Independence Day, BBQ and having fun

By Diane Silver

Nancy is off to Aikido camp, but I and the rest of the In This Moment crew will be around pondering the meaning of freedom, a country of made up of laws (wow), oh, and who really makes the best potato salad.

It's interesting that two of your fearless bloggers, Nancy and me, have studied martial arts. I'm afraid to say that I've plumped up and haven't kept up with my training. However, I understand what Nancy is saying when it comes to martial arts training changing your perspective on everything in the world, including politics.

More on that and our wild world later. Stay tuned...

Off to Aikido Camp

By Nancy Jane Moore

I spending the next week (from today through Friday July 7) at the Aikido Summer Camp run by Aikido Shobukan Dojo and featuring master Aikido teachers Mitsugi Saotome Shihan and Hiroshi Ikeda Shihan.

I was planning to write a piece explaining the principles of Aikido and how they have influenced my thoughts on political and security matters, but it's not something I can toss off in half an hour and I got sidetracked this week into commenting on the Supreme Court rulings.

Suffice it to say that if our leadership studied Aikido, I suspect our foreign policy would be much more effective and we'd be safer. If you'd like to look into this a little further, I suggest three books by Saotome Shihan: Aikido and the Harmony of Nature, The Principles of Aikido, and Aikido: Living by Design. All are available from Aiki.com, along with other interesting Aikido books.

I hope to return with some new ways of looking at the world. See you then.

Are we feeling safe yet?

By Nancy Jane Moore

Do you think the government has been successful in its so-called war on terrorism? The experts don't think so.

The Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine conducted a survey among a bipartisan group of 100 foreign policy and national security experts. They dubbed the result the "Terrorism Index" (pdf file).

86 percent of those surveyed said the world is becoming more dangerous for the US and its people. 84 percent disagree that we're winning the war on terror, as Bush insists. 81 percent rate intelligence reform as fair to poor. 77 percent say the war in Iraq had a very negative impact on national security.

And 84 percent think we'll have a terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11 within the next ten years.

That's just a few of the highlights from this survey. Bob Herbert of The New York Times summarized it in his June 29 column (unfortunately only available in the print edition and to those who shell out money for Times Select online). I suggest you check out the survey itself -- see who took part and what they said. You'll be surprised at how many times conservatives and liberals agreed. That alone should make it obvious that there's a real problem with the way our government is dealing with security and foreign policy.

I don't want to scare people into panic attacks. The average American is many times more likely to die in a car wreck or to have a stroke or heart attack than to be killed by a terrorist.

But I do want to encourage people to recognize that our government isn't doing its most important job -- keeping our people safe. That's despite the fact that they've been trampling on our civil liberties in the name of national security. The real problem is that they're doing it wrong. Obviously we need to replace the government -- starting with Congress this fall -- with people who have the smarts to do it right.

As an aside: If they're so ineffective on national security, one wonders how they're doing at preparing for disease pandemics and natural disasters. Oh, wait. We've already seen how well they handle natural disasters. Don't hold out hope that they've got a real plan for Avian flu.

The Kansas Evolution Election: Yet another candidate from the religious right goes into stealth mode

My liberal Kansas colleagues have posted some interesting information about the continuing campaign to overthrow our state Board of Education -- a political body that wants to downplay evolution and focus the spotlight on the creationism wannabe, intelligent design.

Red State Rabble reports that Democrat Jesse Hall is running in stealth mode to unseat moderate Janet Waugh in Johnson County.

If Hall succeeds, she wouldn't be the first member of the religious right to win office by pretence. In 2002, Iris Van Meter won her seat after making no public appearances or public statements and then proceeded to vote a straight religious right agenda. However, she did get support from churches and a rather nasty mailing.

Thoughts From Kansas has some, well, thoughts on this here and more on fundraising for the right candidates here.

For more information on how you can help bring sanity back to the Kansas Board of Education check out the Mainstream Coalition, Families United for Public Education and the Kansas Alliance for Education.

Latest Headlines: Guantanamo Bay, redistricting, lesbians & the Kansas view of Congress & flag burning

From the Supreme Court to churches, it has been an amazing couple of days at In This Moment. We were pleased to be mentioned prominently in that little DC newspaper known as The Post. If you are visiting from there, you can find a link to the Nancy Jane Moore commentary here: For you folks visiting from The Washington Post

Over the last two days, In This Moment has used up a lot of "ink" on the Supreme Court's recent and rather monumental decisions. Our commentary comes from two different sets of expertise.

Nancy looks at things from her experience as an attorney and legal editor.

Diane mulls over implications based on her experience as a political reporter and activist

Needless to say, we both have a multitude of opinions and perspectives. Here are the latest headlines.

The Supreme Court Issues Wild Guantanamo Bay Decision
*Supreme Court III -- Guantanamo: Justice Stevens throws up a bulwark for democracy by Nancy Jane Moore
*Does the Gitmo decision undermine the Bush case for wiretapping?
*Does the Supreme Court's Guantanamo decision mean an end to torture?
*No "blank check" for president: Supreme Court delivers "stunning rebuke" on Guantanamo Bay

The Supreme Court Rules on Redistricting
* Supreme Court I -- Texas redistricting: Too many opinions, too little consensus by Nancy Jane Moore
*The U.S. Supreme Court & the Great, Continuous Gerrymandering Circus by Diane Silver

The Supreme Court Misses the Point in Insanity Decision
Supreme Court II -- Insanity Defense: We won't need mental hospitals if we throw all the crazy people in jail by Nancy Jane Moore

The Bushies Attack Journalists
*The New York Times did the right thing in reporting on the banking program by Nancy Jane Moore

A Kansan Mediates Upon the Fine Art of Voting Yes When You Mean No
*The Kansas View: Flag-burning vote helps U.S. Senators cover their posteriors by Diane Silver

The Episcopal Church Faces Possible Punishment
*Archbishop to Episcopal Church: Renounce gays or get out. What a sad moment for a once proud church. by Diane Silver

A Lesbian Cries Out in Despair
*The story of a lesbian Episcopalian: "Heartsick, I am walking away."

