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.

Kansas' Pat Roberts drags his feet, Bush skates again on probe into pre-war intelligence

Greg Sargent at American Prospect’s Tapped blog reports that Kansas’ own Pat Roberts, who heads the Senate Intelligence inquiry is finding new and improved ways to “prevent a serious probe” into the “line of inquiry potentially most damaging to Bush.”

The Hill newspaper reports the details of how the state’s senior senator is once again protecting George W. Bush.

It could work: Trading sullen and dull for pretty and personable in the new White House press secretary

Right now the liberal blogosphere is having a great time snickering about how Tony Snow doesn’t really have to quit his job at FOX to take over as the new White House Press Secretary. He’s merely shifting from one “department” to another, they note. The “joke sort of tells itself,” says Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo. Yet, I wonder if something is being missed.

What George Bush has done is trade Scott McClellan’s ordinary looks (sorry Scott) and rather robot-like and sullen demeanor for pretty-boy Snow’s personality.

Bush is trying to portray the appointment as a way to put a true professional journalist in the position.

CNN reports:

"As a professional journalist, Tony Snow understands the importance of the relationship between government and those whose job it is to cover the government," Bush told reporters in the White House briefing room.

This is hogwash because Snow is far from being a “professional journalist,” but I’m digressing from my main point.

Some in the media are focusing on some of Snow’s criticisms of Bush. This angle helps Bush, who is often portrayed – apparently accurately – as living in a bubble surrounded by yes men.

"He's not afraid to express his own opinions," the president said (of Snow). "For those of you who've read his columns and listened to his radio show, he sometimes has disagreed with me. I asked him about those comments, and he said, `You should have heard what I said about the other guy.' "

Yet the true importance of this appointment may lay in the fact that Bush – the hated and rapidly approval-plunging president – is bringing in a TV pretty boy who knows how to woo an audience. Remember the press secretary speaks to two audiences: the White House press corps, which is as human as the rest of us and can sometimes be won by charm, and the public who see the press secretary on TV.

Have we all become yet another TV audience for Snow to charm? Can he do it? Will Snow win us over with his personality, or could anyone succeed in winning over an audience over with such a horrible “product” (read that as horrible president) to sell?

We’ll find out, but I wonder if Bush has made a shrewd decision. That worries the heck out of me.

If they are so bad, why let them go from Guantanamo?

I’m surprised at how little play both the mainstream media and blogosphere are giving to the announcement that we're releasing nearly a third of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Meanwhile, we continue to hold most of the remaining nearly 500 inmates, apparently with no plans to either charge them or release them.

The Los Angeles Times reported today on the pending release of the inmates the Bush Administration calls the “worst of the worst” – so horrible they had to be held without trial for an unlimited time without even the most basic of human rights. Suddenly, though, they “pose no threat to U.S. security.”

Charges are pending against about two dozen of the remaining prisoners, the chief prosecutor said. But he left unclear why the rest face neither imminent freedom nor a day in court after as many as four years in custody.

Only 10 of the roughly 490 alleged "enemy combatants" currently detained at the facility have been charged; none has been charged with a capital offense.

That leaves the majority of the U.S. government's prisoners from the war on terrorism in limbo and its war crimes tribunal exposed to allegations by international human rights advocates that it is illegitimate and abusive.

The exact release date and where they will be released has been announced yet.

Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, said the full significance of freeing the detainees could not be assessed until their fates were clear.

Most interesting is this fact.

Announcement of the pending releases coincided with a considerable drop in the number of detainees likely to be charged, suggesting that the U.S. government either lacks the evidence to convict more or — as defense lawyers and human rights monitors contend — feels little pressure to accord the terror suspects a speedy trial or due process.

I wonder if in the years to come, historians will point to Gitmo as one of the most shameful periods in U.S history. Maybe not, but I believe that any nation that refuses to give even the most basic rights to hundreds of people has lost its way, both morally and politically.

Kentucky’s governor chickens out, gays steps up, and the whole mess goes to court

What started as a battle over a college’s right – or lack of it – to expel a student for no other reason than the fact that he’s gay has turned into a constitutional struggle in Kentucky.

The media/blog spotlight was turned on that fair state recently when the University of the Cumberlands kicked out an honor student because he revealed online that he is gay. That prompted the various media to take a look at the Kentucky Legislature’s plan to appropriate $11 million in taxpayer dollars for Cumberlands, a private Baptist college

And that lead a few folks to scratch their heads and wonder what happened to the separation of church and state in Kentucky. Using state money for churches is not only forbidden in the U.S. Constitution, but in the Kentucky Constitution as well.

All of which brings us to the current blow by blow…

Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher refused to veto the state money for Cumberlands, but suspended spending the money while a court decides whether the appropriation is constitutional

The executive director of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance filed suit in state court to block the funding declaring that it was an “unconstitutional appropriation and use of public funds” for “a sectarian and denominational school that treats Kentucky citizens unequally.”

Meanwhile, the Lexington Herald-Leader editorial page takes note of the fact that their governor is completely chicken. That's their term, not mine.

Yesterday evening, he (the governor) went on television to tell the public that he was cutting only $370 million out of $2.38 billion in projects.

One of the survivors was the ill-thought-out and probably unconstitutional $11 million boondoggle for a pharmacy school at a private, religious school.

The University of the Cumberlands is in the backyard of a Republican powerhouse, Senate President David Williams.

There were a lot of reasons to whack this special-interest appropriation, not the least of them being its questionable constitutionality. The Kentucky Constitution prohibits using taxes for "any church, sectarian or denominational school."

Frankly, that seems pretty clear. But Fletcher saw an opportunity to avoid responsibility and drag this out even longer as legal bills mount.

He declined to veto the money, but said he would withhold it while asking the courts to determine "once and for all," the legal status of state appropriations to private schools.

By tossing this hot potato to the courts, Fletcher put pandering to his conservative religious political base above leadership, common sense, fiscal responsibility and the law.

Stay tuned for further developments as we watch to see whether courts in Kentucky actually believe in the separation of church and state.

[Note: I accidentally switched the links on the lawsuit and veto news stories. Take note. It's a tad late, and I'll let you all figure out how to find which story.]

Can Bush beat Nixon?

As George W. Bush goes down, down, down in the polls, we are left to ponder the question: Will Bush break Richard Nixon’s dismal 24 percent approval rating? That’s the amount of support Nixon had just before he resigned in 1974 because of the Watergate scandal.

Today CNN reports that Bush only has the support of 32 percent of the people, a new personal low for the president.

I’ve read some commentary about how Bush’s drop in the polls hurts the nation. It could make him a lame duck for the majority of his last term in office.

