A Progressive on the Prairie

Most people who happen to pick up a sports page or occasionally tune in to ESPN have heard: a lock-out makes an NHL season unlikely. Who cares?

The Stampede begin USHL regular season play tonight. And after a cellar-dwelling season last year, hope springs eternal with the Pede ranked fifth in pre-season ratings.

NCAA hockey is on the horizon, with Division I beginning exhibition play next week and and Division III starting about 10 days later. U.S. College Hockey online has this excellent explanation of why college hockey fans aren't too upset about what's going on in the NHL.

Give me kids who play for love of the game any day.

0 comments

Kids' activities have me running behind on various things so here's a little catch up on a couple items on Iraq and the "War on Terror."

• Bush and Cheney are giving Kerry hell for insulting our hand-picked Iraqi leader, Allawi, by saying Allawi is putting the "best face" on things in his country. But let's look beyond the surface. Allawi said 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are safe and elections could be held there tomorrow. This post of Juan Cole's shows the reality of the situation.
  
  
• I've repeatedly commented here about how we went after the one member of the so-called "Axis of Evil" that had no weapons of mass destruction, leaving the remaining two to further built here nuclear weapons programs. Now we're starting to hear "WMD" and "regime change" in a frightening context again. This is from the new Newsweek:

  [I]f the allegations are correct, Iran is only one of the countries whose secret nuclear programs hummed along while America waged a single-minded hunt for WMD in Iraq. Another is North Korea, which hasn't stopped claiming that it's turning a stockpile of spent fuel rods into a doomsday arsenal. And arms-control specialists are increasingly alarmed by Brazil's efforts to do precisely what Iran is doing[.] * * *
  
  [A]dministration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran — by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled "draft" or "working draft" to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration's abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place (extracting the new regime's promise to renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out.

  So, not re-defeating Bush makes America and the world safer how?.
  
  
• And in the hearts and minds department, Knight-Ridder reports: "Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis — most of them civilians — as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry." I previously noted the probable results in Reality Gaming.

0 comments

Again displaying her "Republican Lite" tendencies, Stephanie Herseth was one of 34 Democrats to vote in favor of the "Pledge Protection Act." As passed, the bill deprives federal courts of jurisdiction "to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance ... or its recitation." She also voted against an amendment that would have exempted the US Supreme Court from this ban.

The final vote was basically a party line one. I have not analyzed where the sponsors line up in that regard but note that Herseth's Republican predecessor, Bill Janklow, was one of the sponsors of the legislation.

I know my "Democrat friends" will say the vote doesn't really mean anything because the Act will not ultimately be passed or, if passed, will be found unconstitutional. I, however, believe that principles take priority over politics when a lawyer is asked to support unconstitutional and improper legislation. Likewise, I am extremely tired of Congress spending so much time elevating political form over legal substance by pandering to so-called wedge issues. But, evidently, my nearly half century of life hasn't completely throttled all my naivete and altruism.
2 comments

As you've hopefully heard by now, the government has decided to release "enemy combatant" Yaser Hamdi to Saudi Arabia without any charges being filed. Hamdi's story is instructive of the extent to which the Bushies will go and proof of their utter disregard for legal process.

Hamdi, a US citizen, was turned over to US forces by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. He was declared an enemy combatant and "deemed so dangerous that the American military held him incommunicado for more than two years." He was held in solitary confinement for nearly three years. Then, a public defender voluntarily stepped in and sought what any US citizen would ask -- a right to a lawyer and a hearing.

Bush, Ashcroft and crew refused, fighting tooth and nail all the way to the Supreme Court. Fortunately, the Supreme Court reached what would seem to be an undisputable proposition: the constitutional guarantee of due process "demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker." Naturally, Justice Thomas was the only member of the Court to vote against Hamdi, basically accepting the government's "trust us" argument.

Evidently realizing the conclusion a neutral decisionmaker would reach, the Bushies decided to release Hamdi, albeit on the condition he give up his US citizenship and agree to certain travel bans. But look at what the government told the Supreme Court during oral argument(PDF file): "There are troops still on the ground in Afghanistan. It makes no sense whatsoever to release an individual detained as an enemy combatant in Afghanistan while the troops are still on the ground in Afghanistan." Seems to me troops are still on the ground there. What has happened since last summer to render Hamdi no longer an enemy combatant? Could it be he never was to begin with?

This is another area where voters need to hold Bush accountable. First, he and his crew have no qualms about acting as if they alone should determine whether a US citizen should be afforded rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Second, the Great Misleader and his cronies are more than willing to say someone is a dire threat to this country and, when finally challenged, bail out rather than produce supporting evidence. No wonder they fear the Constitution applying to people they detain.

As a closing aside, should we be surprised that the following appears in connection with the deportation of Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens: "Officials said they could not provide specifics on Islam's alleged ties to terrorists." When will voters tire of hearing this administration saying "trust us"?

UPDATE: Go read Dahlia Lithwick's "Nevermind" at Slate.com.
0 comments

John Thune's comments on the flag amendment show once again that he is either clueless or has no qualms about misleading voters.

Argus Leader, Sept. 23, 2004: Thune said a flag amendment would not encroach on rights of free expression.

United States Supreme Court, June 21, 1998: A conviction for burning a flag violates the First Amendment.

Of course, why would Thune let the facts stand in the way of a political hot button?