Lesbian & Gay Rights Conference Comes to Kansas City
*Kansas City to host national gay rights conference: It's time to get involved!

Kentucky Keeps Fighting
*Keeping track: Lawsuit to bar Kentucky religious schools from state money moves forward

And Finally, a Word about the Allegedly Struggling Religious Right
*The religious right isn't so scary after all -- or is it?

Supreme Court III -- Guantanamo: Justice Stevens throws up a bulwark for democracy

By Nancy Jane Moore

In a long and complex ruling, Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Kennedy, makes it clear that the U.S. has to provide a fair process to the detainees held at Guantanamo. The military commission set up to "try" Salim Ahmed Hamden violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions, Stevens says.

This is a strong ruling and should have an impact beyond the scope of those held as "enemy combatants." It's a blow for our Constitution, for our goal to provide fair trials, not kangaroo courts.

Justice Stevens and all of the others save Justice Kennedy would go farther -- they contend the charges against Hamden are not crimes of war and therefore aren't subject to military commissions. While that's only a plurality, and therefore not binding, I would not assume that Justice Kennedy completely dismisses that argument. From a quick look at his opinion, I suspect he didn't think the issue needed to be decided. (This is a common, and often maddening, feature of the Supreme Court -- declining to address the question everyone really wants answered.) I certainly can't tell from reading his opinion which way he would decide the issue.

The remaining justices are firmly on the other side. While Chief Justice Roberts did not sit in this case -- since he was involved in a lower court ruling on it -- he sided with the government at that point. I don't hold out much hope that Justice Stevens's eloquence has changed his mind.

This is another very long set of opinions -- 185 pages -- but it's really valuable to take the time to read it. In this day and age, when the Bush administration abuses the Constitution at every opportunity and then comes up with tortured legal reasons why its actions are legal, we all need to become scholars of constitutional law. The pdf file is here.

Supreme Court II -- Insanity Defense: We won't need mental hospitals if we throw all the crazy people in jail

By Nancy Jane Moore

In all the excitement over the rulings in the Guantanamo and Texas redistricting case, everyone is overlooking a 5 to 4 decision upholding Arizona's highly restrictive definition of insanity for purposes of criminal defense.

This involves a very sad case where a young man -- acknowledged by all parties as a paranoid schizophrenic -- killed a police officer. At trial he admitted the crime, but argued that he was insane. The court rejected the insanity defense and sentenced the man to life in prison. Note that if the court had found him insane, he would not have been turned loose. The Arizona law provides for a finding of "guilty but insane" and would have sent the man to a mental hospital.

The key issue under the Arizona law is whether the defendant knew he was doing something wrong. Now in this case, there was testimony that the defendant believed aliens had taken over government officials, including police officers. But Arizona law is very strict -- once the prosecution proved that the man knew he had shot a police officer and hinted that he knew killing police officers was wrong, that was enough.

And five Supreme Court justices agreed that this strict test is constitutional: Souter, who wrote the opinion, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and the new chief justice, Roberts.

Here's the problem with this ruling -- and with a lot of similar state laws: We're putting people with severe mental illness in prison, where they aren't going to get any treatment for their illness. Some of them will be dangerous to the other prisoners; others will be more vulnerable to attacks from violent offenders.

Human Rights Watch has done a detailed study on the problems caused by housing the mentally ill in prisons. Reading this opinion in light of that study makes it clear that both the five justices on the high court -- and the Arizona politicians that made it difficult to find a person insane -- are not in touch with the real situation.

The court devoted fifty pages of legalese to showing that Arizona's law was constitutional. And I'm sure the legislators took pride in being tough on crime. Meanwhile, people with serious mental illnesses are getting no help. And some of them will get out of prison one day.

The case is Clark v. Arizona. You can read a PDF here.

Note (added 6/30): The newspapers are calling this a 6 to 3 decision. Actually, it's more like 5-1-3. Justice Breyer dissented in part and concurred in part; he would have sent the case back to Arizona courts for further action. Justices Kennedy, Souter and Ginsburg dissented.

Supreme Court I -- Texas redistricting: Too many opinions, too little consensus

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Roberts Supreme Court is starting to look a lot like the Rehnquist court: Even when the justices can more or less agree on an outcome, they are unable to agree on why. While this doesn't usually bother the actual parties in the case -- who either win or lose -- it plays havoc for those trying to determine exactly what the court meant.

In the Texas redistricting case, we have one key majority ruling: One of the districts in question violated the Voting Rights Act as to Hispanic voters. Five justices agree on that point: Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. This ruling will likely affect several districts, since redrawing it will necessarily affect the others near it.

And because Texas is now a "majority-minority" state -- that is, the population is less than 50 percent white and Anglo -- this ruling could have some persuasive authority down the line. Most of the growth in the minority population is Hispanic. It seems to me this ruling will make it harder to shift around Hispanic voters, even if Republicans maintain a grip on the legislature. We might see some changes in Texas in the near future.

The same five justices agreed that the court can hear an equal protection challenge to a political gerrymander -- that is, that it's a legitimate case based on violation of the constitutional right to equal protection under the law. But while seven justices agreed that the Texas Legislature's redistricting plan was valid -- despite being a blatantly political redrawing of a map drafted by a court after an earlier Legislature failed to redistrict -- they didn't agree on why.

Justice Stevens makes a compelling argument as to why the plan, which he calls "wholly unnecessary," is invalid, but alas, only Justice Breyer agrees with him. Stevens writes:

Upham [v. Seamon, a 1982 ruling in a similar case] does not stand for the proposition that, after a State embraces a valid, neutral court-drawn plan by asking this Court to affirm the opinion creating that plan, the State may then redistrict for the sole purpose of disadvantaging a minority political party.

