Stupidity at the highest levels of our Government...

The Senate rejected the 'flag desecration' amendment... by one vote.

GOOD.

This failed amendment was nothing more than club-footed, election year political pandering of the worst possible kind.

In response, the president said, "... the American people deserve the opportunity to express their views on this important issue."

I agree, but tell me, Mr. President, how this is not exactly what has happened? Even if by only one vote. Not to mention what this would mean to someone who wishes to "express their views" by exercising their contitutionally guaranteed right to 'desecrate' an American flag.

The meat of the proposed amendment reads thusly: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

That's pretty broad if you ask me. Actually, it's dangerously broad even if you did not ask me.
There are some things about this that you should ask, though. Like... Who owns said flag? In what venue is this desecration prohibited? How exactly do we define 'desecration'? And who defines it? How will said Congress exercise its power to prohibit said desecration? What would have been the penalty for said desecration? And so on...

Now, admittedly, if go up to a local church, post office, city hall or even another person's private property and take their flag down and 'desecrate' it, then that's just plain wrong. But that's covered under a myriad of existing laws... Like those prohibiting trespassing, theft and vandalism. But if I go out and buy my own American flag with my own money and take it back to my own property and burn it or deface it or urinate on it or wipe my butt with it or whatever else, then how in the world is that anyone else's business?

Especially the Congress of the United States of America's? Don't these people have more important things to be worrying about?

War? Murder? Poverty? Rape? AIDS? Hunger? Child abuse? And so many more...

Oh, they have an answer for that too: "...the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops". Yes it does. But that's not really an answer. And that is precisely the point I want to make. The flag AMOUNTS to... It REPRESENTS... That means it's a SYMBOL. Nothing more. A symbol, an important and revered sybol, but a symbol regardless. If I do something nasty to a symbol, then that action is equally, if not more so, symbolic. So why the big debate?

Well, once again, it is an election year.

One of my senators, majority Leader Bill Frist just couldn't he'p hisself: "Countless men and women have died defending that flag..."

Saying things like this are a part of politics. I guess it's what he feels he has to say to keep his constituency happy. And, in a way, it's a verbal shorthand for "I support the troops who have died defending the nation that this flag represents". That's not exactly what he said though. He probably doesn't even realize the difference. Some aide probably told him it was a good thing to say. But, Senator, if anyone ever gave their life to defend our flag, or any flag, literally speaking, then that person is seriously confused and so are you for admiring them. Our service men and women gave, and risk giving their lives every day, to defend what that flag and this nation REPRESENTS. Namely freedom, peace, tolerance and understanding. In other words, all the things this failed amendment was against.

This whole thing really chaps my rearside. Oh, you couldn't tell? Really, I could go on about this for days but I think Sen. Daniel Inouye said it best: "Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice. While I take offense at disrespect to the flag, I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."

Amen, brother. Amen.