Current weather

  • Scattered clouds
  • 54°
    Scattered clouds

Letters to the Editor

Posted: Wednesday, December 05, 2001

Many displaying their patriotism know nothing of flag etiquette

I'm sure all Clarion readers will have noticed the increased public display of American flags by both individuals and businesses since the events of Sept. 11. This is intended, no doubt, to advertise the patriotism of those who display it.

As an ex-Marine (Korean Veteran) and retired federal employee (FAA), I've served a good many years under that flag, and I will admit that I still get a warm fuzzy feeling every time I see one, especially those properly displayed.

It is obvious that many people, especially those who have flags mounted on their vehicles, are either unaware of, or don't care about, proper flag etiquette.

To quote from the U.S. government publication, "How to respect and display our flag":

"Take every precaution to prevent the flag from becoming soiled."

"When the flag is in such a condition, through wear or damage, that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, it should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."

Enough said.

Jerry Brookman

Kenai

Subsistence issue should be discussed with facts, good will

Setting it straight:

Mr. Johnson is correct when he notes that a person's age is not a "trust resource" as are "fisheries, wildlife, and waters," but tax monies and legally defined privilege most certainly are "trust resources."

Fisheries, wildlife, and waters and other social resources such as tax monies and much, much more are in fact "trust" resources legally defined and administered by the political authority for the public good whether those particular resources are enumerated in a constitution or not.

How the state allocates, by law, aspects of social resources, whether that resource is wildlife or tax monies, does not define unequal classes of citizens. What defines unequal classes of citizens is unequal treatment before the same law.

Mr. Johnson is also correct when he notes that Alaska's constitution makes "rural subsistence priority access to fisheries" unconstitutional, and that fact is the source of the debate. Federal law mandates are contrary to Alaska's constitution. Most of us understand the nature of the debate and why it's occurring.

Mr. Johnson, I am not debating the subsistence issue, simply hoping that it's conducted in terms of fact and good will, not divisive rhetoric.

John Nelson

Soldotna



CONTACT US

  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING

MORRIS ALASKA NEWS