More Than Numbers: Kansas school finance fight sweeps in abortion & other issues

On the surface, it looks like the Statehouse battle over raising funding for K-12 schools is an argument about nothing more than numbers. Watch closely, though. Some lawmakers are intent on sliding whatever they can into the funding plan. House members have already attempted to slip an abortion measure into the funding bill.

AP reports that on Tuesday the House voted 79-49 to add an amendment to the school finance bill that would require sex education courses to focus on what some might call scare tactics about abortion.

Teachers would have to show photos or drawings of fetuses, discuss the medical risks associated with abortion procedures and provide information about whether the fetus feels pain.

Meanwhile, lawmakers have also added proposals that would “give school districts more authority to increase local property taxes” (Topeka Capital-Journal report). I swear I heard a report of another proposal on another topic being slipped into a spending bill, but I can’t seem to verify that this morning.

So far, none of the bills has gotten past more than one chamber of the legislature. It takes approval by both House and Senate to pass a bill and send it to the governor. Senate and House negotiators didn’t even begin meeting to work out their differences until yesterday.

Why does this matter? Because now is the time for all good citizens to pay attention. I watched the Legislature for years as a reporter and later as a political activist. From what I can tell, all the preliminary bouts, as it were, are finally out of the way.

We’re at the end of the tournament in the Statehouse. All the things that happened up to this point were merely the feints and jabs lawmakers use to figure out what proposal might win approval or what vote might set up a political opponent for a difficult election fight. (The tried and true get-the-fool-on-the-record-in-an-unpopular-vote strategy.)

The next few days will tell the tale, though. This is when the final deals get made or fall apart. Some of the deal making may occur in public in negotiating committee meetings, but it’s quite likely that the more important talks are going on in private.

At stake is whether Kansas children will receive an adequately funded education and what the content of that education might be, not to mention what might else get slid into the bill at the last minute.

For those of you reading this from outside of the great state of Kansas, watch closely. The Kansas Legislature has turned into a battleground between the the ultra-conservatives who never met a government function or a civil right they liked and moderates (both Republican and Democrat). That Kansas far right is kin to the George W. Bush administration, the neocons, the theocons and theocrats who are populating Washington, D.C., these days

The outcome of this debate tells you something about the strength of the far right out here in the American heartland and, perhaps, that will say something about the strength of the far right going into November elections.

Stay tuned. Pay attention. And for you Kansans, pick up the phone and call your senators and representatives NOW.

Mississippi governor refuses to pardon black man framed by state

From The New York Times:

Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi acknowledges that Clyde Kennard suffered a grievous wrong at the hands of state officials more than 45 years ago. But he says he will not grant a posthumous pardon to Mr. Kennard, a black man who was falsely imprisoned after trying to desegregate a Mississippi college.

You have to register, but its well worth it to read the article.

Note also that state officials at the time --yes, that’s state officials – even considered killing Kennard to keep him from going to the all-white Mississippi Southern. Instead, they framed him, got him seven years in prison for a theft he didn't commit. Kennard died of cancer three years later.

Aubrey K. Lucas, the director of admissions at the college when Kennard applied, told The Times that "pardoning Mr. Kennard might cost Mr. Barbour a few votes." Barbour, by the way, is a former Republican National Committee chairman.

"There are some people around here still," Mr. Lucas said, "who think we should be separate as races and who refuse to see the errors of our past. But I can't imagine it would be a factor in his re-election."

The view from Kansas: Blame everything on activist judges

Pete Goering, executive editor of the Topeka Capital Journal, has his tongue firmly planted in cheek when he writes about how “activist courts” are the scourge of all humanity. I enjoyed Goering’s column and want to post a few quotes and link here. The problem, of course, is that many folks don’t think this is a joke. Among those are average Kansans and political leaders in the sunflower state and elsewhere who are so conservative they’d make Attila the Hun blush.

But for the moment, let’s look at the humor of the situation. Goering writes:

I’m not absolutely sure about this, but I have reason to believe the Kansas Supreme Court is to blame for the outrageous prices we're seeing at Topeka gas pumps.

What reason? Don't ask. Doesn't matter. Trust me on this. It's an activist court, isn't it?

