I just have a quick rebuttal.
I'm really unclear what you're saying about negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement. What we're trying to do here is make a positive impact, something that's actually going to make a difference. We have a lot of positive reinforcement around the flag, and I'm all for more. That's going to work, but again, I strain to find any teeth in this bill that make a difference. What you're talking about is a statement that if somebody actually has to take this thing to court with their own money, they can present this bill as some kind of solace.
I don't know. I'm curious as to what Mr. Carmichael has to say about it. It seems to go against a lot of what you were initially intending in the first place.