SpyGate Round 2: Phone companies deny & deny

As pretty much everyone knows by now, Verizon and Bell South have denied handing over records of their customers’ domestic calls to the National Security Agency. Meanwhile, USA Today, which broke the story last week, stands by its assertions.

Some liberal bloggers have done a good job here and here and here of parsing the company statements and considering the situation. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are quoting the companies and claiming that the USA Today story is falling apart. Oh yes, and a class action lawsuit has been filed against the telecom companies.

What’s definite?
The former head of Qwest said his company was asked to hand over the records. Qwest refused. Either something happened, or this fellow is hallucinating.

What’s interesting?
Neither Bush nor any of his spokes-folk have ever denied that such a program and database of domestic calls exists. They just keep denying that purely domestic calls are being wiretapped without warrants. That’s like being asked about whether you shot any rabbits for dinner and answering by firmly denying that you’ve ever shot a deer. That wasn’t the question, Bushies.

What’s true?
The NSA is working without oversight. This means we don’t know the extent to which Bush has allowed (or ordered) the agency to ignore the FISA law, which requires a warrant from a secret court. We don’t really know that he hasn’t. However, we do know that Congressional committees, up to this point, haven’t been briefed as fully as they were in the past (or at all), and we know that no one is really watching with Bush and friends are doing. If this is all so legal, why not go to the FISA court, which rarely denies a warrant and can even issue warrants retroactively?

What’s absolutely true?
Tomorrow morning senators, the news media and all the rest of us average citizens will get our first good look at Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who ran these programs (or is alleged to have run these non-program programs) at the NSA. That’s when the Senate Intelligence Committee will hold its first hearing on Hayden’s confirmation to be the next head of the CIA.

Those hearings, the lawsuit, continuing reporting and a host of other factors are sure to keep this issue alive. Thus, here’s the one true thing we know: This isn’t even close to being over yet.

Bush plummets in Kansas: Poll taken after spy scandal broke

This is truly amazing. The latest SurveyUSA poll shows that George W. Bush is clinging to a dismal 35 percent approval rating in Kansas -- the reddest of red states.

The survey was performed May 12 to 14 – well after the latest news report that the Bush Administration may be keeping track of just about everyone’s phone calls.

After that report, Time magazine claimed that the latest spy revelation might well give Bush a bump in the polls. If that was going to happen, you might expect that kind of support to show up in conservative states like Kansas. Looking at these poll results, though, all that can be said is: wow.

With a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent, this poll means that Bush’s approval rating in Kansas could be as high as 39 percent or (good heavens!) as low as 31 percent.

Thoughts From Kansas has a nice chart of Bush’s Kansas ratings over time and a detailed analysis of the poll. While I like TFK’s chart, I’m not certain I agree with all of his analysis. Bush voters are clearly unhappy, but TFK theorizes that this has to do with immigration. Maybe.

However, I think we don’t have enough information to say for certain. It could be a combination of all the factors the conservatives have been screaming about in the news this week.

As one of those folks the conservatives claim haven’t been oppressed hard enough by Bush and Co., I have to admit to being a tad worried about how he will respond. We already know that the U.S. ban on same-sex marriage is being pushed again in Congress. What’s next? (It is such a joy to live with a target on one’s back.)

The November elections should be fascinating, though, even out here in one-party Kansas.

Bush plummets in Kansas: Poll taken after spy scandal broke

This is truly amazing. The latest SurveyUSA poll shows that George W. Bush is clinging to a dismal 35 percent approval rating in Kansas -- the reddest of red states.

The survey was performed May 12 to 14 – well after the latest news report that the Bush Administration may be keeping track of just about everyone’s phone calls.

After that report, Time magazine claimed that the latest spy revelation might well give Bush a bump in the polls. If that was going to happen, you might expect that kind of support to show up in conservative states like Kansas. Looking at these poll results, though, all that can be said is: wow.

With a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent, this poll means that Bush’s approval rating in Kansas could be as high as 39 percent or (good heavens!) as low as 31 percent.

