A Progressive on the Prairie

Sporadic blogging at best next week or so but here's something I've noticed recently.

The Bushies are considered the most secretive administration in US history. When someone from the Nixon White House says Bush tries to "govern by secrecy," you gotta wonder. But look at all the top-notch intelligence info that's been in the press the last week or so:

Recent terrorist "chatter" is raising concerns terrorists might try to attack the domestic food and drug supply.

Al Qaeda may attempt to launch attacks in U.S. cities using helicopters or rented limousines packed with explosives as weapons.

White House officials say the U.S. Capitol and top lawmakers are being targeted by al Qaeda.

Even a GOP website carries a story that al Qaeda's next attack against the U.S. could involve the assassination of a high-ranking political figure.

No doubt it's mere coincidence these "seeds of fear" stories ooze from a secrecy-obsessed administration about the same time the GOP is pushing the spin, a vote for Kerry is what the terrorists want.

0 comments

Dubya, May 1, 2003:

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

Associated Press, August 12, 2004 (emphasis added):

Thousands of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers launched a major assault on militiamen loyal to a radical Shiite cleric Thursday, with explosions and gunfire echoing near Najaf's revered Imam Ali shrine and its vast cemetery. . . . .

"Major operations to destroy the militia have begun," said Maj. David Holahan, executive officer of the 1st Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment.

Thousands of U.S. troops were participating, he said.

Reuters, August 12, 2004:

In the southeastern city of Kut, at least 72 people were killed in U.S. air raids and fighting between Iraqi police and the Mehdi Army Thursday, the Health Ministry said.

It said 25 people were killed in clashes in Baghdad and 21 in other cities in the past 24 hours. There were no immediate casualty figures from the Najaf offensive.

// posted by Tim @ 5:02:00 PM

0 comments

Lots of good stuff the past few days:

• Walter Laqueur's lengthy but excellent examination of sources of terrorism. (Via Arts & Letters Daily).
  
  
• William Watkins' assessment of civil liberties this election season appearing at History News Network.
  
  
• Just for the sake of balance, I note HNN also has this slightly less recent column rebutting some of the arguments I have made about perceived political hypocrisy on the part of the Catholic Church.
  
  
• Also in the religion vein, an author examines how Bush used religion to push his policies. (Via The Revealer).
  
  
• AlterNet picks up a couple excellent pieces, one a profile of columnist Paul Krugman and the other a critical look at the foreign policy planks of the Democractic platform.
  

0 comments

AP reports that a forthcoming book indicates Clarence Thomas has been interviewed by White House lawyers as a possible choice for the next chief justice of the US Supreme Court. I won't completely examine where Thomas is on the issues. Let's just look at his approach toward the "pledge case" last term.

The issue that generated public interest was whether a public school policy requiring teachers to lead students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because of the words "under God." In its entirety, the Establishment Clause states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Although it refers only to Congress, more than 50 years ago the Supreme Court said the clause applies to the states because of its "incorporation" into the 14th Amendment. (Virtually all provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states through this "incorporation" process.)

Thomas agreed with the ultimate opinion of the Court that the parent who brought the pledge lawsuit did not have "standing" to do so. However, he wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he basically urges overturning 50+ years of jurisprudence. After first admitting that under existing law "the Pledge policy is unconstitutional," he argued existing law is wrong. In an analysis I can only describe as frightening, Thomas reasoned:

Quite simply, the Establishment Clause is best understood as a federalism provision -- it protects state establishments from federal interference but does not protect any individual rights. . . . .

[E]ven assuming that the Establishment Clause precludes the Federal Government from establishing a national religion, it does not follow that the Clause created or protects any individual right. . . . it is more likely that States and only States were the direct beneficiaries. Moreover, incorporation of this putative individual right leads to a particular outcome: It would prohibit precisely what the Establishment Clause was intended to protect -- state establishments of religion. . . . .

. . . . As strange as it sounds, an incorporated Establishment Clause prohibits exactly what the Establishment Clause protected -- state practices that pertain to an "establishment of religion."

(Italics in original; underlining added).

I quote Thomas in detail to show my concern is not a figment of my imagination. The guy admits that established jurisprudence renders a policy unconstitutional. So, to avoid the result, he advocates overturning that precedent. (What's that the right keeps saying about "activist judges"?) Not only that, he wants to truly turn the law on his head, saying the Establishment Clause was designed to protect states in establishing religion. Thus, according to Thomas, as long as it does not use coercion against individuals, each state can adopt or establish an "official" religion free from any interference, intervention or review by the federal government.

It's beyond me how anyone can imagine the framers of the Constitution envisioned a country consisting of wholly sectarian states, let alone that such a union could survive. It's bad enough a guy like this is on the Supreme Court. It's downright frightening he could be considered a candidate for chief justice.

0 comments

Yes, the Argus Leader article on South Dakota political blogs ran this morning and, yes, I was in it. Quite frankly, much ado (largely beforehand) about little. Political blogs are hot items now and recently but I still think they may have jumped the shark and collapse of their own weight after the election. If nothing else, I would think the supporters of whoever wins are less likely to be active than their opponents.

As I told the reporter, blogging is very low on my list of priorities. It is simply an outlet for various thoughts I am foolish enough to put on the internet and to point out interesting items to people who may stop by. The posts have been largely political in nature simply because, sadly, politics tend to stir up emotions more than a good/bad book, movie or CD. In reality, I find those things much more interesting than politics.

I told only a handful of people I was doing this. If someone stumbled across it, fine. If not, it didn't really matter. I spoke with the reporter not for publicity but (a) having been a reporter, I know the more sources, the better the story and (b) I feared the article might otherwise give the impression only conservatives are in the South Dakota blogosphere. I gave up my anonymity with trepidation, particularly for my family and law partners. None of them see anything that appears here ahead of time and they certainly should not be viewed as sanctioning or endorsing what I post. In fact, my kids would probably just roll their eyes and think for the umpteenth time how embarrassing their father can be.

What you read here is my opinion and my opinion only. Consider it laughable, thoughtful, profane, insightful or idiotic. Makes no nevermind to me. If it makes you think (agreeably or not) for even a second, then your trip wasn't wasted.
1 comments

• Bob Harris, guest blogging at Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World, tells us about National Preparedness Month. Isn't it surprising the run-up and announcement are scheduled to coincide with the GOP convention and the anniversary of September 11?
  
  
• Juan Cole is indispensable on how we outed an al Qaeda double agent and the potential ramifications. I predict he also will be on top of the Chalabi warrants and what they mean practically.
  
  
• The New York Times looks at the role of churches in pushing to elect Bush. As detailed below, the Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls certainly fits the mode. A Canadian college professor also takes a look at the influence of fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity under Bush.
  
  
• Tom Engelhardt of TomDispatch has an excellent personal Hiroshima Story. (You need to scroll down a bit to get to it, although the introductory material is also worthwhile).

0 comments