This ruling gives us open season on redistricting. Any state legislature can redistrict any time it wants to, as I read it, and I have no doubt many will, especially if legislative control shifts from one party to another. It's even okay to redraw districts set by a federal court.

But more than that, this ruling gives us open season on litigation over redistricting. Given that the justicies agreed that redrawing a district between censuses was okay, and that a majority found one district violated the law, there's every incentive for the losing group in a redistricting battle to take it to court.

The trouble with decisions like this is that they don't solve anything but the case before the court. I foresee nasty fights in the legislatures and clogging of the courts with suits over redistricting. In her earlier post on this opinion, Diane Silver points to a Washington Post conversation with a law professor who disagrees with this position, but I think he's an optimist. The court left too much up in the air and people will take advantage of it.

Supreme Court cases are online these days. You can get a pdf file of this one here.

Does the Gitmo decision undermine the Bush case for wiretapping?

Think Progress is speculating that today's Supreme Court decision throws out the feeble legal rationale the Bush Administration used to justify their wiretapping programs. See what you think, by going here.

Does the Supreme Court's Guantanamo decision mean an end to torture?

Marty Lederman at SCOTUSblog says the decision means that the Bush Administration's use of torture is illegal. See here:

This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

If I'm right about this, it's enormously significant.

Now, that's an understatement.

More...

No "blank check" for president: Supreme Court delivers "stunning rebuke" on Guantanamo Bay

[updated & corrected]

By Diane Silver

It will take a while to untangle the true meaning of this decision, but it is about time the Supreme Court recognized that the presidency is not a blank check.

The only immediately worrisome thing I can see is the fact that the decision may well have turned out this way because Chief Justice Roberts had to recuse himself from the case. This could mean that the Court may not rule against Bush's trampling of civil and human rights in future terror cases.

A few hours later... well, yes, it could mean that, except that I can't count. There were 5 justices who ruled against Bush. Thus, even with Roberts vote, the administration would have lost. I am a worrier, though, and continue to wonder what will happen in cases where Roberts has a voice.

William Branigin writes in The Washington Post:

The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions are unconstitutional.

AP via New York Times says:

In his own opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check."'

See legal analysis at the SCOTUSblog here.

more thoughts & links later..

The U.S. Supreme Court & the Great, Continuous Gerrymandering Circus

By Diane Silver

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision upholding the Texas redistricting plan is complex and the legal implications are still uncertain. One thing, though, already seems possible: The Court may have just touched off the biggest rush to redistrict and gerrymander in the nation's history.

All of this may occur because the Court appears to have undermined the longtime tradition of only redistricting every 10 years. That was done so that the redrawing of district lines came when a new census was taken.

If the rush to redistrict happens, the political makeup of the U.S. House of Representatives and the balance of power in state legislatures may well shift -- and possibly shift and shift again.

And if that happens, it is anybody's guess as to which party will end up in control, and thus, what will happen to American foreign policy, schools, taxes, health care and a ton of other things.

Other problems would occur.

A voter may also live in one district one election and be moved to another district for the next election and a different district for a third election. To me, that seems like a prescription for making politicians even less accountable to voters than they are now. For one thing, how could you keep track of who your representative is?

By the way, you may find yourself scratching your head over all of this and wondering exactly what "redistricting" and "gerrymandering" are. I know I was a bit vague on it when I began covering the Kansas Legislature back at the dawn of time in the 1980s.

"Redistricting" is the act of redrawing the boundaries of the districts politicians represent. Because U.S. senators represent an entire state, this means that the districts in question only involve the districts of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the lawmakers elected to the Houses and Senates of each state.

Normally, redistricting maps are drawn by state legislatures, which means that the political party in power controls the lines on the maps and, thus, can create districts that favor their party's candidates.

In Kansas, for example, that means that the Republican-controlled Legislature always dilutes the power of the heavily Democratic city of Lawrence. The GOP chops us in two and mixes the offending Democratic halves with Republican areas.

Districts are supposed to be drawn to make geographic "sense" with neighborhoods and ethnic and minority groups kept together. Sometimes when that hasn't happened and particularly when the voting power of minorities appears to be unfairly diluted, federal courts have stepped in and drawn the maps.

"Gerrymandering" refers to the partisan political practice of drawing a district so that it looks more like a salamander than a district. Such districts can wiggle all over a map to capture a couple of blocks of Republicans here, avoid some Democrats there, and take in a few more Republicans miles away, for example.

Some experts like Nathaniel Persily, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania,say they don't expect a rush to redraw district lines. He has some interesting points.You can see his thoughts on the decision at The Washington Post.

I hope he is right.

However, from what I saw in watching a state legislature for many years, I don't think you can discount the desperate need of politicians to stack the deck. That's as true of Democrats as it is of Republicans.

What I want to know now -- and wish I had time to research today -- is how many state legislatures are controlled by Republicans and how many by Democrats?

Here is some good commentary on the decision and a great collection of links.

The story of a lesbian Episcopalian: "Heartsick, I am walking away."

What it means to be a lesbian in The Episcopal Church during these controversial days is the topic of a new piece by Detroit News columnist Deb Price. Very interesting reading.

Meanwhile, four Episcopal diocesese want to leave the American church, including one protesting the election of a woman as presiding bishop. What century are we living in? Why should the election of a woman even be an issue?

The New York Times did the right thing in reporting on the banking program

By Nancy Jane Moore

Conservative Republicans and the right-wing blogosphere are screaming at The New York Times for its story exposing the administration's program of tracking banking transactions. The Washington Post's media critic Howard Kurtz summed up the attacks in his column June 28.

The Times was right to publish this story. Perhaps the program is legal. Perhaps it's even effective. Perhaps a competent and reasonably honest administration would be doing the same thing.

