If you've been planning to burn an American Flag, but just haven't been able to find the time, we humbly suggest that you readjust your priority list. The oft-presented but never-passed Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning (along with any other phsyical desecration of the flag) has once again passed the House, and is headed to the Senate. The difference this time is that both supporters and intelligent peop...er, opponents of the measure believe that it has a chance of passing in the Neocon-dominated Senate.

From an AP story in ABC News:

The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

By a 286-130 vote eight more than needed House members approved the amendment after a debate over whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.

Approval of two-thirds of the lawmakers present was required to send the bill on to the Senate, where activists on both sides say it stands the best chance of passage in years. If the amendment is approved in that chamber by a two-thirds vote, it would then move to the states for ratification.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

Is it just us, or is this issue really as blatantly clear as we think it is? The flag is a symbol of our country, and our country is, at least in theory, all about freedom. As Representative Nadler points out, valuing a piece of cloth more than the freedoms that cloth represents is, to put it mildly, severely misguided. Making it a crime to damage a piece of cloth just because of its particular colors and design is pretty much the height of contradictory stupidity. Any American who supports this legislation is akin to a lawyer actually running after an ambulance — they are making themselves into a ridiculous joke.

We also noted that the debate in the House was supposedly about "whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections," but Representative Cunningham, who supports the amendment, makes no mention of why he believes it doesn't run afoul of free-speech. Instead, he merely appeals to emotion in his cry to protect a fucking hunk of fabric. Of course, this kind of illogical "logic" is typical of not only today's Republican Party, but of politicians in general, and many others as well. Such widespread stupidity doesn't make a position any more correct, though.

We've talked about issues like this before. Notably, the whole ruckus about Quran desecration which, we agree, the US shouldn't have been doing, but which, at the end of the day, is just messing with a book. Symbols do not a country (or religion, or anything else) make. Further, the idea of making it criminal to damage our own property, whether that property is a flag with our picture on it, or a flag with the colors of the United States on it, is so ludicrous we don't know whether to laugh or scream.

Not to mention that, in general, the Constitution is meant to preserve our freedoms, not strip them away. We can think of an instance in which our rights were restricted Constitutionally — it was the Eighteenth Amendment which prohibited alcohol, and it was repealed less than fifteen years later by the Twenty-First Amendment. (Funny, it took them two years to ratify the prohibition amendment, while the amendment that repealed it was ratified in the same year it was proposed. Guess there were some thirsty bastards in Congress!) In addition to the fact that Prohibition did not serve to reduce crime or solve many social problems, it is also widely held to be responsible for the fact that American-brewed beer is nothing more than mass-produced, watered-down piss. All in all, this foray into Constitutionally restricting our freedoms was a colossal failure, at least in part because that's not what the Constitution is meant to do.

Frankly, this issue is so basic that we can't even think of things to really Rant about. It should be as simple as an after school special, or a grade school lesson on civil liberties, but instead this is being "seriously" debated in our Congress. Hell, if you want to see a good treatment of this issue, just watch Futurama, Season Five, Episode 4: "A Taste of Freedom." As Dr. John Zoidberg says in that episode — after eating a flag on Freedom Day —

Yes fellow patriots, I ate your flag! And I did it with pride. For to express oneself by doing a thing is the very essence of Freedom Day!

...and...

Yes, I'm desecrating a flag, but to preserve the freedom it represents!

How much more simple can this issue be?

We don't know if this legislation will really pass the Senate, and even if it does, it still needs to be ratified by two-thirds of the states in order to make it into the Constitution, which isn't a foregone conclusion. We will be keeping an eye on this, and we will be contacting our Senators and Representatives to let them know that we don't approve. But then, if they actually need to hear that from us, perhaps they're too stupid to understand.

Actually, American beer is piss because of the second world war. With so many men gone, the brewers decided to make beer they thought would appeal to women, so they switched to a lighter, pilsen style from the heavier ales and lagers they had been brewing. When the men came back, the brewers discovered that they actually LIKED the watered down piss, so they kept making it. Thus the world was cursed with Old Milwaukee for all time.

I have an american flag my parents posted to me after 11 September, in the mistaken belief that I'm an ardently patriotic expat, instead of just an expat. Think the girlfriend and I may have a barbecue this weekend, and we'll need some kindling. I'll take some photos...

