The Coastal Point encourages the exchange of ideas. Letters to the editor must be signed by the author with phone number included for purposes of verification. Please send your letters to P.O. Box 1324, Ocean View, DE 19970.

Darin J. McCann

Not surprisingly, I’m a huge freedom-of-speech guy.

I’m a big believer that the KKK should be able to espouse their vile hatred to the insipid people who want to hear what they have to say, that people who have a problem with the war in Iraq should be allowed to march in Washington, D.C., or other places to try to bring a peaceful end to the conflict and that rappers should be able to express their homophobic, misogynistic lyrics without the hand of the government slapping them down to what they feel urban messages should be in their eyes.

In short, I believe department stores shouldn’t censor music, “patriotism” shouldn’t be used to stifle the freedom of expression that true patriots have — and do today — fight for, and that people shouldn’t be trying to put hot pants on Michaelangelo’s David because their narrow little minds might find it pornographic.

Sometimes, it’s good that people get mad over what others say or do, because that’s where real conversation begins.

<Hypocrite warning> <Hypocrite warning> <Hypocrite warning>

However, I do have a fundamental problem with people burning the American flag.

The U.S. Senate will be soon studying a measure to amend the Constituion regarding flag burning. If passed with two-thirds of the vote, the amendment will be sent along to the individual states for ratification. If it does not pass, the measure will sit in mothballs until the next go-around.

Look, I know the arguments. Burning a flag is a non-violent method of expressing an individual’s displeasure with the government at any given time. If people can say they are for segregation or write that women should not have equal rights or any other incidiary comments, then people should also be able to destroy their own private property to get a point across without physically hurting anyone.

Nope. Not buying it.

I’m sorry, I don’t. Marching as a group is protest, carrying signs or writing letters in newspapers is protest. Shoot, wearing a T-shirt with inflammatory wording is protest. Burning a flag is, well ... final. You burn wood. You burn receipts or statements with your personal information on it. You burn photos of yourself with spiked hair and stripes shaved in the side of your head from the 1980s because you just can’t believe you ever went through that “phase.”

You do not burn the American flag. The argument that it is a non-violent form of expression? I’d suggest that my reaction to watching somebody burn the flag in front of me would be a quite violent response. Would I punch or kick the person doing it? Probably not. But I’d guess that the individual would have a hard time sitting down for a few weeks with a burning flag stuck in ...

But I digress.

I do value the rights of an individual to say or express whatever thoughts he or she might have. In fact, I hold it as close to my heart as any belief I have. I believe an individual has a right to say the government is not doing right by the people, or that one race is better than another, or that people’s sexual orientations are not accepted by their own beliefs.

Just don’t burn a flag or cross, or go out gay-bashing to express your individual rights. At that point, you are trampling the rights of others to enjoy “the pursuit of happiness.”

The Washington Post — a storied and celebrated newspaper with a proclivity for extreme liberal thought — recently wrote an editorial against the proposed amendment. In it, the editorial writer opined that, “If you haven’t noticed a rash of flag-burning incidents sweeping the nation that’s because, well, there isn’t one.”

And, using that logic, since there isn’t a wave of pedophilia in this community right now, there shouldn’t be laws against it.

Do we need an amendment in the Constitution making desecration of our national symbol a criminal act? Probably not as much as other things need touched right now. However, I find the Post’s argument later in the editorial that passing this amendment does more damage to the nation than “a few miscreants with matches” to be pure garbage.

The amendment would not put an end to public debate or freedom of speech, it would put a stop to people burning the symbol of freedom and national pride that so many of our citizens enjoy. I’m not going to throw out one of those “Love it, or leave it” comments, but I will suggest, “Say what you want, just don’t desescrate anything that people die for.”

Watchful eye is really needed

It seems that public utilities are in the public eye quite a bit these days.

If it’s not the installation and cost of sewer or water services, it’s the increased rates for Delmarva Power customers. If we’re not discussing road condiditions, we’re talking about road improvements.

Add the Delaware Electric Cooperative (DEC) to the mix.

The DEC is sending ballots to its 65,000 Kent and Sussex County customers this week, asking them to vote to be member-regulated, rather than being under the eye of the Public Service Commission. The self-regulation would save the customers a lot of money, according to officials of the DEC, and would save on a lot of bureacratic red tape for the DEC to go through when changes need to be made.

While we all want less government interference in our lives, this one causes us a pause.

See, we’re not going to say that the DEC would become an outlaw organization preying on its customers without regulation, but we do worry about any public-service organization regulating itself. We’re also concerned that, since electric distribution is often contingent on geographic location for individuals, where does a disenfranchised customer turn for an alternative?

We see that already with customers of Delmarva Power, and the recent drastic increase in rates for their customers. Unless the people are members of the Bethany-Fenwick Area Chamber of Commerce or aligned with another group, customers in Delmarva Power’s regions cannot turn to, say, the DEC for their electricity.

Governmental regulation in any capacity is rarely the most efficient means of getting things done, but when it comes to a situation of public service — and the public service of electricity has become an absolute neccessity for residents and businesses, alike — it is a glaring need.

Now, it does not have to go to the extent of price-fixing or anything that extreme, but there does need to be somebody the electric supply companies are accountable to. When any interest that’s imperative to the public is only monitored by itself, there is a problem.

Do we really want to play with our power?
Editor:

This month, the Delaware Electric Cooperative (Co-op) will be mailing ballots to their customers asking them to be removed from the supervision of the Delaware Public Service Commission (PSC).

This might appear to be an incredible move in view of the uproar throughout the state over the price increases levied on the customers of Delmarva Power.

If this move is approved, the customers will have no recourse other than to complain to the very company with which they have a problem. They will not be able to go to another source for their electric service because that is determined by their location.

The co-op is promising a savings to the customers because they will save the payments that would otherwise paid to the PSC. These payments are estimated by the co-op to be $500,000. That comes to about $1 per month to each customer.

The co-op’s customers need to think long and hard before voting to have this monopoly totally removed from state regulation. Remember the big savings that we were going to reap with the original electric deregulation and how it turned out to be a huge increase for most of the state?

Walt Berwick
Selbyville