Thoughts From Kansas has a nice chart of Bush’s Kansas ratings over time and a detailed analysis of the poll. While I like TFK’s chart, I’m not certain I agree with all of his analysis. Bush voters are clearly unhappy, but TFK theorizes that this has to do with immigration. Maybe.

However, I think we don’t have enough information to say for certain. It could be a combination of all the factors the conservatives have been screaming about in the news this week.

As one of those folks the conservatives claim haven’t been oppressed hard enough by Bush and Co., I have to admit to being a tad worried about how he will respond. We already know that the U.S. ban on same-sex marriage is being pushed again in Congress. What’s next? (It is such a joy to live with a target on one’s back.)

The November elections should be fascinating, though, even out here in one-party Kansas.

Take Back Kansas rallies bring board of education campaign out in the open

One of the oddest and nastiest problems with the Christian fundamentalists who grabbed control of the Kansas Board of Education is the fact that they don’t seem to believe in democracy. I call this odd because these can sometimes be the same folks who are screaming the loudest about patriotism and the sanctity of the flag.

Why does this matter to Kansas? Think: evolution slammed in the classroom and an unqualified ideologue hired to run the state’s education department.

Why does this matter to the rest of the United States? Think: evolution undermined and ideologues put in positions of power, and the importance for all of us to actually pay attention to what’s happening in our local campaigns.

Take a look at the case of Iris Van Meter, who has been one of the staunch ultra-conservatives on the Kansas board. As Red State Rabble puts it:

In 2002, Van Meter ran a stealth campaign. She made no public appearances but defeated incumbent moderate Val DeFever of Independence just the same.

"It's scary," said Val DeFever after the election. "Someone could never leave their living room, never meet the public, and win public office."

All candidates may try to avoid taking strong stands on issues, but failing to even appear is a new low. This has been a common pattern in Kansas as the ultra conservatives have taken over large chunks of the government. Although Van Meter has announced she isn’t running again in November, her son-in-law Brad Patzer is vying for her seat, so it pays to watch what’s happening.

Meanwhile, the MAINstream Coalition, Kansas Alliance for Education and Kansas Families United for Public Education have taken the somewhat “wild” approach of attempting to actually talk about issues. This caught the eye of the Hutchinson News editorial writers, who praised the coalition today.

Credit the coalition of groups organizing "Take Back Kansas" rallies around the state this spring for eschewing stealth campaign tactics.

Those involved have spelled out their serious concerns with radical decisions made by social conservatives serving on the Kansas Board of Education, recruited candidates who offer alternative ideas for voters to consider and made an open appeal for political support.

That's how the founders anticipated citizens would participate in our representative democracy - out in the open, willing to engage in an informed debate and focused on issues of public importance.

A Take Back Kansas rally is scheduled for 7 pm tomorrow in the Justice Theater at Hutchinson Community College's Shears Technology Center. A second rally is scheduled for later in the month in Johnson County. The editorial notes:

Office seekers who pursue a narrow agenda or plot to make highly controversial changes prefer to limit participation in elections. They attempt to communicate only to a loyal base of supporters and concentrate on voter turnout more than on voter enlightenment. Social conservatives rely on such stealth campaign tactics to win elections.

You can bet the fundamentalists are paying attention and know who to vote for. Do we?

SpyGate Round 2: Phone companies deny & deny

As pretty much everyone knows by now, Verizon and Bell South have denied handing over records of their customers’ domestic calls to the National Security Agency. Meanwhile, USA Today, which broke the story last week, stands by its assertions.

Some liberal bloggers have done a good job here and here and here of parsing the company statements and considering the situation. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are quoting the companies and claiming that the USA Today story is falling apart. Oh yes, and a class action lawsuit has been filed against the telecom companies.

What’s definite?
The former head of Qwest said his company was asked to hand over the records. Qwest refused. Either something happened, or this fellow is hallucinating.