Nah. I don't want to burn a flag. Not that I love the government, or am profoundly against it, but because I think burning a symbol is almost as stupid as worshiping one (and arguably, is actually the same thing...the symbol has to be meaningful for destroying it to have any effect, as any good semiotician will tell you). A flag is a piece of cloth. There are things that need protection in the world...children, endangered species, the environment, civil rights, privacy...but it's a bit of cloth that gets that protection. How insanely moronic. Deeper into the rabbit hole we go.

Well, in the event that 2/3's of the House and 2/3s of the Senate approve it, the required number of states ratify it, and it also passes muster in terms of Constitutionality, there is nothing in the law to prevent this.

Personally, I think it is much ado about nothing -from both sides of the issue.

Suppose this thing passed all the way through, became law. Know this: it is impossible to write the law so thoroughly that any and every method one might use to make a political point by descrating the flag would be foreseen and proscribed. It just can't be done.

I understand both sides of the issue and don't like to see any freedom removed unnecessarily. However, I think a larger issue is that we are a nation of laws and if this chest-thumping, appeal-to-the-masses measure passes all the legal requirements, law demands it pass whether I happen to like it or not. This bothers me little because our nation of laws also provides mechanisms by which we may reverse such things if it can be shown to be necessary, vis-a-vis the 18th & the 21st.

There is a corollary to science here in that, when the issues are truly important, we ought not to allow changes to be made too quickly, lest too much chaff sneak through into the wheat. In science, it takes a boatload of evidence and a full play-out of the scientific method to change any basic precept of science or to add to existing canons of science. Likewise, in government, both amendments and appeals ought to be long and laborious, lest too much bullshit slip through. The redemptive features that to me render this flag-burning thing as much ado about nothing are twofold:

1) They'll never be able to write it in such a way as to be at all effective -demonstrators and activists are nothing if not creative, and will find equally effective ways to use the flag as a political statement without violating whatever they put is this prospective law.

2) If it causes true problems those problems will be measurable and demonstrable, and the legal process will allow repeal.

Don't let emotional considerations cloud your judgment, this is democracy! Individual battles go one way, then the other, ad infinitum, but in the end, and by direct result of this process... we all win the overall war.

I had meant to add as well that if you think this is about 'a mere piece of cloth' then you may have totally missed the point.

Those who support this measure against flag burning are not materially concerned with the cloth from which a flag is made. They are concerned with what it represents, of course, and the idea of 'flag as symbol' has been accurately noted.

However, what supporters are protecting is not just the material flag, nor the symbolic flag -they are protecting their own *feelings*, of patriotism, of love of country, and a myriad of other emotions attached to and evoked by the American flag.

I do not mention this in any effort to support the measure and have already stated I think it's much ado about nothing from both camps. I am saying that if one is to fight against it, one needs to know precisely what 'it' is. It's not about the cloth, and it's not even about the symbolism really -it's about what appears to be a substantive representative majority who wish to protect a myriad of feelings and sensitivities attached to and/or evoked by the American flag. Within that myriad set, 'patriotism' is like a grain of sand to a beach, one bit of a whole much larger than I suspect those against the measure realize.

And no, I'm not a Republican, lol.

You say that they're protecting their own feelings of patriotism...so isn't this just political correctness gone man, in the favoured phrase of conservatives everywhere?

If their feelings are so weak that the destruction of one symbol could damage them, what does that say about them?

Semiotically, the question of symbolism here is confused in that the symbol is infinitely regenerable...there is not 'one' symbol, whose destruction would be calamitous, but a more or less unlimited amount. All you need is some material in the correct colours put together in the correct manner. If a child draws a flag on a piece of paper, and I burn it, what have I desecrated? Defining what strictly constitutes the symbol, and what is an echo or reflection of that symbol is more difficult than many recognize.

Speaking of patriotic feelings, what about the confederate flag? That offends many black peoples' feelings of patriotism, in that it reminds them of a time when they were considered less than human by a large swath of the country...

Honestly, if any liberal proposed a constitutional amendment to protect someone's 'feelings', they'd be stoned to death.

'Free abortions for some, little american flags for others.'

Just after reading this rant, I found this link. It clearly illustrates the stupidity of this amendment.

http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003585.html

How can taking away a freedom ever be a good thing?

The flag burners arn;t forcing anyone to watch or partake, so if you dont like it, dont watch.

Ain't condonin' it, an' ah don't agree wit' it. Jes' opinin' thet it be essentially meanin'less.