But the sad truth is that we cannot trust the Bush administration -- they have a terrible record of ignoring not just ordinary laws, but the Bill of Rights. And even sadder is the fact that despite trampling on our civil liberties at every opportunity, they don't seem to be doing a very good job of taking care of us. These are the people who wasted $2 billion while not helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina. These are the people who started an unnecessary war that made us more enemies. These are the people who couldn't catch Osama bin Laden.

Every time someone criticizes the administration, or reports on their questionable programs, they claim what they're doing is legal and cry "national security." It's impossible to tell when, if ever, they're telling the truth.

We -- we the people -- need the Times (and The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New Yorker and other sources of good investigative journalism) to shine a bright light on this administration's activities. They have the reporters who can do it and they have the clout to stand up to an administration that has overreached.

This administration must be reined in if we are to retain the freedoms that made us a great country. For that matter, it must be reined in (or, better, replaced) if we are ever going to have an effective government that can handle natural disasters and worldwide pandemics, not to mention attacks by zealots of all stripes.

I won't even get into global warming, writing from here in the soggy confines of Washington, D.C., where the best news to come out of the flooding is that the Justice Department is closed.

For you folks visiting from The Washington Post

Hello readers of the Post! If you're looking for Nancy Jane Moore's commentary on Richard Perle, not to mention her comments on our not-so-beloved attorney general and a few other things, please look here.

The religious right isn't so scary after all -- or is it?

By Diane Silver

Those darn Christian dominationists, or Christian Nationalists as Slate writer Russell Cobb prefers, aren't really so scary, or at least that's what Cobb says. He argues here that they can't take over the country because they are too busy fighting themselves.

Cobb makes his case in a review of Michelle Goldberg's new book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. He argues:

As she describes how the Christian Right moved from the margins of acceptability to the Republican mainstream, she also overlooks generational tensions and large-scale dissatisfaction with the Bush administration among many conservative, white evangelicals (only 34 percent of whom, according to a June 6 Pew research poll, "strongly back" the president).

I agree with Cobb that the religious right isn't nearly as monolithic as we liberals tend to fear. However, I will delay judgment on his ideas until a few more years go by.

The religious right has grabbed a breathtaking amount of political power in the last six years. As a lesbian and a feminist, I live with their bull's eye painted on my back, and I can't afford to believe they will just fade away if I ignore them.

A religious right that is cute, cuddly, disorganized and bickering? We'll see.

Kansas City to host national gay rights conference: It's time to get involved!

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force wants to showcase the region and is asking Kansas activists, support groups, religious congregations and other organizations to submit proposals for program sessions for its annual Creating Change Conference. The conference is set for November 8 to 12 at the Westin Crown Center in Kansas City, Mo.

July 14 is the deadline for submitting a proposal for a 90 minute workshop or 60-minute caucus or networking session.

Creating Change draws more than 2,500 participants every year. The Task Force notes:

The conference is well known for providing a unique environment where activists and leaders come together from diverse places and backgrounds to create a community that is both strengthening and inspiring to the participants.

You can find more information about the conference and the call for proposals here and here and here.

The Kansas View: Flag-burning vote helps U.S. Senators cover their posteriors

By Diane Silver

I can't say that I'm a Beltway insider, but once upon a time I was an insider in the wild and whacky Kansas Statehouse. Judging from the way I learned to read the Kansas Senate, I'd say the much richer senators in Washington, D.C. just had a good laugh at the expense of their constituents.

Yesterday's one-vote loss of a constitutional amendment banning flag burning reminded me of the close votes I saw on countless controversial issues in the Statehouse.

As a rookie reporter for The Wichita Eagle, once a part of the late lamented Knight-Ridder newspaper chain, I was baffled by how easily lawmakers rattled off these close votes. I was even more thrown by the fact that I heard constant rumors that folks who voted "yes" often hated the proposals they were supposedly supporting.

Being a tad slow then on the political uptake, it took me a while to realize that their "yes" votes always came on politically popular proposals, but only on proposals that failed.

Eventually, a lawmaker clued me in on what was really happening: A close defeat almost always meant that the opposition was far larger than the number of "no" votes on the tally board.

Because a particular proposal, like say banning flag burning, is so popular,though, lawmakers want to vote yes to please their constituents. Since the lawmakers know the proposal will fail, it's safe for them to vote "yes" on it.

A one-vote defeat? I'm guessing that may well be a bunch of hooey. I suspect the opposition may be far larger than that. But heck, what do I know. I just live in Kansas.

Dana Milbank from the Washington Post also has some fun perspective on senators antics during the day. His column provides yet more proof that banning flag-burning is not high on the list of these folks' priorities.

Oh, and where do I stand on the issue? Right beside the First Amendment and in opposition to the ban.

Archbishop to Episcopal Church: Renounce gays or get out. What a sad moment for a once proud church.

By Diane Silver

Today comes word of what could become a great tragedy. The New York Times reports that the head of the Anglican Communion has proposed a plan that could -- note the "could" -- force The Episcopal Church of the United States to "either renounce gay bishops and same-sex unions or give up full membership in the Communion."

The Times calls this a "a defining moment in the Anglican Communion's civil war over homosexuality." I suspect that may very well be true.

However, the definition the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is writing is one drawn from ignorance and bigotry. Perhaps saddest is the possibly that this may have been prompted by Williams' failure to stand up to political pressure from the conservative wing of his church. I have no idea if that is true, but I can imagine that the pressure on him has been enormous.

According to the Times, it is not yet certain exactly what the archbishop's proposal, which came in a letter, will mean. The paper reports:

For the proposal to be enacted would take at least half a dozen major church meetings spread out over at least the next four years, the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, said in a telephone interview.

The new presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori of Nevada,told The Times "she was heartened by Archbishop Williams's comments in the letter that he would not be able to mend rifts over sexuality single-handedly."

"There were expectations out there that he would intervene or direct various people and provinces to do certain things, and he made it quite clear that it's not his role or responsibility to do that," Bishop Jefferts Schori said.

