Your Views for December 3

Curious omission

I’m writing in response to the article titled “Burning flags and Trump tweets” (Tribune-Herald, Their Views, Dec. 2).

While I find the burning of our flag to be personally abhorrent, I stand with the decision of the Supreme Court and Justice Antonin Scalia in their interpretation of the First Amendment.

The article did cause a thought to run through my head, however. I wonder what the Supreme Court, Scalia, Voltaire and (his biographer) Evelyn Beatrice Hall would have thought about Senate Bill 1911, co-sponsored by then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, that called for a fine of $100,000, a year of imprisonment or both as punishment for burning the American flag?

Wow, can you believe the authors of that article omitted the good senator’s attempt to do the exact same thing? I can!

Jim Fitzgerald

Keaau

Sore losers

After viewing all the news and reading the posts on social media, I’ve figured out that the official Democratic Party drink of choice this season is whine — made from recently picked gripes, causing some bellyaches and moans, and leaving a whimper of an aftertaste.

Roger Schweitzer

Volcano

Gabbard’s ‘stand’

Regarding the headline “Gabbard will join veterans to ‘Stand for Sanding Rock’” (Nov. 30, Tribune-Herald): U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard should be standing for law and order.

As a U.S. congresswoman who writes the laws of our country, and as a military officer who can be called upon to enforce the law, Gabbard should be supporting the legally planned and permitted pipeline.

Instead, she has chosen to join the protesters, who are on the wrong side of the law.

And how will she get to North Dakota, without some fossil fuel-burning vehicle? Airplanes, trains, buses, cars all need fossil fuel.

Tulsi and others who oppose the use of fossil fuels should be working on some alternative. They should answer this question, “What do I put in my gas tank?”

Jack Roney

Hilo