Letter: Symbol of freedom should be made in USA
I would certainly hope that the premise behind the weekly editorial is to cajole readers to respond. I am referring to the preposterous slant you put on the North Dakota Senate bill to prohibit selling imported flags in North Dakota. Your argument is that we should be free to buy U.S. flags no matter where they are manufactured.
Let's face it, when something is not made in the USA, it is more than likely not made in Mexico or Canada where workers are also treated with dignity. If a product is not made in the USA, it is most likely made in China.
China is a country run by a communist regime and is North Korea's closest ally. It is also a country where almost half of its population lives on less than $2 a day. Families in China are only allowed to have one child. It is a country mired in pollution and deforestation. This is because China condones the practice of pollution exporting. China single-handedly immobilized the Kyoto Treaty, which would have rejuvenated our manufacturing sector.
I do realize all products cannot be made in the USA. But the fact remains, the flag is the American symbol of freedom. Aren't we doing a disservice to what it stands for by allowing it to be manufactured by children and other severely overworked and underpaid civilians in appalling working conditions? From an ethics standpoint, does this not seem like a paradoxical flim-flam?
I would like to pay homage to our lawmakers for bringing this issue to light and especially to Tracy Potter for attaching the amendment to this legislation in which state and local government flags must be made by domestic manufacturers.
The issue here is a question of ethics, not free choice as it was construed to be in Sunday's editorial. The underlying issue is simple; should the Star Spangled Banner, our symbol of independence, be manufactured by Americans who treasure and honor it, or should it be manufactured by sweatshops with deplorable working conditions?
As for the Dickinson Press Editorial Board, I would like to suggest that you try to present the issues you discuss in a more consensual manner. The editorial often seems very one-sided and therefore it alienates the other side. I can tell you that I feel you are flying at half-staff on this issue.
Mitch Feininger, South Heart