Jefferts Schori, who takes office in November, has been an outspoken supporter of full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the church. However, I find her optimism to be naive.

I am no expert in The Episcopal Church and its politics, but I do know something about the failings of the human heart.

The worldwide Anglican Communion may some day come to understand that lesbians and gays in committed relationships are no threat.

It may one day know that we are the blessed children of God, just as heterosexuals are.

It may understand that sexual orientation itself is morally neutral and that the true focus of morality should be on how a person lives out her or his orientation.

It may one day understand the absurdity of shunning churches for welcoming people in partnered relationships. Remember that these are the people with the intregity to live openly and not to lie.

It may one day know how wrong it is to punish love, loyality and commitment.

But misunderstanding, an inability to see and a fear of differences run deep in the human heart. The Anglican Communion may one day have the clarity of sight and courage to live up to Jesus' teachings. Unfortunately, I doubt if that day is coming anytime soon.

My heart goes out to my lesbian and gay sisters and brothers and to their straight allies in the Episcopal Church.

In This Moment has blogged on this topic numerous times, most recently here and here and here.

Keeping track: Lawsuit to bar Kentucky religious schools from state money moves forward

Legal proceedings are moving forward in an effort to stop a Baptist college, the University of the Cumberlands, from getting $11 million in funding from the state of Kentucky.

Cumberlands made national news and showed up in this blog earlier this year when it booted out a student for being gay. During the same period, the state's governor signed a bill appropriating the state funding for the college's pharmacy school.

365.com and the Lexington Herald-Leader have the latest updates on the slowly moving legal proceedings.

The lawsuit is being pursued by the Rev. Paul Simmons of Americans United for Separation of Church and State; the Rev. Albert Pennybacker, former national president of the Interfaith Alliance; the Jefferson County Teachers Association; Christina Gilgor, executive director of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance; and the alliance, a gay rights organization.

Latest Headlines: Richard Perle yells, Washington drowns, true believers learn & more

Here are the latest headlines from In This Moment.

By Nancy Jane Moore
Alberto Gonzales cries wolf, Richard Perle accuses Bush of blinking on Iran, and we get facts about intelligence failures

Life imitates art: Washington, D.C., is under water

Linda Hirshman is right. So why are so many women picking on her?

By Diane Silver
Stereotyping terrorists as Arab or Muslim plays into Al Qaeda's hands

Training an army of believers to shoot gays, feminists, Muslims, Catholics & Jews

Also this week:
Kansas Republican defections hit the news worldwide as possible start of Democratic takeover

Gay Episcopal bishop's compassionate letter is met with hatred

Sensationalizing Miami terror arrests hurts us all

Stereotyping terrorists as Arab or Muslim plays into Al Qaeda's hands

The former inspector general of Homeland Security argues -- with good reason -- that stereotyping all Muslims and Arabs as terrorists won't keep us safer. The column in today's New York Times makes for interesting reading next to the plea by Pamela K. Taylor for an end to sensational reporting on terror arrests.

Written by Clark Kent Ervin, the Times column notes:

To all this one may say, very well then; some terrorists aren't Arabs, but aren't they all Muslims? Shouldn't we subject Muslims to particular scrutiny?

This assumption, too, could be turned against us and exploited by Al Qaeda, if the group managed to make common cause with non-Muslim zealots of one kind or another who oppose the American government or particular groups of Americans. There are plenty of such groups within the United States: white supremacists, separatists, even plain old opportunists who can be bought for a price.

Finally, stereotyping Arabs or Muslims as terrorists angers and alienates them at a time when we need their support like never before to help root out those within their communities who do indeed pose a threat to our nation's security.

You have to register to read the column, but it is not behind the newspapers hideous Time Select paywall. You can read it for free.

Training an army of believers to shoot gays, feminists, Muslims, Catholics & Jews

A laundry list of Americans are targeted as the so-called bad guys who have to be destroyed in a new game and other products being produced by the religious right, writer Chip Berlet says at Talk To Action. Berlet is a senior analyst at Political Research Associates.

The news about the videogame has been out for a bit, but Berlet puts it into perspective by quoting from Pre-Trib Perspectives, which bills itself as a "Publication Ministry of the Pre-Trib Research Center." The newsletter features commentaries by bestselling author Tim LaHaye of "Left Behind" book fame and Thomas Ice.

Berlet writes (the emphasis is mine):

The outcome of Tim LaHaye's "non-fiction" writing, the Left Behind series of novels, and the video game, is the training of young Christian evangelicals to rebel against the elected government of the United States when they decide government leaders are in service to the antichrist. And the task for these young Crusaders is to gun down the agents of Satan and their witting and unwitting allies among the ranks of the non-believers.

And from the Left Behind novels, we know this list is likely to include not just secularists, but also homosexuals, feminists, abortion providers, as well as Jews, Catholics, Hindus, and Muslims...especially Muslims.

After the 9/11 attacks, Pre-Trib Perspectives devoted more coverage to Muslims and their role in the End Times. For example, LaHaye wrote in the October 2001 issue that the attacks would "contribute to the fulfillment of several...end-times signs" ; and in February 2002 LaHaye proclaimed that "the religion of Islam has always been a terrorist religion."

Berlet's article is much longer and links to other coverage about the issue and the amazing videogame. The game has got to be one of the most frightening things I've seen in ages.

Apologies for typos

For some reason I do not understand, Blogger is writing the most amazing typos into posts. Odd glitchy things are appearing, at least in Internet Explorer. I take the glitches out, and then they come back.

The posts can still be read, but they do look a tad odd. Many apologies for that.

Stay tuned for further developments.

Diane

Life imitates art: Washington, D.C., is under water

As you may have heard, it is raining in Washington, D.C.

According to the radio news there was a mudslide that blocked the Capitol Beltway. Rock Creek Parkway is closed. Some of the subway stations shut down due to flooding. And while the animals in the zoo are fine, the parking lots are flooded.

