A good case against the flag burning amendment

Sometimes the Los Angeles Times can surprise us. Take this editorial against the proposed constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the U.S. Flag, entitled The case for flag-burning:

There are many arguments against a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw "the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." Let us count the ways in which the amendment, which is disturbingly close to the 67 votes required for Senate approval, is unworthy of that body's support:

• It's a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. There has been no epidemic of flag-burning since the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that destruction of Old Glory as a protest was symbolic speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

• The reintroduction of this amendment is part of the Republican Party's election-year attempt to rile up its social-conservative base, a "panderama" that already has produced a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, which failed earlier this month. That reality alone should cause Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to reconsider her support for the flag-burning amendment.

Rest of editorial

Schwarzenegger: Build More Prisons

This from the LA Times:

SACRAMENTO - Saying that federal courts could seize control of
California's overcrowded prisons, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
called a special legislative session on the corrections system and
said the state must build more lockups soon.

Hey, Arnold, how about real prison reform like not locking up so many people for non-violent crime. How about education or jobs programs? How about resigning, you over-blown, has-been ham!

Stop the occupation

AlterNet has a great editorial focusing on how to get out of the Iraq quagmire.

There are two vital approaches we must take to the 35 percent of the American public who still thinks Iraqis will eventually shower us with flowers and kisses. The first has been laid out in dramatic fashion by Democratic Rep. John Murtha, whose military credentials are impeccable. Murtha often leads quoting the poll that "72 percent of the American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within a year." The unavoidable conclusion from this is that to support the troops is to support a pull-out from Iraq. Murtha has had the courage to challenge the war's prosecutors in the White House and Congress. "To all the Republicans who sit in their air-conditioned offices and talk of the courage it takes for them to keep young kids in harm's way -- I say enough," Murtha recently wrote in a fundraising letter on behalf of Democrats.

The second approach is to spread the message about the colossal price tag of this war. Early on, Bush's people gave absurdly low numbers of the cost of the war -- one estimate was in the single-digit billions. Some administration officials who had the temerity to suggest numbers in the hundreds of billions, which in retrospect were still absurdly low, were shown the door.

As usual this piece is up to AlterNet's high standards and should be read and talked about by everyone.