Did y'all thank a Republican majority Congress would pursue a lib'rull agenda?

Do y'all thank this'll lead directly to trackin' implants, government cameras in ev'ry home, an' mandatory Christianity?

No, I don't think those things...but I'm always wary of laws that are passed with the promise that they won't be enforced. Why pass the law then? Will it be used selectively? That hardly seems fair.

Also, why tinker with the constitution over something that's meaningless? We couldn't pass the equal rights amendment, but desecrating the flag is okay? What kind of sense does that make?

And if one symbol can have government protection, why not others? I call for government protection of the cross, bibles, qu'rans, the upanishads, the stars and bars, yellow ribbon magnets, the dollar bill, all coins (but not the one with that pussy Jefferson on it), Klan hoods, and all copies of the patriot act.

I don't expect republicans to be liberal, but I did think they were for smaller government and personal free...oh, I can't finish that sentence. I barely believe that they no longer feed on the blood of children. But since when has this been a conservative/liberal issue?

it seems the more the word 'freedom' gets kicked about by this administration, the less it actually means anything.

"Also, why tinker with the constitution over something that's meaningless?"

That's my whole point -it's not meaningless to them. It is very meaningful to them, and... they are in power. This is how it works, whether we like it or not. As Mel Brooks said in History Of The World, "it's good to be the king!"

"We couldn't pass the equal rights amendment, but desecrating the flag is okay? What kind of sense does that make?"

This is POLITICS. Stop expecting it to make sense. It has rarely made sense, even on real issues.

"And if one symbol can have government protection, why not others?"

The Keebler Elves logo can have government protection -if enough people want it so and they have the political power to do it. And, when they lose power, others may take over and remove that government protection.

"But since when has this been a conservative/liberal issue?"

Since the more conservative Republican party took power in the White House and both houses of Congress, a state of affairs liberals dislike. The same thing happens in reverse when the more liberal Democratic party takes power. When they propose something, the conservatives howl their protests to the rafters.

"it seems the more the word 'freedom' gets kicked about by this administration, the less it actually means anything."

Perhaps that's because you consider your own definition of 'freedom' to be the only definition. There are many senses of the term 'freedom' among the many peoples of our country. Conservatives pushing the flag-burning thing have their version. Theirs 'counts' more -because they are in power. It doesn't mean it's right. That is the nature of power and the exertion of power. We ought to be glad they are not committing some truly dangerous legislation.

Fear not. I intend to rule the universe some day, and I will definitely be making some changes, BIG changes. As a matter of fact, go ahead and pick out a country, anywhere in the world -except the US, of course. Go ahead. Pick one. When I take over, it's YOURS. No strings attached.

Our two cents...

Yes, a part of this issue is about "symbolism" — but that's not what the proposal is about. The proposal itself is about a piece of cloth. Sure, to many of the people supporting this measure (though certainly not all), it is about a symbol — to them, a symbol of our American liberties and values — but empirically, the proposal itself is about a piece of cloth.

Grendel is absolutely right that we could find ways around the laws that would be enacted as a result of this proposed amendment. For instance, we might draw a picture of an American Flag; or perhaps we could even make an actual flag, only with a hundred stars and only ten stripes. Then we could burn that. Hey, we wouldn't be breaking this proposed law, even though symbolically we'd be doing exactly what these morons don't want us to do. John Scalzi illustrates this quite nicely. So yes, this is about a piece of cloth.

Of course, the legislators could certainly write laws that would "cover" every instance of neglect or disrespect of their symbolic concept of the flag, or any other act of anti-patriotic expression. They could write that any representation of the flag which is desecrated in any way, whether physically, verbally, pictorially or even virtually (say, in a computer generated simulation) would be a violation of the law. They could easily cover any such act they felt necessary. So we don't think that there have to be any "loopholes" inherent to such laws. In fact, the legislators could easily write such laws with a much broader brushstroke, which would result in even more restrictions of our Constitutional rights.

So the question is, where do you draw the line? As always, we err on the side of freedom of expression and general civil liberties — if you're not harming anyone else, and not infringing on their liberties, do whatever the hell you want. There is no "right" to protection from insulting or offensive acts.