Last year I read the Kim Stanley Robinson book Forty Signs of Rain, which is set in Washington. In the book, the flood did cover the zoo. It also got the halls of Congress and the National Mall. The book makes it clear the flood is the result of global warming. It is near future science fiction, published in 2004. The date of the story is vague, but it's easy enough to see it as 2006.

I just got yet another weather alert email from the D.C. government, warning me about more thunderstorms and flash floods. If they close the zoo, I'm really going to start worrying.

[reposted at 2:30 PM EDT 6/27 to fix glitches]

Linda Hirshman is right. So why are so many women picking on her?

By Nancy Jane Moore

Linda R. Hirshman has come up with one reason why we have so few women in significant leadership positions, despite decades of feminism: Too many women with the contacts and education for leadership roles are staying home with the kids. And a lot of them seem to think they've actually "chosen" this role, when in fact the role has been defined for them.

In "Homeward Bound," her article that appeared last fall in The American Prospect, Hirshman writes:

The census numbers for all working mothers leveled off around 1990 and have fallen modestly since 1998. In interviews, women with enough money to quit work say they are "choosing" to opt out. Their words conceal a crucial reality: the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking was largely untouched by decades of workplace feminism. Add to this the good evidence that the upper-class workplace has become more demanding and then mix in the successful conservative cultural campaign to reinforce traditional gender roles and you've got a perfect recipe for feminism's stall.

Her article focused on upper class white women with elite educations who "chose" to quit working to raise children, not on the majority of women who work out of economic necessity. She argues:

[E]lites supply the labor for the decision-making classes -- the senators, the newspaper editors, the research scientists, the entrepreneurs, the policy-makers, and the policy wonks. If the ruling class is overwhelmingly male, the rulers will make mistakes that benefit males, whether from ignorance or from indifference.

And she adds:

[T]he behavior tarnishes every female with the knowledge that she is almost never going to be a ruler.

Now I think Hirshman has made a valid and valuable point. The feminist movement, by promoting the idea that it was legitimate for a woman to choose to stay home and keep house (conveniently borrowing the concept of choice from abortion politics, where it was more politically palatable to say "pro-choice" than "pro-abortion"), avoided addressing the core problem of who has to deal with the necessary, but not particularly fulfilling, daily chores of family life. As she says:

Great as liberal feminism was, once it retreated to choice the movement had no language to use on the gendered ideology of the family. Feminists could not say, "Housekeeping and child-rearing in the nuclear family is not interesting and not socially validated. Justice requires that it not be assigned to women on the basis of their gender and at the sacrifice of their access to money, power, and honor."

In other words, the feminist movement of the 1970s made a compromise not unlike the one its earlier sister made back in the early part of the 20th Century when Susan B. Anthony and others decided to concentrate on the right to vote and pushed aside more radical thinkers like Elizabeth Cady Stanton who wanted a broader agenda.

And just as we debate today whether going for the suffrage amendment at the expense of broader rights was the best choice, so should we also be talking about the compromises we and our more recent foremothers made in the last push for women's rights. After all, women do have significantly broader rights at this point -- even though the Equal Rights Amendment didn't pass -- than we had when I was born. But even if that compromise was a wise choice, one can still argue that it is now time to address the family inequities.

If all the people who are attacking Linda Hirshman were focusing on that point, I think she would welcome the debate (and I know I would). But they're not. To a woman -- and apparently most of them are women -- they're attacking her because she dares to say that staying home with children doesn't allow women to attain their full potential.

The blogosphere exploded last fall shortly after her piece was published. She writes about the whole experience wittily in a June 18 Washington Post article "Everybody Hates Linda." (free registration required, but worth the effort) As she summarizes:

The mommyblogs vilified me as a single, childless, bitter loser; the feminists claimed women weren't quitting; and a chorus of other voices didn't care what I said -- criticizing women just wasn't allowed. A handful of political thinkers did concede that I had raised the biggest issue left for feminism -- justice in the family -- but it was definitely a minority report.

Hirshman also noted in the Post article that many of her critics were tied to fundamentalist religious groups. She says:

Time and again, when I could identify the sources of the most rabid criticism and Google them, male and female, they had fundamentalist religious stuff on their Web sites or in the involuntary biographies that Google makes possible. A lot of the fundamentalism behind the stay-at-home mom movement is overt, such as the letters worrying about my soul that appeared after the head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary suggested his followers chat me up. But a lot of it is covert, such as the identity of the authors of manuals disguised as tips on frugal housekeeping, but actually proselytizing women to stay home, as the Bible suggests.

Now here's the funny part: On June 24 the Post ran reactions to the article on their weekly Free for All page -- an expanded form of letters to the editor. They ran six letters -- all of them negative -- five from women who used terms like "dangerous and sad" to describe Hirshman's ideas and talked about motherhood as the most important job, and one from a male sociology professor who said, "My own research . . . indicates that stay-at-home mothers are more likely to have happier marriages than working mothers."

I find it hard to believe that the Post didn't get at least one letter supporting Hirshman. Or at least one letter taking on the real issue, which is not whether taking care of the family is important and necessary work, but rather whether it is automatically the exclusive domain of women. As Hirshman puts it in the American Prospect piece:

Here's the feminist moral analysis that choice avoided: The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, "A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read."

I don't think Hirshman has the whole answer on this subject. The glass ceiling is still real -- the reaction to the Episcopal Church's selection of a woman presiding bishop is just the latest proof of that. In Necessary Dreams: Ambition in Women's Changing Lives, psychiatrist Anna Fels argues that women drop out of various jobs at a higher rate than men because they don't get the same recognition that men do. Recognition, Fels says, is crucial to reaching goals. As I summarized when I reviewed this book in 2005:

Fels's book focuses on the importance of ambition and recognition. The two things go together, she points out. Generally, ambitions involve a striving for mastery in a field, and a wish to be appreciated for that mastery. According to Fels, the drive to master a skill is fundamental to human ambition and people are rarely satisfied by recognition for something that requires no effort, such as family heritage. But they definitely do want to be recognized for their skills, Fels points out: Neither mastery without recognition nor recognition without mastery satisfy most people.