I can think of nothing better for this country. It may well take us decades to recover from the damage he has done. Anything that hampers him can only be good, or at least, that's the view from Kansas.

Bush’s bureaucratic budget shuffle could hurt you

Think about the federal government's disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina and the need for a strong and efficient FEMA. Think about federal loans that help middle-class college students and federal grants that help poor students. Think about environmental programs that protect our air and water. Think about programs that help poor children get a head start on school. Don't blink, though.

George W. Bush and his administration have cooked up a plan that could suck the life out of those programs while allowing for "unlimited tax cuts." That's the word from a new study by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Based on past performance, I'm betting that those tax cuts wouldn't be trickling down to anyone who isn't already rolling in money.

The Center reports:

The leaderships of both the Senate and the House have indicated that they plan to take up legislation later this year to change the budget rules. Some of the Administration proposals may be considered at that time.

The Center says that the Bush Administration proposes to cap the costs of certain programs in ways that will increase costs and decrease benefits to taxpayers. For example, Medicare costs would be "subject to an artificial cap" that would "induce cuts" in benefits and increase premiums. Caps on annually appropriated programs like FEMA, federal financial aid, education and environmental programs "would be capped at levels that imply substantial reductions."

On the other hand, the Administration proposes no new rules to impede tax cuts of any size, no matter how costly.

The administration is also proposing a "new accounting gimmick" to allow the supposedly temporary 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to be extended indefinitely by Congress. The Center says this would cost "hundreds of billions of dollars per year," but that the administration plans to claim that the cost is zero.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is apparently proposing new rules to limit Congressional power over the budget, while strengthening the President's power.

The Center report concludes with some interesting ideas on how current budgeting rules could be revised without causing so much damage. It's well worth reading.

Fred Phelps and his ilk: "driven crazy by their hatred of gay and lesbian Americans"

Wisdom from Iowa: The Des Moines Business Record quotes from a letter from state Sen. Joe Bolkcom.

I think Reverend Phelps and others like him have been driven crazy by their hatred for gay and lesbian Americans. …

Once people give themselves over to hate, they’ve started on a downward path. The Phelps group now welcomes every new tragedy as an excuse to spew forth their hatred and extremism.

Iowa is relatively free of the politics of hate that seems to consume other states. Let’s keep it that way by treating each other with respect and by focusing on improving education, expanding health care, and growing Iowa’s economy.

Amen to that for Iowa, Kansas and the rest of the world.

Fred Phelps and his ilk: "Driven crazy by their hatred of gay and lesbian Americans"

Wisdom from Iowa: The Des Moines Business Record quotes from a letter from state Sen. Joe Bolkcom.

I think Reverend Phelps and others like him have been driven crazy by their hatred for gay and lesbian Americans. …

Once people give themselves over to hate, they’ve started on a downward path. The Phelps group now welcomes every new tragedy as an excuse to spew forth their hatred and extremism.

Iowa is relatively free of the politics of hate that seems to consume other states. Let’s keep it that way by treating each other with respect and by focusing on improving education, expanding health care, and growing Iowa’s economy.

Amen to that for Iowa, Kansas and the rest of the world.

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline finally gets it: He lost the sex case

Despite the fact that his web site still maintains he won a teen sex case, Attorney General Phill Kline has finally admitted that, ah, he didn’t exactly come out victorious.

At issue is a Tuesday federal court ruling that slapped down every aspect of Kline’s effort to mandate the reporting of all underage sexual activity. The judge made a point of noting that Kline had usurped legislative authority and ignored the law.

The Wichita Eagle blog reports this morning that our not-so-beloved attorney general finally admitted his “mistake” to The Eagle editorial board.

“It’s not a victory.” No kidding.

That “no kidding” was a comment from Eagle blogger Phillip Brownlee, and is being echoed this morning by the rest of us in Kansas.

Brownlee continues:

In fact, Kline contends that by allowing health professionals to exercise their judgment about when teen sex is injurious and should be reported, U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten’s order establishes a constitutional right to privacy that threatens other reporting laws. “The truth is Judge Marten’s decision went too far,” he said.

So does that mean that Kline is likely to appeal the decision? Yes, he said.

Great, more good tax money thrown after Kline’s bad opinion.

I agree with Brownlee. I am not happy to know that Kline is spending yet more of my tax dollars to go after the state’s 21^st Century versions of Romeo and Juliet.

Let's put this into perspective.

As a mother, I am not at all thrilled, happy, or approving of the idea that any teenager at any time would be having sex.

Call me a prude, but having a son just out of that age group gives me a tiny bit of perspective. I think teenagers are too immature for the responsibility, the confusions and the difficulties that come with a physical relationship – not to mention the possibility of pregnancy and a child who will have two immature parents.

On the other hand, Kline seems to think that even sex between consenting teens is rape, or at least that’s the way the statement on his web site reads. Kline’s April 18 statement starts:

I have always maintained, and continue to maintain, that the rape of a child harms a child. When the Kansas Legislature wrote this statute, they unquestionably had the protection of children in mind.

No one argues about the issue of rape, reporting it and protecting children. To claim that his opponents are doing that is not only arrogant but appalling, yet that is the implication of Kline's April 18 statement.

More than t hat, Kline's statement doesn't admit the existence of any other kind of sex than rape.

Thus, I am left wondering along with the rest of the state, the Legislature and the federal judge what Kline would do to Romeo and Juliet.

If all underage sex is rape, then who do you charge? Is Romeo the rapist or Juliet? What damage would Kline do to the lives of those unfortunate teenagers if he ever had the chance to go after them?

Coach should have been “packing boxes, not holding a press conference”

ESPN columnist Graham Hays calls for Penn State to fire Rene Portland.

Hays writes:

Because for the school to find enough evidence to fine the coach $10,000, there had to be something more than the word of one disgruntled former player. And even if those extra words were little more than whispers, Portland should have been packing boxes, not holding a press conference.

By wimping out on Portland's punishment, the school has effectively said it's willing to enter next season with a bigot coaching its women's basketball team.

The columnist for the Altoona Mirror is a little more charitable, sort of.

While Portland has survived perhaps long enough to end her career on her own terms, probably sooner than later, the overall health of the Penn State women’s program is questionable. Can Portland continue to recruit effectively after her own university cited her for discrimination in a sport known for its diversity?

Penn State said further such cases involving Portland will be grounds for dismissal. It did not, however, address how it might react if another former player comes forward with another round of allegations.

Based on Portland’s track record, that’s probably only a matter of time.

Larry Hicks from the York Dispatch writes about how Penn State’s response is “too little, too late.”

