The recent flap over Obama's decision to stop wearing an American Flag lapel pin has got me thinking:  If the true measure of a person's patriotism is not their concern for their country or their willingness to sacrifice for their country but is instead measured by adornment and jewelry, I'll pin two American flags to my coat.

We see all the time the idea that flying a flag, flying a bigger flag or flying a multitude of flags is seen as a symbol of patriotism.  Giant flags are becoming the norm at RV and car lots.  Banners with flags have been in use for a while.  The "arms race" of flags turns some people off, but if it wasn't working, certainly the companies would stop doing it.  There are of course some cases where organizations have gone overboard.  Anyone remember the American flag trash bags?  Clearly, we weren't ready to rename our trash "Freedom Flotsam".

People put American flags everywhere, on shirts, hats and jackets and on their cars.  Some people even use them as their avatars in online forums.  But does it make people patriotic if they have them?  Does it make people unpatriotic not to?  Imagine if a metal American flag emblem became a standard feature on new cars.  If there were no cost difference, would you choose to have one?  How would you feel about people who decided not to have one?

Obama is taking a big risk here, but one I think may pay off for him.  We've gotten tired of the American flag being used as a bludgeon against the people and people feeling like they can't oppose an idea simply because someone has wrapped it in a flag.  This is not a new phenomenon, but it has been amplified since 9/11.  It's time that we restored the flag to its proper place as the symbol of our country and not a crass marketing symbol for shoddy ideas.

Patriotism isn't about symbolic gestures and a person's patriotism shouldn't be measured through their compliance with a song and dance routine.  It's about your allegiance to American ideals.  If we prove to be a nation that can't see the cake for the frosting, the substance past the style, we'll end up with campaigns as Potemkin villages and no metric by which to discern who really stands for what, if they stand for anything at all.

I didn't think the President had it in him.  It's one thing to toss embryos in the trash rather than use them to save lives.  At least there he could claim ignorance about the eventual fate of the embryos.  But vetoing a children's health bill?  It's disgusting.

Time for Congress to override this President.

http://www.foxnews.com/stor...

WASHINGTON —  President Bush on Wednesday vetoed a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the current State Children's Health Insurance Program, arguing the new program offers government-run health care to too many Americans who don't need it.

Democrats are confident they have a winning issue and are working hard to find enough votes in the House to override the veto. The Senate already has enough votes to override.

"Today the president showed the nation his true priorities: $700 billion for a war in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids; $50 billion in subsidies for huge oil companies; but no health care for low-income kids; $8 billion lost to waste, fraud, abuse, and no-bid contracts in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

"Millions of American children and their families won't forget that they are on the bottom of the president's priority list," Emanuel said.

Family health care coverage can cost more than $1,000 a month, and Democrats say they have the public on their side.

"Once again, the Democratic Party are aligned with 70 percent of the public," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday.