There are plenty of problems with the modern incarnation of the political protest. The typical protest is overweighed by a veritable rainbow of different groups clamoring for different causes, many of them so outlandish and fringe that it's difficult to believe they take themselves seriously. There's the inevitable man-on-stilts in the crowd, the people wearing papier mache caricatures of political figures, the people who don't really realize what the protest is about, the Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier supporters (regardless of the topic at hand) who couldn't tell you a thing about the people they seek to liberate. All in all, political protests are often a motley crew of progressives looking to change the world all at once, and unfortunately without a whole lot of success lately. What isn't found at modern political protests much any more, however, is people burning the American flag. This form of protest fell out of fashion about thirty years ago, likely when protesters realized that it was a quick and effective way to make sure that no one gave a second thought to the topic you were attempting to address because they were so irritated by you burning their flag. Regardless, flag burning is yet again on top of the GOP agenda for this summer's legislative session, and what's even more odd is that the often discussed and wholly irrelevant consitutional amendment banning came one vote away from passing this time around.

The "debate" is standard fare in what has come to pass for modern political discourse; the farcical discussions that constantly go back and forth in Washington these days. Republicans loudly and brashly trumpet their newest law or constitutional amendment, declaring themselves patriotic in the process, all the while claiming that anyone (ie. Democrats) who opposes their latest brainchild is somehow unamerican or unpatriotic or wants to make out with Osama bin Laden. And then Democrats are shocked, shocked that anyone would be so crass as to challenge their patriotism, and then proceed to vote for whatever the Republicans are trying to pass because they're afraid people might challenge their patriotism. If it weren't so depressing it would be boring. What's especially unfortunate this time, however, is the open support that some Democrats gave it.

And Harry Reid, along with 13 other Democratic Senators voted for it. So even senior Democrats are jumping on the bandwagon. What's surprising is who lead the charge against it.

I'm no fan of Mitch McConnell, but it's nice to see him take a principled stand for something, even if there is some devious plan for personal political gain underlying it.

At issue here is the politicization of a mode of free expression that many undoubtedly find distasteful. I'm not personally all that offended by seeing an American flag burn, but neither would I choose to do so. Regardless, my personal preferences, and the preferences of people like Bill Frist and Orrin Hatch are irrelevant when it comes to determining a constitutional basis for expression. When people like them try to desecrate a document like the constitution by writing in idiocy like the flag burning amendment it's far more offensive than burning a simple flag ever could be. Fortunately the Senate, by the tiniest margin possible, agreed.