All that matters is what's going on in Portland's head. Because clearly, if she's making coaching decisions based on a player's ethnic origin, that would be wrong. If she's making such decisions based on race, religion or sexual orientation that would be wrong, too.

Hicks argues that a player should only be judged on her performance on the court.

I don't care if she's purple, had one eye and was missing a foot. If (former Penn State player Jennifer) Harris could do her job, she deserved to play at Penn State without being hassled. If she worshipped trees, she deserved to play at Penn State. And if she was a lesbian, she deserved to play at Penn State.

Hey, this is America and Portland is entitled to think anything she likes about human sexuality or anything else. If she wants to harbor ill will against lesbians, that's her business, I guess. But she also has an obligation, as a coach and as a member of the Penn State family, to adhere to the university's anti-discrimination policy.

So she had a choice. She either should have put her personal bias aside for the good of the team and the athletes on the team, or quit her job as coach. She can not have it both ways.

"Pulling a Penn State," or the not-so-fine art of refusing to hold coaches accountable for their actions

Once again, a little basketball and lesbi-phobia blogging…

A new catch phrase may have just entered the sports world. Coined by USA Today columnist Christine Brennan, the phrase to “pull a Penn State” may soon come to denote a university that ignores problems in its sports programs.

The phrase refers to this week’s tepid response by the university in question to a controversy surrounding its women’s basketball coach Rene Portland. Tuesday Penn State’s own internal investigation reported that Portland created a "hostile, intimidating and offensive environment" for player Jennifer Harris because Coach allegedly believed Harris is a lesbian.

Harris, by the way, says she is not gay -- a fact that truly doesn’t matter when it comes to discrimination. (Note that even well-meaning straight folks can sometimes miss the fact that they can be subjected to the same discrimination gays face, or even the same unfair laws. It’s all a matter of perception… but I do digress.)

Harris’s basketball career was in tatters, and she was driven off the team.

In response, the university gave Portland a light slap on the wrist.

Brennan writes:

Portland's reprimand was slight — a $10,000 fine against the backdrop of a six-figure salary. She also was ordered to participate in diversity and inclusiveness training and was told if she ever does anything like this again, the university definitely will fire her then.

It’s important to note that this will be the second time Portland has been sent to diversity and inclusiveness training.

Brennan notes:

With a feisty scowl, Portland (this week) denied discriminating against Harris, who filed a federal lawsuit against her. She also called the university's investigative process "flawed." Now that's chutzpah. The university president gives her another chance, and she runs right up and kicks him in the teeth.

…

Portland and homosexuals have an ignominious history together. In the 1990s, she refused to deny in a Philadelphia Inquirer story that she discriminated against lesbians in her program. When she was saying this back then, she found some takers, especially in the living rooms of Middle America.

One wonders, however, what she is finding today in a world that is more open-minded and, presumably, far more surprised to hear such stark words of discrimination, words that, if one lives by them, also happen to be against the law.

But Portland is a smart woman. She clearly knows how to pick whom to despise on the Penn State campus. Replace the word "gay" with black, Asian, Jew or even overweight, and she would be cleaning out her desk today.

Women’s Hoops Blog has a good background piece on the issue called “A Brief History of Rene Portland and the L Word.”

Baptist college shows some Christian compassion -- with a little help from an attorney

The University of the Cumberlands --the Baptist school that expelled a student recently for the crime of being gay – has decided to not to flunk the dean’s list student.

Knight-Ridder reports:

Jason Johnson, 20, and his attorney, Don Waggener of Lexington, said yesterday that under terms of the agreement with the University of the Cumberlands, Johnson:
* Will be allowed to send in work to complete his courses so he can receive final grades. When he was kicked out on April 6, Johnson, who was on the dean's list, received all F's on his transcript. "This will preserve my academic record," he said.
* Relinquishes his right to sue the university for damages.
* Retains his right to file complaints with the U.S. Department of Education and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the regional accrediting agency.

A slap on the wrist for damaging a young woman's career

I don't usually blog about sports, but I am a huge fan of women's basketball. The current case of Penn State women's coach Rene Portland is frustrating and ridiculous, all at the same time.

Mechelle Voepel, one of the most knowledgable columnists who follows the game, has a good overview today at ESPN about the case.

Portland's long history of apparently denigrating lesbian players caught up with her this year when she and her university were sued for allegedly kicking a player off the team for being gay. The player, Jennifer Harris, who is black but not gay, contends that Portland removed her because she perceived Harris to be a lesbian.

Tuesday Penn State announced that its internal investigation had proven that the charges were correct, but that it was only giving Portland what amounts to a slap on the wrist ($10,000 fine and attending yet another diversity training, among other things). The University's own report reads:

There was no evidence to substantiate Harris' claim of race discrimination. [But] enough evidence existed to substantiate a claim that Portland discriminated against Harris by creating a 'hostile, intimidating, and offensive environment' because of Harris' perceived sexual orientation. This is in violation of Penn State Policy AD-42, which prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics."

Meanwhile, Portland responded with a statement saying that she expected to one day be "fully vindicated."

Obviously, coach doesn't think she did anything wrong.

Lesbian-baiting women athletes has a long history in American sports. It has never been fair to anyone, whether lesbian or straight. It's hurt the sport, destroyed the careers of brilliant athletes and hurt teams.

I can't help but laugh when I think that a coach like Portland might have turned away the next Sheryl Swoopes, the WNBA MVP who came out this year. But this isn't a joke. This kind of prejudice hurts lives and stunts careers. Isn't it time to let it go?

Meanwhile, Harris is continuing with her lawsuit with the support of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. We may not know everything about this case yet, but we do know that it is far from over.

The center has posted another column by Voepel here.

Kansas Sex Case: Phill Kline loses, gets slammed for usurping legislative authority

A federal judge has ruled that Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline overstepped his power when he declared that health care providers must report every instance of sexual activity between consenting teenagers as sexual abuse.

Speaking through a spokesperson, Kline immediately declared victory. (I’m not kidding. Honest, I’m not.)

U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten of Wichita issued the 39-page ruling this afternoon. He noted that Kline was attempting to step outside his constitutional authority.

In accordance with the general principles of the separation of powers, the executive department cannot generally usurp or exercise judicial or legislative power . . . . In view of both the statutory language and the long-standing interpretation of the reporting statute, the Kline Opinion effectively amends the reporting statute by eliminating the discretion the legislature gave mandatory reporters to determine if there had been an injury. Under the Kline Opinion, the mandatory reporter has no discretion with respect to reporting illegal sexual activity of a minor … in contravention of the plain language of the statute and legislative intent…

The Wichita Eagle reported that even though Kline claimed he had won, he is expected to appeal the ruling. (I’m not making this stuff up, folks.)