After noting a few other alleged “transgressions,” Goering writes:

In other words, if something smells rotten, you can be pretty sure the Kansas Supreme Court is responsible. …

Until their real colors were exposed by some true American patriots -- most of whom are much too modest to want any public credit, but let's just say none has been corrupted by liberal or moderate propaganda -- I had always thought the state's Supreme Court justices were, you know, kind of the superstars of judges, the creme de la creme of jurists.

A couple of them I know personally. Geez, they always seemed like decent enough folks.

I guess I was mistaken.

While Goering's column is funny, it also points to a serious problem.

It is easy to look for scapegoats when things don't go your way. What bothers me is not just the simplistic attempt to smear judges, but the fact that all these so-called patriots who are attacking judges are also attacking the U.S. Constitution. If they succeed in either taking power away from judges, as has been attempted in Kansas and other states, or in eroding public confidence in the judiciary, the ultra right will have won their victories by gutting the Constitution's system of checks and balances.

This won't be good for the country, and ultimately, it won't even be good for the people who are screaming so loudly about the courts.

To quote one of my all-time favoriate journalists, Linda Ellerbee, and so it goes...

Even Republicans are appalled: GOP chairman to investigate Bush’s claim he can ignore Congress

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, told the Boston Globe that he will hold an oversight hearing into President Bush’s use of so-called “signing statements” by bypass 750 laws.

Speaking to reporter Charlie Savage, who broke the story, Specter said:

There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here. What's the point of having a statute if . . . the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like.

The hearing will be held next month.

Speaking about Bush, Specter noted:

He put a signing statement on the Patriot Act. He put a signing statement on the torture issue. It's a very blatant encroachment on [Congress's constitutional] powers. If he doesn't like the bill, let him veto it.

A constitutional crisis? Who cares!

Media Matters is reporting that major media outlets are largely ignoring reports that President Bush is trashing the Constitution by refusing to enforce 750 laws.

Summary: Major media outlets have largely ignored reports by The Boston Globe's Charles Savage documenting President Bush's apparent willingness to disregard congressional authority through the use of "signing statements" asserting "that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution." The media have also ignored the response by Democrats to Savage's reports.

The Media Matters report is a day old, but a quick search of Google News shows that nothing has changed.

Searching for “signing statements,” yields only 56 articles, including Media Matters own reports. Most of those articles are commentary by bloggers and progressive media. Searching for “Boston Globe” and "750 laws" together, brings up 39 articles, the majority of which are blog entries.

George Bush: "One monarch above the law"

I can’t do any better than the Boston Globe’s own headline on a Scot Lehigh column. In “One Monarch Above the Law,” Lehigh wonders if our not-so-beloved president has decided he’s king.

That's the question that springs to mind upon reading Charlie Savage's front-page report in Sunday's Globe detailing the president's sotto voce assertion that he can disregard laws if he thinks they impinge on his constitutional powers.

In the article, Savage notes that while Bush has never vetoed a bill, he has unilaterally declared that he won’t uphold 750 different laws by using a bureaucratic maneuver called a “signing statement.”

I’m going to be doing some more blogging on this topic and Savage’s incredible story, but first I want to highlight Lehigh’s comments.

Because so much of what this administration does is shrouded in secrecy, it's hard to know which laws are being followed and which are being ignored.

That makes it difficult for matters to ripen into a court challenge, notes Boston attorney Harvey Silverglate. ''He is setting it up so that the people hurt by what this administration is doing are unable to get to court, because it is secret," Silverglate says.

If Bush doesn’t like a law, he can veto it. But vetoing creates problems for a President Who Would Be King. A veto can be overridden by Congress. Even if Congress fails to get the necessary votes to overturn a veto, though, the issue is still in the public eye. There would probably be messy debate and, perhaps, people might even watch what the administration is doing. Openness leads to consequences, and this seems to be an administration that wants, above all, to duck responsibility for just about everything it has done.

Lehigh wrote:

But the president shouldn't be allowed to quietly disregard or reinterpret provisions of a law he dislikes, for in doing so, he is not protecting his own authority, but rather usurping the legitimate power of Congress. Further, his assumption that it is within his purview to decide whether a law is constitutional treads on ground that is the clear province of the Supreme Court.

