Last week the U.S. Senate narrowly missed amending the Constitution to prosecute people who protest the government through the symbolic action of burning the flag. While the over-obvious distraction tactic was an insult to the intelligence of the voting public, it’s even more disturbing that the effort was co-sponsored by CA faux-Democrat Diane “National ID” Feinstein.

I’m blogging about this now because I just read a message on a mailing list that put my sentiments into the perfect words. The author, Jean, has kindly given me permission to quote the whole thing:

Political debates are about ideas; but also about the real lives of real people who could be affected. You forgot about them in your listing of things about which I might care.

An important part about PASSING A LAW is that it implies it will be enforced against some unfortunate soul. Like laws against “drugs” and ‘terror” the law is not against the idea of flag burning. It is against the act of a person who might burn or dishonor a flag. When such a law is passed this expands the power of the state to arrest, imprison or otherwise harm someone. You appear to be hoping that the law is pointless, it will alter nothing. Are you sure? That this law would never ever be used?

I was once a foolish young student who might walk right into some such law. I care for those people who still are, or who might yet be. Why do you risk hurting them?

Politics is above all about individuals, if we choose to help or harm ourselves and each other. My core obejction to both this law and the Bush Administration is the consistent investment in the sheer meanness, from the petty to the great.

On a related note, J.E. Schwartz’s recent novel DoubleThink spells out the dystopian consequences of the police state mindset. While it might seem like a good idea to improve your own life circumstances by disciplining your neighbors, the weapons of the police state will inevitably turn on you and your family.