Kline's office said the judge did what the attorney general had hoped for in upholding the Kansas child abuse reporting law as constitutional.

“That’s what we’ve maintained, that the statute is constitutional,” said Whitney Watson, spokesman for Kline’s office.

Kline issued a written statement around 6 p.m. See the Eagle story for the statement.

The judge noted that both sides in the case conceded that it was mandatory for health care providers to report cases of incest, sexual abuse of a child by an adult and sex involving children younger than 12.

The judge goes into detail about the testimony in the case, making the ruling interesting reading because of how clearly it sets out the issues. You get a much better sense of what’s going on from reading the ruling, then from any reporting, and that’s not a slam on newspaper reporters. It’s only a criticism of the amount of space they have.

One of the most interesting parts of the ruling, for me, was the impact of mandatory reporting on children who are actually victims of abuse.

The judge wrote:

Finally, beyond the irreparable harm that all minors may be subject to, evidence supports a finding that mandatory reporting of all illegal underage sexual activity will harm those minors who are actual victims of “sexual abuse” as defined by SRS’s working definition. SRS Director Sandra Hazlett stated that the Kline Opinion would increase the number of intake reports, increasing the workload without a corresponding increase in funding. Besides overwhelming state agencies, reporting all sexual activity as sexual abuse tends to trivialize actual sexual abuse, according to Dr. Nancy Kellogg, pediatrician and professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Texas.

This is an important case for many reasons. Besides from what this will do to protect children, there is the utter irony of a staunch conservative like Kline being declared to be a horrible "activist" who usurps legislative power.

The good news-bad news of theocracy in the United States, and the future of our way of life

Kevin Phillips has a good article in The Nation today where he notes:

Is theocracy in the United States (1) a legitimate fear, as some liberals argue; (2) a joke, given the nation's rising secular population and moral axity; (3) a worrisome bias of major GOP constituencies and pressure groups; or (4) all of the above? The last, I would argue.

And now a word for tolerance & compassion from our Christian universities

What's truly surprising is that Notre Dame, Baylor and Pepperdine would work so hard to make discrimination legal. This is a sad day for higher education.

Can you imagine the uproar if they did this so that they could keep African Americans out of their schools? However, the bill specifically says that the proposal "is not meant to allow an institution to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability."

365gay.com reports:

(Washington) Private Christian colleges would be excepted from local and state non-discrimination laws under a proposed amendment to the Higher Education Act - a move that would allow the schools to legally reject LGBT students.

The amendment, proposed by Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah), would prevent accrediting boards from making adherence to non-discrimination laws a requirement.

The measure passed the House last week and is currently before the Senate

Brigham Young, University of Notre Dame, Baylor, Pepperdine and Samford universities have all been lobbying heavily for passage of the bill.

Interesting: Gov. Sebelius for VP?

Daily Kos is reporting that there's building buzz about running Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for vice president.

Very interesting.

The drag and joy of taxes

Yeah, taxes are a drag. I’m no more thrilled about them then you are, yet taxes are much more than an irritation. Whether they are federal or state, being sent to D.C. or Topeka, Kansas, taxes are one of the ways that we help each other.

Sometimes they pay for things we don’t like. (Personally, I’m not thrilled by the Bush Administration’s policy of funneling money to conservative churches or military spending.) But other times, taxes are the means by which we help children in need, families struggling with illness or people swept up in natural disasters.

Taxes and the government programs they fund aren’t the only way that people get help. However, they are one effective way for all of us to pool our resources. They help us support those who need a helping hand up to get out of bad situations.

The rich get those eager hands from parents or grandparents, or an economy that enables them to buy the help they need. George W. Bush got that helping hand when his father’s friends bailed him out of repeated business failures early in his career, not to mention all the other ways his name and money got him special help that a poor man or even a middle-class one would never have received. (Think about how Bush got into top academic programs with mediocre grades, to name just one example.)

This is not a rant or a call for class war. In fact, I hope it’s not a rant at all, but a somewhat sad, but determined commentary about why we all need to own up to our responsibility for each other.

Usually, the rich can buy what they need. The rest of us sometimes must look to our neighbors for help. There are also moments, though, such as disasters of the scale of Hurricane Katrina, when everyone needs the help government can provide.

To turn our back on taxes and to undermine the system, as the GOP appears to want to do, is to turn our back on our neighbors. I will take no part in that.

This is why on Tax Day, I am both a tad irritated and happy. I want to help people. Don’t you?

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has some interesting tax facts.

Among other things:

• The percentage of income that most categories of taxpayers pay in federal taxes is at the lowest level in decades. Despite this fact — and despite the large current federal budget deficit and the even larger fiscal problems projected for coming decades — the Administration and Congress are pushing for additional tax cuts that would aggravate these problems.
• Federal revenues below historical norms. Federal revenues in 2005 were smaller as a share of the economy than their average level of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s. These low revenues have been a major contributor to the return of large deficits.
• People making over $1 million a year are $100,000 better off on Tax Day. In 2005, households with annual incomes above $1 million (who represent only one out of every 500 households) will receive an average of $100,000 apiece due to the tax cuts enacted by Congress in 2001 and 2003. This is about twice the total annual income of the typical American household.
• Tax cuts for millionaires wipe out deficit savings from program cuts. The President’s budget proposes sizeable reductions over the next five years in nearly every domestic discretionary (non-entitlement) program. Yet the President’s tax cuts for people who make over $1 million a year would cost more than the total savings from all of the proposed cuts in domestic discretionary programs, including the cuts proposed in education, environmental protection, veterans’ medical care, and medical research.
  

Finally, some FUN remodeling at In This Moment!

I am pleased to post a new nameplate for In this Moment. This nifty new design was created by the extremely talented Amanda Warren. Thank you, Amanda, for capturing the spirit of the place.

Happy Easter, Happy Passover, Happy Spring to all.

The newest political sport: Counting the generals who are calling for Rumsfeld’s head

Until this week, my favorite political sport was watching and rooting on the rapid decline of George W. Bush’s approval ratings. Bush is now descending through the 30s. Anyone want to take bets that he can make it to the 20s? This week, though, my favorite sport is counting generals – that’s the angry, retired kind, the ones calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s head. This would be fun if the situation in Iraq wasn’t so serious. People are dying and being tortured because of this administration’s incompetence and arrogance.

The latest count is six generals with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius thrown in to add a little spice. This morning Google News reported that it had found 738 stories in the mainstream media on this topic. I haven’t checked to see how many folks a blogging on this, but I suspect it’s many more than seven hundred and something.

