Image not recoveredwallace-flag_knight.jpg
It's the flag of an army that killed hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, in the name of preserving slavery. It would later be the symbol of a century of terrorism in the name of racial segregation. Today it's the unmistakable rallying flag of any number of racist causes, and a mainstay of Klan rallies.
The flag of sedition, murder, and bigotry. It represents the worst part of our worst moments. It dishonors our country and the memory of the soldiers who fought to preserve the union. It is a persistent middle finger to the civil rights movement and to the hundreds of millions of Americans who have been victims of racial oppression, murder and terrorism since the Civil War.
Image not recoveredConfederateMoney.jpg
The idea that the State of California shouldn't fly the Confederate Battle Flag or sell Confederate memorabilia would seem like the no-brainer of no-brainers. Such a no-brainer, you might be surprised that a bill to stop such things is needed at all. But one day, the mother of Assemblyman Isadore Hall noticed that the Capitol's gift shop was selling replica Confederate currency that depicted the Confederate Battle Flag. So Hall wrote this bill, AB 2444 (emphasis mine):
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 8195) is added to Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, to read:
CHAPTER 2.9. Confederate Flag
8195. (a) The State of California may not sell or display the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, also referred to as the Stars and Bars, or any similar image, or tangible personal property, inscribed with such an image unless the image appears in a book, digital medium, or state museum that serves an educational or historical purpose.
(b) For purposes of this section, “sell” means to transfer title or possession, exchange, or barter, conditional or otherwise, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, for consideration. “Transfer possession” includes only transactions that would be found by the State Board of Equalization, for purposes of the Sales and Use Tax Law, to be in lieu of a transfer of title, exchange, or barter.
So, as you'd expect, the bill passed with near-unanimous support, because it's 2014 and we aren't animals.
Just three of 120 legislators voted "no," and one of those was none other than Senator Steve Knight – Senator to much of the SCV and a candidate for Congress in California's 25th Congressional District.
Image not recoveredSteve_Vote2.jpg
Knight's opponent this November is another Republican, Tony Strickland (the whole Republican vs. Republican thing explained here). Strickland already got more votes in the primary, and now they face off for the big prize in a district that nearly voted for Obama in 2012 and is even less Republican two years later. In November, there are a lot of votes up for grabs from voters who sit to the left of both candidates.
Apart from this being a bad vote, it's bad politics. Really bad politics. While there's no honor in Etch-A-Sketching, it seems that if anything, Knight has been moving to the right since the election. Tony Strickland can now just stand right where he is and look much more palatable to Democrats and independents. In November, Jerry Brown is probably going to get close to 50% of the vote in this district. A lot of voters are just looking for the less objectionable candidate. By voting against bills like this (or bills like this) or taking a zero-execptions stance on abortion, Knight is making Strickand's balancing act a lot easier.
(If you're keeping score, SCV's Assemblyman Scott Wilk voted yes on this bill.)
When this bill passed the Assembly, Tim Donnelley was the lone "no" vote. At the time, Donnelly was the favorite for the GOP gubernatorial nomination and his vote made national news. Commentators left and right scratched their head at the decision, which Donnelly defended on the grounds of "free speech." But this has nothing to do with free speech, because it's the state itself deciding that the state itself will no longer "say" a certain thing. It does nothing to impinge on the free speech rights of anyone. It even allowed for an exemption for educational purposes.
Steve Knight isn't endorsing the flag, much less the racism it represents. But with this vote, he shows a profound indifference towards the historical and contemporary significance of the flag.
...and I'm afriad he just crashed his campaign in a ditch.
Image not recoveredyeehaw.jpg
Comments (11)