But Hirshman has added real depth to the discussion by bringing us back to the arguments Betty Friedan first raised in The Feminine Mystique. Hirshman has a new book: Get to Work: A Manifesto for the Women of the World. I've ordered a copy and will review it on In This Moment once I get a chance to read it.

Alberto Gonzales cries wolf, Richard Perle accuses Bush of "blinking" on Iran, and we get facts about intelligence failures

By Nancy Jane Moore

When I heard about the cult in Miami that was supposedly going to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago, I immediately assumed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was hyping the arrest of terrorist wannabes to scare us back into the arms of the Bush administration. The more I read the more I'm convinced that I'm right.

Or as columnist Ellis Hennican says in Newsday:

These wild-eyed wannabes are America's real terror threat? We should be so lucky.

Juan Cole presents his usual clear-headed discussion of the situation on Informed Comment. He also points out that these guys aren't Muslims:

It seems pretty obvious that they are just a local African-American cult which mixed Judaism, Christianity and (a little bit of) Islam.

As In This Moment's Pamela Taylor points out, Muslims and non-Muslims have "far more in common than is usually perceived." Incorrectly labeling as "Muslim" a group arrested for terrorism doesn't help the general lack of understanding.

Legal blogger Andrew Cohen of The Washington Post reminds us:

The thing to remember as you absorb all of these terror-law announcements is that the government has a sorry record in these cases of overselling what it has just accomplished.

Speaking of The Washington Post, there's a detailed report in Sunday's paper on how the Bush administration bought into false intelligence from Iraqi con artist code-named "curveball." This is the kind of detailed investigative reporting the Post does best. Too bad they waited until several years into the Bush administration to start doing it.

Of course, their sources is a recently retired veteran CIA officer, Tyler Drumheller, who is now writing a book. I suspect he didn't start talking until after he retired. I'm glad he's talking now, but I wish he'd gone public back before we went to war in 2003. This country could use more government officials willing to quit their jobs on principle and tell the country what's going on.

It's a hard thing to do; nobody likes a whistleblower. Anybody who does it could be sacrificing a good chunk of pension money in an uncertain economy and might find it very hard to get another job. But in the spirit of "asking what you can do for your country," we need people who are willing to make those kind of sacrifices to help save our country from the incredible damage done by the Bush regime.

Also in Sunday's Post, Richard Perle, one of the architects of the horrendous mess in Iraq, is lambasting the Bush administration for "dithering" on Iran. I gather he'd like -- to use words made famous during another US debacle, Vietnam -- to "bomb them back to the stone age." Here's the best line from his story: "The mullahs don't blink -- they glare."

The good news is that he's advocating this position in the newspaper, instead of behind closed doors at the Pentagon. With luck, enough people in power have learned not to listen to him. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Last, but certainly not least, here's Juan Cole again, this time providing a translation of a report on the situation of women in Iraq. Women are losing their political representation, at increased risk from violence, and even being targeted for shopping. Yes, indeedy, we're making Iraq a democratic state.

Latest Headlines: Sensationalizing terror arrests, contemplating Kansas GOP defections, name calling greets gay bishop’s compassion

Sensationalizing Miami terror arrests hurts us all

Kansas Republican defections hit the news worldwide as possible start of Democratic takeover

Gay Episcopal bishop's compassionate letter is met with name calling and nastiness

Sensationalizing Miami terror arrests hurts us all

By Pamela K. Taylor

News of arrests in Miami of seven men who are alleged to have been plotting to blow up the Sears Building in Chicago raises a lot of questions.

First, the men are being called radical Muslims, but at least one of their members says they are part of a religious sect called "Seas of David."

Little is known about this group, but in response to questioning by CNN, one of the men replied, "we study and we train through the Bible, not only physical, but mentally." Group members say they worship in a "temple," not in an Islamic mosque. They also seem to have had no connection to other radical Muslim groups -- not Al-Qaeda, who they were trying to contact; nor were they connected to the group arrested recently in Toronto.

As a Muslim, I have grave concerns over the increasing perception of polarization between Muslims and non-Muslims. I honestly believe we have far more in common than is often perceived.

Human beings all want basically the same things, a decent living, a safe home, family and friends, a dignified life free from poverty and oppression; and all religions teach the same basic values -- peace, harmony, charity, compassion for others, especially the needy, love for other humans, responsibility in our dealings with the world, etc.

The perception that "Islam" stands on one side of a divide with "The West" or "Judeo-Chrisitan civilization" on the other is horribly damaging. We live on one small planet, and there is little likelihood of our being able to colonize other worlds in even the medium range future. We simply have to learn to live together.

One-point-six billion Muslims aren't going to suddenly disappear, convert en masse to Christianity or become Westernized overnight, just as a similar number of Christians aren't going to disappear, convert to Islam, or develop new sensibilities.

It is insanity to sensationalize current affairs in such a way as to provoke a greater divide than actually exists. It is madness to relate to all Muslims as though they agree with Osama Bin Laden, or are represented by him, just as it would be madness to assume that all Christians agree with Timothy McVeigh or the IRA.

Because Muslims are often foriegn, often brown-skinned, often speaking different languages, eating different foods and living with different customs, it is easy to stereotype, to lump us all into a single group. But that is as fallacious as it would be to lump all Christians into a single group, and far more dangerous.

A war between Islam and the West would not be pretty. A never-ending war on terror would forever alter the face of American democracy. It would erode civil liberties and rights that we hold dear. It would create a president who acts like a dictator rather than a public official working within a system that balances his power with Congressional and Judicial checks.