From Newsweek:

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq until last November, appeared on NBC’s “Today” show to reiterate criticisms he leveled earlier this week.

Batiste said Rumsfeld had “failed to build the peace” in Iraq, and criticized “a leadership style which is intimidating, abusive. There was not a two-way street of respect.”

The New York Times has the best roundup I’ve seen so far on the generals' comments. (You have to register, but it’s free.)

AP’s story is here.

Los Angeles Times reports:

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq shortly after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, became the fifth general involved in Iraq policy to call for Rumsfeld to resign, citing his handling of the war.

Swannack, like the other generals, criticized Rumsfeld's management style.

The Defense secretary "has micromanaged the generals" commanding troops in Iraq, Swannack said.

He added that Rumsfeld had "culpability" for the detainee abuse scandal at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, and that he had failed to acknowledge his mistakes.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that young officers -- the future generals -- are leaving the Army at a frightening rate. This includes those who graduated from West Point, and would presumably have once thought they wanted a 20-year career in the military.

The Times gives a multitude of reasons for this trend. None touch on the incompetence of the Bush Administration. However, you do have to wonder if the anger of the generals and the unhappiness of captains are related.

Alternet provides background on why it's so significant that retired generals are speaking out. The military has a different code than us loose-lipped civilians. This chorus of anger may well be unprecedented.

Kudos to Kansas’ Johnson County Community College for valuing fairness

Kudos to the Board of Trustees of the 34,000-student Johnson County Community College for voting to treat all their employees and students fairly, regardless of their sexual orientation. The college is in the richest suburban county of Kansas City.

The Kansas City Star reports:

Five months after racist and anti-gay graffiti appeared in restrooms at Johnson County Community College, the college’s trustees quietly added sexual orientation to the institution’s nondiscrimination policy.

The action at a hastily called special board meeting Monday night surprised even proponents of the change and drew criticism from a trustee who opposed the revision.

Trustees approved the policy change during the open portion of the meeting, though it was also discussed in a closed-door executive session.

“The meeting was a surprise,” said Kami Day, an associate professor at the college who had advocated that the policy be changed to protect gender identity.

“It’s a step, and a huge improvement.”

The Johnson County Sun reports that the vote was 4-1.

It probably would have been better for all concerned if the vote hadn't been hurried, but you can’t fault any organization for voting against discrimination.

Hooray for the college’s Board of Trustees for understanding the importance of treating all people fairly. The only true surprise is that it took a college until the 2006 to pass such a policy.

The anti-fairness, "un-Brokeback spirit" of Kentucky

A hearty round of applause for the Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader, which came out with guns blazing today to ask for nothing less than basic fairness for the state's LGBT citizens.

In the first of two separate editorials, the newspaper first implored Kentucky’s Republican governor to veto $11 million in state appropriations for the private, religious college, the University of the Cumberlands.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that no state Legislature should be in the business of appropriating money for private, religious schools, this university made a name for itself this week for expelling a student whose only crime was to be gay.

There is a slim hope that Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who still has line-item veto power over the budget, could preserve the Constitution and some shred of moral and fiscal sanity by simply cutting the school out of the budget.

The University of the Cumberlands has the right to deny an education or even employment on the basis of sexual orientation.

The state of Kentucky doesn't.

Fletcher must veto the appropriation.

In the second editorial, the newspaper took Fletcher to task for removing a anti-discrimination protection for gays from the state’s employment policy. The editorial is so good, I’m going to quote most of it.

Fletcher, who has sunk in the polls as his administration has foundered on almost every front, may have simply been pandering to his conservative base.

One Republican conservative called it "a good political move."

Whether Fletcher's motivation was political opportunism or another effort to spread a personal religious agenda, his action is a step back in every possible way. It can only made it harder to attract and keep exceptional people and institutions.

And it sends a message that some Kentuckians aren't quite as valuable as others.

No unbridled spirit in Kentucky for them.

It suggests a change to the state slogan. How about "un-Brokeback spirit?"

The Herald-Leader is also doing a good job of covering the college’s dismissal of the gay student. The small Baptist school kicked him out three weeks before the end of the semester, AND gave the honor student all F’s, now that’s Christian charity for you.

Here’s some of the coverage.

Ousted Student Tells His Story

Gays Challenge Schools Funding

Truth vs. lies and a lack of faith in the Kansas sex-ed wars

Is the real issue that the ultra-conservative majority on the Kansas Board of Education is afraid of truth?

Josh at Thoughts From Kansas has an interesting, although fairly snarky post on the sex-education brouhaha.

Among other things, he does a good job of pointing out a problem in the story in today's Kansas City Star about the State Board meeting.

On a sidenote of media criticism, this paragraph from the Star's story bugs me:

"The difference between the two groups seems to be the degree to which sex ed stresses abstinence. Abstinence-only sex education would talk about contraceptives in relation to their flaws and rates of failure; abstinence-plus classes would include information about the proper use of contraceptives."

Both approaches stress abstinence. One gives children accurate information, the other keeps information away. As far as abstinence, all approaches give the same information.

Looking at this with an editor's eye, it's clear the Star paragraph is nonsense. I can't believe I missed this before. This issue isn't how much to discuss abstinence, but what information to give about birth control.

Truth and accurate information are only a few of the issues raised by the ultra-conservative's actions.

These folks present themselves as the most moral, religious and family oriented of all Kansans, yet they appear to be acting out of fear. Don't they believe their own PR?

Could it be that they're frightened about their own parenting skills; about their children's honesty, integrity and self control? Could it be they don't trust their churches to teach morality? If they get their way, these folks will be relying on the sheer repression of information to keep their children from getting involved sexually before they're emotionally mature enough to do it, to keep them becoming pregnant, and to even keep them from having sex before marriage.

I may well be wrong. And as a mother, I know how easy it is to be frightened about what your kids might do, but there is an oddness to their logic. There is an intensity to their fear of, well, the truth that seems to be a tad unreasonable.

Perhaps, I'm wrong, and these so very conservative board members are merely parroting a philosophy. Maybe they're simply playing their brand of politics. Honestly, I hope I'm wrong. Because otherwise, what does that say about them and their children and the children of their churches? Do they have so little faith?

Bush & GOP Watch: Keeping track of the R's effort to undermine elections

TPM Muckraker is doing a good job of digging up the dirt on the story I noted in "Promoting democracy in Iraq and undermining it in New Hampshire."

Remember, this story doesn't involve the mere allegation of election tampering. Republican campaign operative James Tobin has already been convicted of it.

What's really going on: The sex education odyssey in Kansas

First, the good news: The Kansas Board of Education yesterday postponed action on requiring abstinence-only sex education.