What’s interesting?
Neither Bush nor any of his spokes-folk have ever denied that such a program and database of domestic calls exists. They just keep denying that purely domestic calls are being wiretapped without warrants. That’s like being asked about whether you shot any rabbits for dinner and answering by firmly denying that you’ve ever shot a deer. That wasn’t the question, Bushies.

What’s true?
The NSA is working without oversight. This means we don’t know the extent to which Bush has allowed (or ordered) the agency to ignore the FISA law, which requires a warrant from a secret court. We don’t really know that he hasn’t. However, we do know that Congressional committees, up to this point, haven’t been briefed as fully as they were in the past (or at all), and we know that no one is really watching with Bush and friends are doing. If this is all so legal, why not go to the FISA court, which rarely denies a warrant and can even issue warrants retroactively?

What’s absolutely true?
Tomorrow morning senators, the news media and all the rest of us average citizens will get our first good look at Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who ran these programs (or is alleged to have run these non-program programs) at the NSA. That’s when the Senate Intelligence Committee will hold its first hearing on Hayden’s confirmation to be the next head of the CIA.

Those hearings, the lawsuit, continuing reporting and a host of other factors are sure to keep this issue alive. Thus, here’s the one true thing we know: This isn’t even close to being over yet.

What's the best way to teach teens about sex?

Here's a quick comparative sex quiz about teenagers. Take these five developed countries -- The United States, Sweden, France, Canada, and Great Britain -- and pick which one has the teens between 15 and 19 with the:

1. largest percentage of pregnancies.
2. largest percentage of abortions.
3. largest percentage of live births.
4. largest percentage of single mothers.
5. highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases.

I'll give you a hint: All five have the same answer. And it's the same country that invests a significant amount of its sex education resources into teaching abstinence.

Yes, that's right: The United States of America. We're not just leading the entire world in oil consumption, we're also leading the developed world in teen pregnancy.

These numbers are from an excellent set of articles in The Washington Post Health Section for May 16 called "Is Teen Sex Bad?" (Free registration required, but it's worth your time for this report.)

The countries don't differ much on the level of teen sexual activity. The U.S. and Sweden have similar percentages of sexually active teens from 15 on. The other countries have much lower rates in the early years, but by the age of 20 around 80 percent of the kids in all the countries have had sex. In several of the countries a much larger percentage of teen pregnancies are terminated by abortion, but since these countries have a much smaller pregnancy rate to begin with, their overall rate of abortion is still much lower than that of the U.S.

And the figures for other wealthy European countries are similar to those of the three listed above. (The Canadians are more similar to the Europeans than they are to us.)

As I read the articles, there are two big distinctions between the U.S. and the other countries:

1. The other countries have comprehensive sex education programs in their schools that cover contraception, STDs, and making rational choices about sex.
2. Europeans tend to consider sex a normal part of adolescence.

Here's the conclusion that I drew from reading the whole report: Regardless of what kind of sex education teenagers receive, most of them are going to have sex. But the ones that get comprehensive sex education -- as opposed to talks about abstinence and preaching about the evils of sex -- are much less likely to get pregnant, get diseases, and need abortions.

If we were really interested in reducing the teen pregnancy, STD, and abortion rates, we'd follow the European example and provide comprehensive sex education while cutting back on the morality lectures. Alas, I fear that those behind abstinence "education," those who oppose contraception, and at least some of those in the anti-abortion movement are more interested in making sure that sexually active teenagers are punished by pregnancy and disease.

The view from the Heartland and the Beltway

I am happy to announce that In This Moment is expanding. Washington, D.C., based editor Nancy Jane Moore is joining the staff to add her inside-the-beltway view to my Kansas voice.

Nancy is a legal editor, recovering lawyer and science fiction writer. Having been raised by liberals deep in the heart of Texas, she understands what it's like to have your opinions mocked and ignored, but she keeps expressing hers anyway. She reads everything she can, spends way too much time online, is proud to call herself a feminist, and often looks at issues through the perspective of twenty years of training in the martial art of Aikido. For more information, see her web site.

Asked by her boss this year if she wanted to attend the White House Correspondents Dinner, Nancy declined because, as she told me, she couldn't stand to be in the same room with
George W. Bush.

