Hank Kalet

First, the good news: A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have banned desecration of the flag fell one vote short of approval in the U.S. Senate today, preserving for now the right to use the flag to make political statements.

“Our country’s unique because our dissidents have a voice,” said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.

“While I take offense at disrespect to the flag,” he said, “I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech.”

Here is what I wrote about the proposed amendment earlier this year.

The flag amendment is just one in a number of assaults the First Amendment has faced in recent times. The amendment protects five basic — I would argue our most basic — American freedoms: speech, the press, religion, assembly and the right of citizens to redress their government.

Freedom of speech covers the right to decent using words and symbols, like the flag, but also to write and speak out, to sing and to proclaim. The extreme partisans of our times, however, can result in harsh rebukes, verbal assaults, even death threats (ask the Dixie Chicks). Folks like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh question our patriotism, Ann Coulter accuses the left of treason and the administration builds its political base on the wreckage.

Religious groups are making greater and greater inroads into the public square, imposing their beliefs and squeezing out the unbelievers, while the government uas taken control of protest, forcing those critical of the administration into protest pens or turning their protests into crimes.

It is the freedom of the press, however, that is facing the most concerted assault. The latest attack by the Bush administration came this week, when the presidents and his men went after The New York Times for providing the reading public with information on the machinations of its government and another intrusion on our privacy. (The troubling nature of the progam has caused a European human rights group to lodge formal complaints.)

Uncovering the program, the Bushies say, endangers national security (their standard argument whenever anyone calls them on anything) and is tantamount to treason. This is nonsense, of course. The Times was just doing its job — which is to provide the public with information, the lifeblood of democracy.

The South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press

This is not an easy issue, though some would have us believe so. Here are some differing perspectives:

• “Responsible Use of Eminent Domain,” The New York Times
• “Eminent domain bill doesn’t go far enough,” The Star-Ledger
• “Ruling affirms need for change,” Asbury Park Press

The South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press

The Record reminds us today that there is only one solution in Iraq, and it’s not the one the president is pushing.

In focused its attention on competing U.S. Senate resolutions:

The best resolution in the Senate, setting a July 2007 deadline for almost total troop withdrawal, was defeated yesterday, 86-13.

Its sponsor, John Kerry, D-Mass., is said to be mulling another run for the presidency, and he was criticized the last time around for waffling on the war. But politics aside, his call for a reasonable deadline for troop withdrawal makes sense.

As Mr. Kerry said, Iraqis have responded well to other deadlines the United States has set for elections and the writing of their constitution.

The war, as the paper rightly says, “is not a war that the United States is going to ‘win.’ “

Even if the insurgents were crushed, which obviously cannot be done at current troop levels, much of the violence in Iraq is sectarian, compounded by a growing criminal element operating on its own.

Even Mr. Bush says U.S. troops will leave once the Iraqis themselves can stabilize their country. The question becomes are we enabling them by allowing them to depend on us rather than take charge, and how much is the U.S. troop presence contributing to the chaos?

This newspaper, which has consistently opposed the Iraq invasion, has also recognized the problems and dangers that an abrupt pullout would present. But blindly “staying the course,” hoping for the best and continually insisting that success is just around the corner, has cost the nation dearly in terms of lives, funding, credibility and the ability to address other crises, both foreign and domestic.

So, the course seems clear to me. How ’bout the rest of you.

The South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press

Nothing easy about this — and it does not appear that anyone will come out unscathed. The state is facing a shutdown as the majority Democrats in the Assembly feud with the governor and the GOP offers a slew of unfathomable cuts. No one wins, especially the citizens of New Jersey.

The South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press

You know Jon Stewart is affecting the political process when the “researchers” try to prove he’s dangerous for democracy.

Two political scientists found that young people who watch Stewart’s faux news program, “The Daily Show,” develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting.

That’s particularly dismaying news because the show is hugely popular among college students, many of whom already don’t bother to cast ballots.

Notice the weasel word “could” here, as in these young potential voters “could” shy away from the voting booth, as if they were voting in droves now, as if Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter and all the rest of vapid, ignorant talking heads on cable on both sides of the aisle were not already keeping them home. As if the corruption scandals, ugly partisanship and general bad behavior of the folks in government were not enough to scare them away.

The South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press