Now, the bad news: Most folks appear to be missing the central issue – an ultra-conservative attempt to overthrow 20-years of public policy in Kansas.

Earlier reports, including one in this blog, suggested that the board intended to tie this most limited form of sex education to school accreditation. That could well have been disastrous for Kansas’ kids.

If that happened, local school districts would either have to comply with the state mandate, or risk having official approval yanked from their schools. Among other thing, this could mean that colleges might discount diplomas from these out-of-favor schools.

The Kansas City Star and Wichita Eagle have fairly comprehensive reports on Tuesday’s board meeting. It appears that our anti-evolution board got a tad confused about how much sex they wanted in their sex education. The Star reports that the discussion devolved into a wrangle over what’s sex vs. what’s abstinence. Everyone seemed to agree that intercourse = sex = bad, but after that the definitions got murky. Apparently, no one could come up with a good definition of abstinence (no jokes, please) and so, they postponed further discussion and action to next month.

What’s missing in the news reports is context. I haven’t had a chance to check this out as much as I’d like, so please correct me if I’m wrong, oh great and wise blogospherians.

With that said…

What is really going on here may well be the opposite of what seems to be happening. In other words, the ultra-conservatives are not trying to preserve the past and take us back to the good old days. They appear to be attempting to overturn 20-years worth of public policy. This policy may well be effective. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Missouri reports that teen pregnancy has declined 20 percent in Kansas during that period.

This fight is being played out as a struggle between the State Board and the Kansas Legislature, or at least, the state Senate.

Here’s the timeline.

July 2005 --> The State Board allows the old – and some would argue – successful sex education guidelines to lapse.

Feb 25, 2006 -->The Kansas Senate passed SB 508, which appears to largely continue standards that have been in place since 1987. The bill is sent to the more conservative House where the bill gets stuck in committee. Efforts are still being made to pass the bill. Any movement would have to come during the wrap-up legislative session later this month.

March 16, 2006 --> The State Board of Education ultra-conservative majority votes 6-4 to make Kansas one of only four states that requires parents to sign permission slips for their adolescents to take sex education. This is known as the “opt-in” policy. Up to this point, Kansas has had an “opt-out” policy that allowed parents to take their children out of sex education classes, if they wished.

Planned Parenthood has some good resources on this and other issues here and here.

Promoting democracy in Iraq & undermining it in New Hampshire?

Has King George struck again? Our beloved president claims to be promoting democracy in Iraq. Even though there is some question about whether he is actually doing that or simply putting on a show, I will give him some benefit of the doubt in that area.

However, it looks like he and/or his minions might have been working hard to undermine the most basic tools of American democracy -- fair elections.

AP reports today on phone calls the White House received from a GOP operative who ran an operation designed to keep Democrats from voting. Note who's paying for this operative's legal bills.

Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show.

The records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 — as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down.

The national Republican Party, which paid millions in legal bills to defend Tobin, says the contacts involved routine election business and that it was "preposterous" to suggest the calls involved phone jamming.

Preposterous?

Perhaps.

Not just marching in big cities: Thousands of immigrants rally in Kansas

I have to admit that I have not been paying much attention to the Congressional debate over dueling proposals that would either help or slam illegal immigrants. One approach appears aimed at providing them with a path into citizenship, while the other wants to declare them and anyone who helps them to be felons.

I must say, though, the increasingly large demonstrations have finally caught my eye. What really grabbed my attention this morning was a front page story in my local newspaper, noting that there was a march in Lawrence, Kansas.

I hadn’t expected that, so I wondered what had happened in the rest of Kansas, and surprise! Immigration isn’t just a big-city issue.

The Wichita Eagle reported:

Thousands of marchers also took to the streets in Liberal, Garden City, Dodge City, Emporia and Topeka.

Across the state, Hispanic businesses closed, students skipped classes and workers walked away from jobs to join the rallies.

In Emporia, 1,500 people marched through the streets and past Tyson Meats, where many are employed, heckling some workers who declined to join the protest.

The Emporia school district reported a 23 percent absentee rate for the day, contrasting with 5 percent on an average day.

More than 3,000 people turned out in Garden City for a rally sponsored jointly by Hispanic unity organizations, religious leaders and the Tyson Workers' Council, supporters of a union organization effort at the company's beef-packing plant at Holcomb.

In Arkansas City, Creekstone Farms, a meatpacking plant, gave workers the day off to join rallies of their choice. Hispanics and their supporters gathered at Wilson Park on Monday afternoon for a march to City Hall.

Rusty Wright, human resources director for Creekstone, said about 75 percent of Creekstone's 750 workers are Hispanic.

Wichita-based Cargill Meat Solutions, which employs about 14,700 workers in five states, said there was a noticeable slowdown in production at its largest plant, in Dodge City.

See other reports on Garden City, Salina and Topeka. While none of those places qualifies as a small town by Kansas standards (think 50 up to 1,000), none of them is a metropolis. Arkansas City (mentioned in the Eagle report above) is the smallest at around 11,700 people. Garden City and Salina both have around 25,000 people. Topeka has about 122,000. Wichita is the largest city in the state with about 345,000 people.

Meanwhile, The Eagle and Wichita TV station, KWCH, sponsored a four-question SurveyUSA poll, that found only 31 percent of Kansans support a guest worker program. Those surveyed were almost evenly split on whether immigrants take jobs away from Americans or do jobs we won’t do. Overwhelming majorities said the U.S. should increase border security to keep illegal immigrants out and should deport those already here.

The Eagle has a special section on the issue with both Kansas and national perspective here.

Blasts from the recent past

What’s it like to be a lesbian and live in a state that’s been taken over by anti-gay, anti-evolution, anti-everything-but-them Christian dominationists? It’s like Living with a Target on your back.

How does it feel to mix it up with Fred Phelps and his clan when you live only 30 minutes from his house? Take a look at the Fred Phelps Quartet.

*Love and Fred Phelps

*Nancy Jane fights back, and We Learn about Theology

*I have arrived: The Phelps Family Takes Notice

*Yet another Fred Phelps Commentary

What happens to a lesbian Mom when her son turns 18? Find out in Winning the Lesbian Parent Marathon.

Can we ever really Take Back Kansas from the thecons and theocrats?

You've got to be kidding: Kansas Board of Education once again attempts to undercut kids

There are a couple of online reports about the Kansas Board of Education's new plan to punish schools that stray from the abstinance-only path in sex education. The board is going to vote on the plan tomorrow.

The Wichita Eagle reports:

Under a proposal to be considered at the board's meeting Tuesday in Wichita, districts that teach more than abstinence could risk losing their accreditation.