Nancy will be posting periodically. She hopes to add more reporting and a legal perspective to In This Moment's normal fare. Adding her to the staff will also allow me more time to do a little reporting on my own.

Her first posts are today. Welcome Nancy!

Bush calls on the National Guard to bail him out on immigration

It shouldn't surprise us that Bush's answer to immigration issues is to call out the National Guard to beef up security on the Mexican border. Relying on the National Guard to solve problems has been a hallmark of his presidency. Of course, his overuse of the Guard in Iraq and Afghanistan came back to haunt us during Hurricane Katrina, when the Louisiana Guard was shorthanded.

Several prominent Republicans, including Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, are questioning whether the Guard has the resources to take on another task and even whether this should be the role of the Guard. And it is almost hurricane season again.

As is usual with this administration and this Congress, no one in authority is actually dealing with the real problem. The House of Representatives has passed a draconian bill that would make criminals out of those who cross the border unofficially. The Senate is currently debating a more palatable compromise that would allow "guest workers" -- people who come here to do our dirty work but aren't given the right to stay. And Bush is playing games, trying to keep the anti-immigrant forces happy while still appeasing the businesses that want the cheap labor that illegal immigration brings. No one is out to help the actual immigrants.

But there is a ray of hope here and it comes from the immigrants themselves. The boycotts and marches of the last month have buoyed my political spirits in a way that nothing has since Bush took office. Here are people with a lot to lose taking political stands and making themselves heard. They're not relying on their proxies. And while many of the protesters aren't citizens, they have a core of support among people who do have the right to vote. Make no mistake, they're going to have a political impact on our country, and, as with the Civil Rights Movement, we're all going to be the better for it.

I favor a path to citizenship for the approximately 11 million undocumented workers already here and an easing of the immigration rules to allow more people to cross legally. If you take a look at how difficult it is to enter this country legally, it becomes obvious that most of our undocumented workers would never have a chance to enter the U.S. if they tried to do things by the book. Take a look at regulations and restrictions for various types of immigration on the US Citizenship and Immigration Service website.

My reasons for supporting citizenship and eased immigration are emotional ones: I cannot in my heart oppose people who want a better life for themselves. Everyone should have at least as much opportunity as I do to live decently and follow their dreams. Even though I know we can't open our border to everyone who wants to come, and even though I know the long term solution is better government and economies in the countries the immigrants are leaving, I find I cannot help but look at the individual human beings caught up in the struggle, rather than at an amorphous group labeled "illegal immigrants."

But there is also plenty of evidence that immigrants, legal or illegal, are good for the United States. Michael Ventura, himself the son of Italian immigrants, says in his May 12 column in The Austin Chronicle:

Yes, technically undocumented laborers are here illegally. Yes, they break immigration laws. But in their specific case, the laws constitute a lie – because for the better part of a century, these people have been invited here. Not by law; not by public pronouncement; nevertheless, by intention – they have been invited by widespread and accepted business practice. And every American profits from their presence.

He goes on to point out that keeping immigration difficult, and thereby encouraging illegal crossings, keeps the needed labor these people provide cheap.

Here's another thought about the value of immigrants to our culture: In a May 6 broadcast on the NPR program "Weekend America," demographer Phillip Longman discussed the importance of immigration to the U.S. population in the future. According to Longman, we need immigrants, especially young immigrants, to offset our falling birth rate. You can listen to his observations on immigration demographics here or check out some of his publications as a fellow of the New America Foundation here.

I don't agree with everything Longman says, but as someone who see overpopulation as one of the key problems facing the world today -- one that isn't being addressed, but that's a subject for another day -- I think encouraging immigration is the obvious solution for all countries that have an aging demographic. Yes, newcomers change the culture, but this isn't as big a problem for the United States as it is for France or Japan. We've been a nation of immigrants since our founding. We should continue to open our doors as wide as we can.

If democracy is such a great idea, why can't we have it in the District of Columbia?