And that, my friends, is the definition of a constitutional crisis.

In other words, the president who is sworn to uphold the Constitution is gutting it. In doing so, Bush is undermining our form of government and turning the Constitution into nothing more than an old piece of paper. He is destroying the system of checks and balances he pledged to uphold when he was sworn into office, and that, is a threat to all of us.

Plame leak may have hurt U.S. attempt to stop Iran nukes

Oh, the joys of living in the George Bush America. George's lieutenants thought it was so important to undermine the credibility of one political opponent that they may well have undermined our effort to gather intelligence on Iran's nuclear program.

MSNBC is reporting confirmation of an earlier Raw Story report that Valerie Plame Wilson was gathering intelligence on Iran's nukes when she was outed by, well, apparently just about everybody in the Bush Administration (Scotter Libby, Karl Rove, etc.).

Could someone explain to me why playing politics is more important than keeping the country safe?

God, free will, and how every political conflict doesn’t have to become a religious war

Jon Meacham’s new column over at Newsweek provides good perspective on what he calls – and I agree – is the central issue in our on-going culture war. Writing about a discussion after a recent speech, Meacham said:

What do you do, he asked, when you are in debate with someone from a religious tradition who believes his truth is the only truth—and that his way of belief does not tolerate any other truth?

Meacham’s answer to the question is based on Christian theology and should be helpful, particularly when speaking to a person from a Christian tradition. I'm quoting most of his response. The emphasis is mine.

If God himself did not compel his creatures to believe in him, then who are men to try? When the crowds tried to make Jesus king, he hid from them; before Pilate, he said: “My kingdom is not of this world.” The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews said, “we have no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come,” and, in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul declares that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men.…” For now, we can only “see through a glass, darkly,” as Paul said elsewhere, and for believers to assume that they can fathom the mind of God, or grasp all of his ways and means, seems foolhardy. We live in twilight and in hope, but we cannot have all the answers—which means humility and a sense of history can offer us light as we try to move forward.

Meacham added:

The point of the American system, best expressed by Madison’s Federalist No. 10, is that competing interests can contend against one another peaceably within the republican arena of checks and balances, an arena in which the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of the majority. There is more than enough for us all to do without turning every political conflict into a religious one.

Meacham ended with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

“… it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Meacham’s new book is “American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation.”

This is good stuff, very true stuff. Allowing those “competing interests” to each speak freely (or to put it theologically: allowing God's gift of free will to function) is the only way our nation will survive. The alternative -- where the supporters of one brand of religion seek to impose their ideas on the rest of us – would lead to repression, bloodshed and too many horrors to count.

Who will be the most hated president: Bush or Nixon?

As George W. Bush’s approval ratings sink and his disapproval ratings skyrocket, some bloggers are indulging in a little sporting, horse race coverage.

The race? The break-neck, thrilling contest to see whether Richard M. Nixon or George W. Bush will win the “coveted” title of most hated president.

A Tiny Revolution has some nice graphs. USA Today has the latest Gallup Poll numbers.

Love, truth, marches and a Kansas perspective on gas prices and Congressional solutions

Oh my, what a lovely, long weekend I just had.

Love, laughs, good food and wine, great views and a deep sense of soul-touching-soul. Such moments not only feed the self, but help give perspective about what's really important, and what real truth looks like.

Meanwhile, the world kept spinning while I was gone. (Now, there's a shock.)

A little bit of truth seems to have peeked out from behind the thick walls built around George W. Bush. Marchers are filling the streets. Mission's Not-So-Accomplished in Iraq are remembered. Social Security is falling apart again, and the Republicans want to give us all $100 to help pay for gas.

That last insane idea is truly a whopper. The once fiscally conservative GOP wants to borrow money, thereby putting the country in even deeper debt, to send an alleged solution to the average American that won't solve a thing for any of us. I drive a gas-friendly Toyota Corolla, and I think $100 is a joke. I understand that other commentators are calling this political pandering. Out here in Kansas, we just call it stupid.