Red State Rabble notes:

While the board would be wise to just say no to abstinence only sex education, which has proven ineffective in case after case, the right-wing majority on the board will undoubtedly vote to approve, once again placing their own narrow sectarian religious beliefs ahead of sound public policy and the welfare of Kansas students.

Normally, I'd urge people to call their state board representatives and urge them to vote "no," but in this case, there is no reasoning with these folks. The best thing to do? Vote a resounding "no" on the state board's conservative majority in November.

Western Kansas gets a chance to "Take Back Kansas" on April 19

Red State Rabble is reporting that another Take Back Kansas rally has been scheduled by the MAINstream Coalition and Alliance for Education in Hays.

Set for Wednesday, April 19 at 7:00 p.m. at the Hays High School auditorium, the event is entitled, “Take Back Kansas: How We Can Move Kansas Back to the Middle, and Why It Matters.”

RSR's report is the only one I can find online about this, so far.

This is a rally you folks out around Hays won't want to miss. Take a look at my report on the first rally in the series.

The "great challenge" of the 21st Century: Working out of love, instead of fear

There's a powerful post up on Andrew Sullivan's blog. I wish he'd identified the author, but this comment provides clear-eyed overview of the Bush Administration's policy in Afganistan and Iraq. What really struck me was what this poster identified as the central battle of our time. I happen to think this person is right, although I disagree slightly on one point. See more on that below.

This person wrote:

But there is one great dividing line here, between you and me on one side, and Bush and his cohort (and the Christianists and the Islamists and the scientific reductionists, and all the other -ists) on the other: the humility of a faith based on love, with its attendant qualities of acceptance, inclusion and non-violence, and the arrogance of a faith based on fear, with its attendant qualities of judgment, exclusion and, inevitably, violence. You have written of this division in your own way when you wrote of the "conservatism of doubt" vs "conservatism of faith". I truly believe this division marks the great spiritual, social and political challenge before us in the 21st century: the shift from a faith - and a world - based on the fear of God to one based on the love of God. That is an evolutionary challenge. And a global challenge. And I think that some day it will be recognized as the great theme being played out at the center of the Bush Presidency, and the American tragedy in Iraq. Fear and lies, or love and truth. It's just that simple.

I agree with everything here, except for the implication that this central struggle is only occurring within communities of faith/or only has relevance to people of faith.

I think this IS the supreme struggle of our time. Much more than any fight over abortion or same-sex marriage, I think this is the true culture war. However, it's not just a shift within faiths from one mode of believing to another. If we do not move in the secular world from acting out of fear to acting out of respect, we will be equally in danger.

The secular path with all of its amazing strength and idealism is walked by human beings, who are prone to the failings that trip up all of us flawed humans. Secularists, just like people of faith, can act out of fear and arrogance and absolute certainty.

The real danger we all face is neither a particular religion, nor lack of religion, nor a particular philosophy. It's the fear that can make us all, at times, act as if we must fight to the death to survive.

Respectfully: Did The Wichita Eagle miss the story on Fred Phelps?

The Wichita Eagle profiled anti-gay, anti-American, anti-just-about-everybody pastor Fred Phelps over the weekend. The article by Fred Mann was nicely written, but well, a tad odd, at least to my eyes.

I don’t argue with The Eagle for publishing such an article. Phelps is certainly a newsworthy topic. I don’t even argue with the newspaper for what appears to be a fair and accurate report of his views.

Obviously, I’m no fan of Fred’s and he’s no fan of mine, so I guess many folks will find my comments to be suspect.

But the old newspaper reporter and journalism instructor in me finds it odd that the article seemed to provide such little context to what is basically little more than a visit with Phelps. The reporter repeats his words, but appears (Note that word “appears.” This may not be the reporters’ fault)… he appears to have failed to check out the truth of Phelps’ claims.

Phelps makes a couple of interesting claims in the story. Among them are that everybody, even the kids, love to picket, and that his family has been physically attacked during their picketing and at home.

Outside of noting that many people, even Jerry Falwell, hate Phelps, the article provides no outside verification of these claims or any others that Phelps makes. It does quote one daughter who left the family as saying "I felt like I was being controlled, and I didn't have any freedom."

As a mother of a recent teenager, I can safely say that statement could be made by 99 percent of the teenagers in the United States.

The article fails to mention any of the reports that Phelps has abused his children. Those reports are freely available from the Topeka Capital-Journal web site, along with denials from the family that the abuse occurred. The Capital-Journal also has a large page on Phelps, which includes all of its articles (see the 1994 series), a book chapter and these comments in an open letter to Topeka written by one of Phelps’ sons who left the family.

I also realize that my father is a very unstable person who is determined to hurt people. And because he is so bound to be hateful and hurtful, and because he's so untrustworthy, I believe it's a good idea to respond to him with caution much like the caution used when dealing with a rattlesnake or a mad dog.

This is a much different view than you get from reading the Eagle article. At the very least, Phelps should have been asked to comment on this report. Instead, all the article says is that this son and another who left the family could not be reached.

As a journalist, I’m surprised that the Eagle didn’t publish any comments from police about whether or not Phelps or his family had really been attacked. The Kansas rumor mill has always claimed that Phelps and his family exaggerate or make up those attacks. It’s not fair to Phelps or to the readers to fail to report on what police say about whether these incidents occurred.

Among the other things left out were details about why he was disbarred. Years ago when I was a reporter, I read one of the harassing letters that led to Phelps being disbarred by the federeal court. It was wild, to say the least.

I give high marks to The Eagle to tackling a difficult subject. I just wish they would have done a better job of putting the man and his actions into context.

Kansas Board of Education: The tide is turning

Red State Rabble has a good overview of the upcoming state Board of Education races. Run, do not walk, to his site and check it out.

This isn't the year to sit out politics in Kansas. When the August primary comes around and the November general election, make certain you vote and get your friends and family out to vote for sanity in public education.

Kansas Republican icon uses the "T" word

With the rise of the neocons and the religious right, the newest swear word to enter the political lexicon is the word “tax.”

Imagine my surprise and delight when the Journal-World reported over the weekend that former Kansas Sen. Nancy Kassebaum Baker was freely throwing around the T word in an appearance in Lawrence. Kassebaum Baker is something of an icon to the GOP of Kansas. She repeatedly won her seat in the U.S. Senate with vote margins other politicians can only dream about.

Her pointed comments come the week after the Kansas Legislature went home for a three-week break after failing to pass increased funding for the state’s public schools. One of the sticking points was figuring out a way to pay for the funding increase. So far, the only thing lawmakers have apparently considered seriously is increasing gambling in the state. This is occurring at the same time that they’re cutting taxes for businesses. No one wants to talk about boosting taxes, or not cutting business taxes.