While the coverage I have seen of the arrests does not make a great deal over the race of the suspects, it is significant that they are African Americans. Clearly, there have been radical/violent black groups in the past.

By and large, however, the African American Muslim community has steered clear of radicalism and violence. They tend to focus on personal and spiritual development as the first step to social improvement with a commitment to promoting black business, individual social, emotional and fiscal responsibility.

If the group arrested in Miami really is associated with African American Islam, it represents a major departure from the past. From what I've seen, those arrested are, at best, a fringe group that has extremely loose ties with Islam, if any. As such, it doesn't represent African American Islam in any way.

That does not mean, however, that the African American Muslim community may not be smeared by guilt by association. African American Muslims have largely been exempted from the scathing attacks on Islam. They have not been smeared with the charge that they cannot be Muslim and still be loyal to America, since the vast majority of them have roots in this country that go back centuries.

However, this case could throw doubt, in some people's minds, on that loyalty. That would be a terrible development 1) because it doesn't reflect reality, and 2) because it would feed into the us/them rhetoric.

Finally, it's important for us to remember that the men were charged on conspiracy to commit terrorist acts. According to CNN, no weapons were found, no bomb-making equipment was discovered in their Miami warehouse. Even their plans appear to have been hazy. There was no mention of pages of detailed strategy, or anything like that.

I keep thinking of the Phillip Dick story (and later Tom Cruise movie) Minority Report.

At what point, does preventative arrest become arresting an innocent person who just likes to bluster a lot. At what point does preventative arrest unfairly hurt a group of people who do nothing more than sit around inventing fairy tales, but never do anything?

How do you decide which group will actually start to implement their plans, and which group is just spouting hot air?

According to reports from the Canadian press, the other recent terrorist arrest in Toronto captured a group that seemed to have gone much farther than the men in Miami.

In Toronto, the arrested men tried to buy explosives from a Canadian Security Services operative. In fact, it appears a dummy load of fertilizer was actually delivered to them. It seems pretty clear they were taking the steps needed to put their plans into action.

The men in Miami also went so far as to try to contact someone they thought was from Al Qaeda. (Again details are hazy: Did they try to make contact or did the undercover agent contact them, and they were willing to meet with him?).

In the Miami arrests, the absence of concrete plans and the materials needed to carry out their supposed attack makes the case seem a lot more shaky.

While protecting the country from further attacks is essential, so too is the right of all of us to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. As preventative arrests continue to be made, it is important to hold tight to the Bill of Rights and the legal standards which protect all citizens from over-zealous law enforcement.

[Note: I posted this for Pamela because a Blogger glitch wouldn't let her original post publish. - Diane]

Kansas Republican defections hit the news worldwide as possible start of Democratic takeover

By Diane Silver

Britain’s Guardian newspaper today takes note of the fact that the blue revolution may well begin in Kansas, the reddest red state.

The Guardian reporter may be on to something because one fact is clear: The religious right is not a majority, even in scarlet states such as Kansas. I believe that if moderate Republicans and Democrats join forces, the right cannot win.

The problems for progressives like myself are (1) persuading moderate Republicans to jump ship, and (2) protecting the only remotely moderate party we have from leaning too far to the right as more Republicans join. (By the way, moderate Kansas Republicans are generally no danger, I believe. Most are much more liberal than the average member of the GOP, but that is a story for another day.)

Discussing former Kansas Republican Chairman Mark Parkinson’s defection to the Democratic Party, The Guardian says:

If Democrats want to become the dominant party again, the revolution must begin in such places as Kansas. And Democrats in Kansas, deep in reddest America, are dreaming of a time when the whole country turns blue.

Parkinsan’s decision is particularly significant because he defected to become the running mate of the state’s top Democrat, Gov. Kathleen Sibelius. The newspaper writes:

Republicans in Kansas, he says, have let down their own people. 'They were fixated on ideological issues that really don't matter to people's everyday lives. What matters is improving schools and creating jobs,' he said. 'I got tired of the theological debate over whether Charles Darwin was right.

The newspaper reports that other Republicans who have jumped ship in red states include Jim Webb in Virginia and Barney Giese in South Carolina.

Gay Episcopal bishop's compassionate letter is met with hatred

By Diane Silver

The not-very-well-named web site Virtue Online is hosting a name-calling session in response to what are apparently open letters from The Rev. V. Gene Robinson and another liberal minister. The letters discuss last week’s vote by The Episcopal church convention to limit the consecration of bishops in out, committed relationships with same-sex partners. (You know, the dreaded gay bishops.)

When Google Alerts sent me this link, I was first going to do nothing more than point to the link to the letters. They give interesting insight into last week’s votes and why the even some liberals voted yes. Robinson asks for calm and approaches the subject in a loving and supportive manner. The other letter is from The Rev. Neil Elliott of Minnesota and is angrier and less conciliatory, but still interesting and well argued.

(FYI-I haven’t been able to confirm, yet, where these letters were first posted/published or whether they are actually from Robinson and Elliott. If anyone can do that or can show me that they are fakes, please let me know at hopeandpolitics@yahoo.com, or post a comment. Many thanks.)

My reason for posting the link to the letters is still true.

What amazes me, though, is the nastiness displayed by the Anglicans who commented at the bottom of the page. The responses are not only juvenile, they are about as un-Christian as you can get.

The site, Virtue Online, bills itself as “The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism.” No webmaster can control the people who comment online, so perhaps these comments aren’t representative of the conservative branch of the Anglican Communion.

However, if they do represent even a small part of orthodox Anglicanism, what the heck is going on? Are orthodox Anglicans so immature that they can’t discuss two letters in a reasonable manner?

I can understand that the regular readers of this site would disagree with Robinson and Elliott. What I don’t understand is why they don’t seem to have the ability to respond with anything but junior high bullying.

If Robinson and Elliott are so wrong, then let the so-called virtuous readers of this site, argue their side of the controversy, or is that simply impossible to do?