

met·a·phor

ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/

noun: metaphor; plural noun: metaphors

1) a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

"“I had fallen through a trapdoor of depression,” said Mark, who was fond of theatrical metaphors"

synonyms:

figure of speech, image, trope, analogy, comparison, symbol, word painting/picture "the profusion of metaphors in her everyday speech has gotten pretty tiresome"

2) a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.

"the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering"

So in the common sports usage, metaphor is defined using definition number one, above. It is a term that makes the intangible qualities of a winning team on a hot streak -- qualities such as confidence or consistently good execution -- more tangible. After all, most of us understand the feeling, power and difficulty of stopping a sledge hammer in motion. That's real momentum.

Now consider the second definition of metaphor, above. Then think of the flag of the USA: the stars and stripes. Do U.S. soldiers fight for the flag? Perhaps in the minds of some, they do. But do they really? No. They fight for the United States of America. Some, who are prone to deeper thought, may know that they fight (or should fight) for the ideals of the USA, which are stated in the U.S. Constitution.

Among these hallowed and cherished ideals include those spelled out in the Bill of Rights: the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The very first amendment in the Bill of Rights includes the explicit right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.

Why was this the first explicit addition to the constitution? Setting freedom of religion aside for this discussion (though very important, Mr. Trump), both freedom of speech and freedom of the press (which has been appropriately expanded to include all mass media) are necessary to have a public awareness and debate on pertinent issues of the day. If only the government has free speech and control of the facts on any given issue, then you end up being, in effect, the United States of North Korea in America. Nobody with a brain wants that!

This brings us back to football -- NFL football. There is currently much ado, anger, hubbub and general apoplexy surrounding players' activities during the playing of the national anthem.

Some of the assertions made about these players' activities during the anthem (sitting, kneeling, standing and holding hands, etc.) are as follows:

• They are disrespecting the flag
• They are disrespecting soldiers who have fought for the flag
• They are disrespecting the U.S.A.

First of all, all the hubbub surrounding the national anthem and the flag are misplaced concerns. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance that many of us repeated daily in grade school? Recalling that, it should be more clear to all that it is not really the flag that is the issue. To quote the Pledge of Allegiance, the issue is "the republic for which it stands." (Gasp!) The flag is a metaphor for the republic itself! So is the national anthem: it's a metaphor, a symbol for the nation.

Secondly, the U.S. Supreme Court has officially ruled that actions against the flag -- in their most extreme, flag burning -- are legal expressions of free speech. (Remember? That pesky and troublesome first amendment to the U.S. Constitution?) Implied in this court ruling is that when one burns or otherwise "disrespects" a symbol of the U.S.A., it is not a literal attack on the country. It is a form of political speech. Many are confused about this distinction, just as many sports fans don't understand that momentum in a game is also a metaphor, just a way of speaking to try to make a point.

So if one "disrespects" the flag or the anthem, they are making a general statement of dissatisfaction with the republic. There's nothing wrong that; we aren't perfect -- there's room for improvement. However, though legal, there is a small problem with expressions of protest involving the U.S. flag or the anthem: they are ambiguous: unspecific and easily misinterpreted -- misinterpreted either accidentally (through ignorance or stupidity) or intentionally (through slyness, ignorance, stupidity, or some combination).

Colin Kapernick's original stated beef was (I hope I'm getting this right) that people of color are still experiencing unequal and unjust treatment under the law and in everyday society. His point was, I suggest, that the ideals of the U.S.A. are not being reflected in actuality throughout the land. He has publicly stated as much! Yet far too many interpret his sitting or kneeling during the nation anthem as one of the three bullets listed above -- simple issues of disrespect.

By some taking such interpretive license with Kapernick's actions (and subsequently those of other NFL participants), they are successfully avoiding his issue -- and yet he does have a point. Instead, by ignoring his stated concerns and instead getting worked up about the general issue of disrespect (for flag, soldiers, or country) is a misplacement of one's umbrage. It's easier for many to dismiss the real issue and instead diminish the protester as a kind of ad hominem argument. After all, if a protester is categorized as a disrespectful jerk, then one feels free to disregard his main point on its actual merits.

If no one is free to criticize the country, government or individual politicians, then we have abridged the First Amendment. If we have done that, then we have diminished our ability to protect our freedom. 

The flag and the anthem are metaphors. If some soldiers literally fight for the flag, well, I respect their honor, their heroism and their (misplaced) intentions, but it is not and never has been about fighting for the flag. The flag (and the anthem) are merely symbols of the intangibles, the republic for which they really stand: the best implementation of the Constitution that we can do -- including, by the way, the First Amendment granting us the freedom of speech and a free and uncensored press. 

If we are not allowed to demonstrate displeasure with symbols, then we have lost the freedom of speech, and the flag and the anthem become hollow icons for ideals that we have misplaced.