So there's another stupid flag amendment, and this time around it is being said that there's a better chance that the Constitution will again be used to pander. How nice.
On the other end of the spectrum is the great hero of us all: Stephen Colbert who, I hear, decided to use the flag and the Bible to make some sort of point. Yeah. You go, Steverino.
I have no patience with idiots who screw with the Constitution to prohibit something that rarely happens (flag burning) just to get a few extra votes. Incidentally, I have no problem with flag "desecration." In fact, I have no problem with any desecration, provided that the destruction is not being done to someone else's property. If anybody wants to go out and by an American flag, a Bible, Koran, picture of Paris Hilton, and set it ablaze, dunk it in urine, cover it with hot fudge and peanuts, I couldn't care less.
On the supposed "other side" of the debate, are lightweights like Colbert (you remember him, that Captain Courageous) who think that in our present police state it is somehow a big deal to play with supposedly sacred objects in America. The Commissar has a bit of advice for Colbert: namely, if you want to be seen as courageous, try doing your schtick with something that really carries some danger.
What we have here are dueling panderers. The demagogues, ladies and gentlemen, are on both sides, each insisting that they are doing something important, or brave when in fact, everything is fake.
Comments