The symbolism inherent in the push for the so-called "flag desecration" amendment would be funny, were there not so many serious matters spilling over these days. That outlawing the 2 or 3 flag burnings per year in the US - through a constitutional amendment, no less - in a time of war, domestic spying, economic stagnation (for the bottom 90 percent), failing medical care, crumbling infrastructure, etc. etc., tells you just about all you need to know about the Republican Party.

People For the American Way has some pretty good resources on this amendment at www.FlagAmendment.org.

Here's an amendment to the Constitution that everyone can get behind:

No Flag Burning at Gay Marriages.

The time is now.

What's the point of passing shrill 'oh-my-god-we-must-protect-the-sanctity-of-our-flag' measures when we still allow "Old Glory" to be printed on t-shirts, bumper stickers, and product advertisements? Personally I think using the flag for symbolic political reasons, such as burning in protest, (or trying to pass holier-than-thou flag protection legislation for the sake of re-election) to be far more palatable than seeing 'Old Glory' plastered across the background of a Harley Davidson poster, or on a 'these colors don't run' bumper sticker. Both of which are cynically preying on your patriotism to make a buck. That's disgusting.

The crass commercialization of our national symbol is what you should be getting all up in arms about, and banning that type of exploitation is a piece of legislation I could get behind. Until then, I expect all you flag protection supporters to start treating our 'national symbol' with the proper respect. This would include the removal of any stickers depicting the flag from your cars, refusing to buy products that use the flag as a marketing tool and the disposal of all such products currently in your households (such as t-shirts, lighters, sparklers, mugs, etc.), properly dispose of tattered and or faded flags (this means either burning or burying I believe) and replace them with new ones. And remember the flag should be taken in every night, properly handled and not allowed to touch the ground. If you have a flag being displayed flat on a wall the blue field should always be in the upper left portion of the flag. I'm sure, as patriots, and lovers of our flag, all of you who support this bill already follow all these rules and have the utmost respect for our flag and it's image.

There are many ceremonial rules regarding the handling, care and display of our flag, and they can be located anywhere from a Boy Scout manual to the Internet. If SJR12 will end the flag being considered a great idea for a t-shirt or a television ad, if SJR12 ends the blatant commercial exploitation of our national symbol, come talk to me. Until then I would posit this is nothing more than a politically motivated legislative campaign used to make dupes and fools of those who really want to see the flag treated with respect.

Steve McBrian

I have said many times to many people that the most offensive treatment to our flag is the way it is plastered on all types of crap. "Look I'm a patriot because I have American Flag plates." How hypocritical and denigrating can you get. I support the proper respect of the flag and sometimes that includes burning to get the point across about what some people are doing to this country. Unfortunatly those same people would only say that I was unamerican and not the true patriot that I am because I hold this country to a higher standard. By the way I have never burned a flag but I can see why people would like too.

Meredith

will frists amendment also prohibit the autographing of flags...as dubya was seen doing last week in europe? i can think of no greater sin than that mans name being "sharpied" onto the symbol of the republic.

Very succinct, thank you

the minimalist

I went back and read Bush's pre-war comments, and noticed him saying that if war was needed, the United States would be very careful to minimize the casualties for the Iraqi people.

That one sentence - however untrue, the empty words - has real power in persuading the American people on the right.

It's all they need to hear to conisder the issue addressed, and any criticism after, short of seeing Bush on videotape saying 'ha ha, fooled them' and drinking a cup of Iraqi civilain blood pouring down his chin, is filed in the category of 'those damn democrats sniping and trying to make an issue against our troops'.

The democrats need to figure out how to stop letting the president get away with making 50,000 killed so invisible.

The nature of war today is that the American people live largely in an isolated state, not subject to the consequences, but rather to academic - to use the word loosely - appeals to 'spread democracy' and such.

The democrats are up against good manipulators, who can get away with the crude techniques of censoring the photos of returning American troops and such. War has in large part become a war of advertising - 'Brand Republican' for the war against 'Brand Democrat' for something else, maybe.

The democrats need to figure out how to make attacks stick better, so that the president saying it's so that he's going to minimize the casualties can't hide if he's utterly reckless instead.

That requires everything from the careful choice of language - remember how a simple renaming of the Estate Tax put its repeal into play politically - to using carefully selected facts to undermine the administration's credibility in ways the American people will respond to.

Can you find one democratic leader who responded to Bush's claim on minimizing casualties with saying there's a good chance he was lying? If leading democrats aren't saying it, why would middle America say it for them instead of assuming the statement was true? If Clinton had said it, is there doubt he'd have had it attacked?

Mayve in Iraq we have an occupation rather than a war, but politically, the democrats have a war.

But only one side is fighting too much of the time.