I know it's asking too much, but John might actually learn something about American principles if he read the majority opinion in the case. Some excerpts:

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

We have not recognized an exception to this principle even where our flag has been involved

* * *

There is, moreover, no indication -- either in the text of the Constitution or in our cases interpreting it -- that a separate juridical category exists for the American flag alone. Indeed, we would not be surprised to learn that the persons who framed our Constitution and wrote the Amendment that we now construe were not known for their reverence for the Union Jack. The First Amendment does not guarantee that other concepts virtually sacred to our Nation as a whole -- such as the principle that discrimination on the basis of race is odious and destructive -- will go unquestioned in the market-place of ideas. We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the First Amendment.

* * *

The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. .... And, precisely because it is our flag that is involved, one's response to the flag burner may exploit the uniquely persuasive power of the flag itself. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by -- as one witness here did -- according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.

(And just to show my view is not one based on the party someone is in, I think Tim Johnson is wrong to co-sponsor the Senate version of the amendment.)

2 comments

• Leading the top of the list (and almost worthy of a verbatim reprint here) is Juan Cole's, "If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?" It is an absolutely scathing (but true) indictment on Iraq.
  
  
• Seems to me evangelicals and the Christian right might conclude that God is angry.
  
  
• Despite the fact the Bushies continually trumpet how great the are in fighting the "War on Terror," David Cole points out in The Nation that Ashcroft is 0 for 5,000 in terrorism cases. (Via Cursor and AlterNet).
  
  
• Also at AlterNet is a very interesting piece by Robert Scheer that ledes:

  If they were true to their principles, moderate Republicans and consistent conservatives would be supporting John Kerry. Instead, their acquiescence to the reckless whims of George W. Bush marks a descent into that political abyss of opportunism where partisanship is everything and principle nothing.

0 comments

From today's New York Times:

[Kerry's] campaign has decided that its last hope of undercutting the image of Mr. Bush as a competent war leader is to return relentlessly to the questions, as Mr. Kerry puts it, of why "terrorists are pouring across the border" into Iraq, why so few of America's allies have joined the effort and why Iran and North Korea have advanced their nuclear programs while the administration has been preoccupied with Iraq.

The campaign might be skipping over a number of other talking points but it appears to have grasped the key concept of accountability.


0 comments

Meant to post this for a bit now but welcome to Proud Liberal, a thoughtful liberal blog coming out of South Dakota. Trent has been added to the blogroll.
0 comments

It claims to be official but.... The errors or omissions paragraph is the clincher.

Interestingly, Google indicates there's a number of such faqs. This one may be hard to beat, though.

0 comments

If you want to see the reality of what we've done in Iraq (and with the "War on Terror" in general), go play September 12th: A Toy World. (Via War Blogging). NOTE: Shockwave is required but site will ask if you want to install it.

It's evident Bush and the neocons have never grasped the very simple concept involved in playing this "game" in the real world.

0 comments

Kerry started talking like this.

0 comments

Krugman.

Dionne.

UPDATE: The troops get it.


0 comments

Having recently read Maureen Dowd's collection, Bushworld, she has made it to the list of my favorite columnists. Sunday's column is the most recent example of why she is moving to must-read status.
0 comments

Why nothing here on the big debate Sunday? Because my thought is that if you remain undecided, you're not paying attention anyway and if you have been paying attention the debate ain't gonna change your mind. So, I will limit it to just a couple comments.

First and foremost, I found Thune's comments that Daschle's criticism of Bush "emboldens our enemies" despicable. Evidently, Thune joins other Repugnicans who seem to believe that anyone who criticizes the Liar-in-Chief is a traitor. Hey, John, you know what? We were right!

Second, if there is any question Thune is willing to blindly follow the footsteps of the Great Misleader, let's look at a couple things he said in the debate compared to reality.

Thune:

This is a time to show resolve [in Iraq] and the international community is responding.

I mean, there is more support building, I believe, for what's happening there.

The Observer:

The British Army is to start pulling troops out of Iraq next month despite the deteriorating security situation in much of the country, The Observer has learnt.

The main British combat force in Iraq, about 5,000-strong, will be reduced by around a third by the end of October during a routine rotation of units.

Thune (emphasis added):

[W]e now know that [Saddam] still has the intention [of developing nuclear weapons], he still has the capability as has been determined I think since that time. He doesn't have the stockpiles, or at least, we haven't found them yet....

I think that [Saddam] was a threat, not only to that region, but to the broader world and the United States. You know, clearly, with biological and chemical weapons, but I also think the nuclear threat existed.

The Guardian:

A draft of the [U.S. government's] Iraq Survey Group's final report circulating in Washington found no sign of the alleged illegal stockpiles that the US and Britain presented as the justification for going to war, nor did it find any evidence of efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons programme.

If you think the debate may affect your thinking or interest you in some fashion but, like me, did not watch it, here's a transcript. It also appears the debate will be rebroadcast today (Monday) on CNBC at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Central. As for me, I'll be tuned to MNF.
1 comments

CBS announces it was "misled" about the authenticity of documents it aired indicating Bush was the evader-in-chief. I don't give a rat's behind about the impact this has on the credibility of CBS or the media as a whole. I am appalled and disheartened that it overshadows and distracts attention from the facts: Bush was AWOL and has lied about it.
0 comments