The Journal-World reported:

Even with a long record of opposing taxation and overspending during her years as a U.S. senator from Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum Baker knows education trumps everything — including fiscal conservatism.

“None of us like to raise taxes,” she said. “But we have to be sure we have the incentives to bring the very best.”

Kassebaum Baker spoke Saturday at a Kansas University Women’s Club scholarship fundraiser, and her focus — as was the case during her years in office — was on education.

Hesitant to talk about the gridlock over education funding in Kansas, she said only that sometimes, legislators needed compromise to make a system work, even if that meant going against core fiscal values.

“It’s a tough issue, a divisive issue,” she said. “I’d rather raise some taxes, because you can’t do it with smoke and mirrors.”

I don’t like taxes anymore than Kassebaum Baker or anyone else does. I like them least when I have to pay them, which happens far too often as far as I’m concerned. On the other hand, I am sickened by the thought of living in a society that refuses to meet its responsibility to children.

Listening to some legislators talk, you would think that everything else comes first, except our kids. I just don’t think that’s acceptable.

Also of interest in the school funding debate is the fact that the lawmakers who scream the loudest about helping all Kansas kids are those in the religious right. Many of them appear to loathe the public school system.

I used to think their attacks on public schools were merely designed to siphon money over to their own schools. Now, though, the good folks over at Talk 2 Action are making me wonder if the true purpose of the religious right is to turn the public schools into a system to indoctrinate our kids into their one, narrow form of religion. It sounds like a paranoid crazy idea, but the material posted at Talk 2 Action does make one wonder.

Shall we run or get angry? Scalia says gays don't have rights.

OK, so maybe I only needed a little time off from In This Moment. I can’t NOT blog on this.

Under the category of not-so-hopeful politics… 365gay.com is reporting that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told law students at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland that gays don’t have civil rights.

In a recording of the March 8 speech, Scalia is heard to say:

"Question comes up: Is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question."

Leaving aside the fact that if the court were to follow Scalia's reasoning, slavery would still be legal, this is an incredible statement.

Scalia’s quote comes only three years after the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to overturn state bans on sodomy. At that time, the court said the states don’t have the power to make laws regarding private sexual conduct.

Given that the two newest conservative justices have tilted the Supreme Court far to the right, Scalia’s comments should give us all reason for concern. Just as abortion foes are setting the stage for the Supreme Court to possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, anti-gay forces could set up a test case on sodomy laws.

How delightful.

I wonder what would happen politically if the court reinstituted these repressive laws, including the one in my own state of Kansas. The moment such a ruling were made, I and my friends would suddenly become criminals for doing nothing more than daring to express our love.

How would we react? How would the rest of the country react? Would the nation finally get to the point where such legal outrages produced a political backlash?

In case anyone is wondering, I am NOT arguing for an attack-the-court approach similar to the one employed by the religious right. I’m one of those silly folks who actually believes in the U.S. Constitution and our form of government. Yes friends, checks and balances are a good thing.

But, we could turn a defeat in the Supreme Court into a political victory. Even with a Supreme Court ruling favoring sodomy laws, we could win the fight in state legislatures to throw out these outdated and oppressive measures.

What would we and the sane straights in the country do in such a situation?

Would we think it was time to run, or would we finally reach a moment when more than just a few of us would stand up to these bullies?

I would prefer that we never face such a situation. If we have to, though, that time may well turn out to be the fulcrum on which the entire movement for civil rights for GLBT Americans turns.

Bush once again says a deadly "thank you" to his supporters in Kansas

Last month I reported on how the Bush administration proposed chopping $3 billion out of Kansas’ federal funding over the next five years. Today it’s time to think about what would happen in Kansas if a natural disaster struck. Thanks to the Bushies’ policy of all-war-all-the-time, this reddest of red states could be as bereft of support if a devastating tornado struck as New Orleans was when Hurricane Katrina hit.

This is not a comforting thought, given that we’ve just entered tornado season and have already suffered one severe storm this month.

The Lawrence Journal World reports today: The State May Be Unprepared If Another Disaster Strikes

Years of overseas deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq have left the Kansas National Guard depleted of equipment — some now used in Kansas is borrowed from Nebraska — straining its ability to respond to disasters at home.

I’m not going to pretend that this is a new concern. The depletion of the National Guard’s equipment was widely reported after Hurricane Katrina struck. I also don’t want to alarm anyone.

Both the spokesperson for the National Guard and the governor’s press secretary said that the Kansas Guard can still respond in times of need. But it looks like we’re teetering on the edge. Joy Moser, a spokesperson for the Guard and the Kansas Division of Emergency Management notes:

“We could do it, but we’re at the top of the bottom. We couldn’t go much lower with the amount of equipment we have and still do it.”

The Journal World notes that the administration of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is “clearly concerned.”

The governor wrote to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in December, complaining that the 891st Engineering Battalion — based in southeast Kansas, commanded by Ozawkie state Rep. Lee Tafanelli — had returned from its year in Iraq without a host of heavy equipment, including bucket loaders, road graders, dump trucks, bulldozers and tractor-trailers.

“The Guard was critical to responding to recent blizzards and floods in Kansas, yet its ability to respond to similar situations is being diminished by a lack of equipment,” Sebelius wrote. “We must be able to maintain a high level of readiness, because no one can know when disaster will strike.”

Nationally, The Journal World reports, an estimated $35 billion worth of National Guard equipment has been left in Iraq. The federal budget, however, only asks for a little more than $20 billion over the next six years to replace that equipment. Unless my math is as woefully inadequate as the Bushies' calculations that still puts us $15 billion short of what we need to replace the lost equipment -- and that's over the next six years.

And that, Moser said, will put a strain on home troops the next time they respond to a Kansas disaster.

“We just don’t have the equipment we had,” she said. “We’re not to the point where we can’t perform the mission — I don’t want for one minute for people to think that. But we’d have to be creative.”

As much as I am no fan of our not-so-beloved president, George W. Bush, this problem isn’t just his or, even Donald Rumsfeld’s. The conservative wish to starve the government of money so that it can eventually be “drowned in a bathtub” has been well publicized.

The problem is that conservatives seem to have forgotten that government has some basic duties that should NEVER be ignored. Government’s bottom line has to be the protection of its citizens and the willingness and ability to help them (remember "them" is you and me and your family and friends) in time of disaster.

Hurricane Katrina showed that the Republican administration and the starve-the-government philosophy can’t fulfill this most basic task. If nothing changes in Washington, what will happen next month, next year or the year after that? What happens when the next big tornado hits Kansas?