Why must sports writers infuse their stuff with liberal claptrap?

I read Uniwatchblog because I am fascinated by sports uniforms, and this guy knows his stuff. Reading his columns on ESPN and in his blog, has been a pleasure. I was jarred out of my reverie by the first few lines of this.

In reply, I wrote this: I know you were just trying to get in a cheap political shot when you wrote: "If Congress really wants to protect the American flag, they should stop promoting bogus Constitutional amendments that circumvent the Bill of Rights and instead turn their attention to Major League Baseball."

However, I would suggest you actually read the proposed amendment before you once again opine:

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

If you truly want Congress to "turn its attention to Major League Baseball" to address the disrespectful display of the flag, I submit that the necessary prerequisite to the "attention" you seek is for Congress to pass the amendment which would allow them to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag that John Patterson's sideburn delivered. Only upon passage and ratification of the amendment would Congress have the power you want them to have to prevent such things.

But I know you are convinced that the rights in the 1st ten amendments are imperiled by this proposed flag amendment so tell us, which ones, and how? Will passing the flag amendment allow quartering of troops at Phil Knight's house in circumvention of the 3rd amendment? Or allow Anna Benson's guns to be seized in circumvention of the 2nd amendment? Or is passing the amendment, ironically, exactly the attention you want from Congress?

Lest you think this is all negative, I do enjoy your sartorial commentary; keep up the good work!