We don't agree that the democratic process requires simply accepting what the "majority" calls for, simply because they may be in power. If what the majority wants, by definition, infringes on the rights of any other groups or individuals, then it must not be enacted into law. Lynchings are a good example of how the majority can democratically decide to infringe on the rights of others. That doesn't mean that we should allow lynchings until such time as the pendulum "swings back" and we can remove such a lynch-endorsing law. Civil liberties must be protected, and it is often the majority opinion that these liberties need to be protected from.

If that example seems a bit extreme, how about the proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage? What a perfect parallel! This is another Constitutional Amendment meant to restrict rather than guarantee individual rights. If it were to be passed, we feel very confident that somewhere down the road — when we have more sensible legislators in office — it would be repealed. But does that mean, "Heck, let it go for now?" Absolutely not. We need to call it out as bullshit, today, because it is bullshit, today, just as much as it will be tomorrow.

In a broader sense, we believe this is very similar to the Michael Newdow suit to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Sure, it's just two little words, and it seems like such a simple thing; but it's really a tiny piece of the whole puzzle. Allow the scary folks this one little thing, and they'll start reaching for the next step...and the next...slowly building a platform on which they can stand to reach for the bigger, more important things. Is this flag-burning issue "little"? Certainly. That doesn't make it unimportant, though — every little step counts. If we can stop their progress on each "little" thing, right here, right now, then they will never get the opportunity to reach for the larger ones.

It's not really a slippery slope argument, either — at least, not from our side of things. The actual slippery slope is the one that the conservatives see. From their viewpoint, it's a good thing: the slippery slope that leads from them getting the little baby steps out of the way right into them getting just about everything they want. There's no guesswork, here — their "slippery ascent" is an openly stated goal! Some of them are quieter about it, but when pressed, it slips out easily — think of Bush Senior declaring, "I don't think atheists should be considered patriots."

It's always there, beneath every "minor" step they take: that overarching plan which leads us all ever closer to their idea of utopia, whether we want it or not. The restriction of one civil liberty leaves the door open for the restriction of any other civil liberty...or a dozen liberties...or a hundred...or all of them. Again, this isn't our "fear" — it's their plan of attack.

If you give up one civil liberty — even it's just because "the majority wants it so" — how can you argue that you should keep any others? Where do you draw the line? Which civil liberties are the "important" ones, and which are negligible?

We also have a very different take on one of Grendel's statements:

This is POLITICS. Stop expecting it to make sense. It has rarely made sense, even on real issues.

Yes, Grendel, politics and legislation in practice rarely make much sense. But claims of the supernatural or paranormal, the claims of religions, the claims of pseudoscience and quackery — none of these things make sense. And our stated purpose — and, we feel, our obligation — is to call out such bullshit when we see it, no matter what sphere it lies in. Does American legislation, usually, make sense? No, of course not. Should we point out when it doesn't? Absolutely. To us, calling bullshit on politics is exactly the same exercise as calling bullshit on some Newage whack job like Miraclist. Bullshit is bullshit.

And Grendel, rest assured — while we may feel very strongly about this issue, our actual position on this issue was made with cool, reasoned logic.

You'd almost think I hadn't explained I fully share your position, lol.

My point isn't getting across.

Of COURSE proposals for this sort of law are wrong. That doesn't mean it won't pass into legislation. There will not be a vote by the public on this. It will be settled, one way or the other, by the courts ultimately.

Where we differ is what most certainly is a slippery slope argument, that this is the first of a series of steps, each increasingly bad for personal freedoms. That doesn't mean it couldn't turn out that way, but laws such as these have been passed many times before without the collapse of freedom and liberty.

I predict this law, if passed, will cause zero real effect. It will be ignored. Those early breakers of this law will get at most a slap on the wrist -and more publicity for their cause than they could have dreamed of receiving without this law.

The Republicans won't enjoy control of the White House and both houses of Congress forever. If they wish, the Democrats can undo this thing quicker than it will have been done, if it passes.

My point was that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of wise opinion. If it passes legally, it's a law, and the right & worng of it are irrelevant. That's the price of having a nation founded on laws. Acknowledging the legislative power of the majority is not the same as defending it.

In the end, I think people are grossly overreacting to this nothing measure, while serious matters go by without a peep. Example -the current court decisions on emminent domain, that now your home can be forcibly taken from you and given to a private developer if the local government (often in the pocket of developers) "for the good of the community". THAt is a serious loss of freedom and protection, and nobody seems to even be aware of it.

If anyone would like to play this game while it's still legal to do so,
click on my name to play Don't Torch That Flag, Hand Me The Lighter