I'm on all the usual progressive mass email lists: the ACLU, Moveon.org, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood. Several times a week one group or the other sends me a message about some terrible thing that Congress is about to do. They all want me to do the same thing: Write or call my senator and/or representative.

Unfortunately, I can't do it: I don't have one.

I live in Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, but my only representation in Congress is a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives. She happens to be very good at her job, but still, there's only so much a non-voting delegate can actually do.

Understand, the more than 500,000 of us who live in D.C. are U.S. citizens. We pay the same taxes as all the people who have representation in Congress. We serve in the military. We're subject to federal law. And we have about the same population as several states. But we don't have any say in making the federal law that applies to us.

We haven't been sitting on our hands. We tried a constitutional amendment, but it didn't get enough support in the states. We've tried to get Congress to take action, but they refuse. We've sued on the principle of taxation without representation, but we've been thrown out of court. Right now there's a bill in Congress to give our delegate voting rights if they also add in another member of Congress from Utah -- probably a conservative Republican to balance out our Democratic Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton -- and even that is unlikely.

Meanwhile, although we supposedly have home rule -- a mayor and city council who function both like a city and state government -- Congress still interferes in local affairs. We'd like to institute the commuter tax that other large central cities use -- since the population of Washington swells enormously during the day, putting a strain on our roads and other local resources -- but Congress won't let us. Our lawsuit over that just died in the Supreme Court May 15 -- they couldn't be bothered to hear it. A few years ago we had a referendum on medical marijuana on the local ballot and Congress wouldn't even let us count the votes.

Let's be clear about this: Congress doesn't interfere because our local decisions are bad for the District of Columbia or the U.S. in general. They interfere to protect the self-interest of people who live elsewhere. And the reason we haven't been successful in getting representation in the Senate is purely political: Everyone knows we'd elect two Democrats, probably two liberal African-American Democrats. No way a Republican-controlled Congress will let that happen.

Every time I hear Bush or someone else in the administration talk about promoting democracy abroad, I want to yell at him "How about promoting some democracy in the District of Columbia?" It's enough to make me call my senator. If I had one.

Feminism is not a dirty word

The right has succeeded in putting such a negative spin on "feminist" and "liberal" that even progressive politicians avoid using either term. Women pursuing careers that were beyond the wildest dreams of even their mothers (not to mention their grandmothers) say "I'm not a feminist" and they don't even throw in the "but" that used to follow that sentence (as in "I'm not a feminist, but I wish I didn't keep running into that glass ceiling"). The popular wisdom is that women have rights now, so feminism's time has passed. It's the post-feminist era.

But if feminism is dead, or irrelevent, or just a movement by a bunch of frustrated man-haters, why are we still struggling with so many of the same issues? Why is the biggest obstacle to Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations her gender, instead of her refusal to take a stand against the dangerous foreign policy and other abuses of the current administration? Larry Summers may be gone from Harvard after his ill-advised comments that women don't have the right stuff to be scientists, but plenty of other people still say the same thing.

The mommy wars are breaking out again -- Ellen Goodman summarizes the current fight between stay-at-home and go-to-work mothers here. She mentions a new organization, Moms Rising, that gets at the real problem: Our society doesn't provide enough support to families with children.

The mommy wars aren't my personal concern; I have no children. I could just ignore them. But that's part of the problem in the U.S. today: Very few of us are looking at the bigger picture. We treat our struggles with making a living, raising kids, dealing with health issues, and following our dreams as if they were only personal concerns, instead of realizing that many of our problems are created by decisions that the system has made. Those decisions can be changed.

As far as I'm concerned, post-feminist is just a euphemism for "I'm doing okay, so I'm not going to worry about anyone else."

The thing that led me to muse on feminism was a movie: "Water," written and directed by Deepa Mehta. It's a stunning movie that tells the story of Hindu widows in India who are separated from their families and forced to live in a home for widows, where they support themselves by begging and occasional prostitution. In the movie, these widows include a seven-year-old child who never even knew her husband. The story is set in 1939, against a backdrop of Gandhi's political movement, but as a note at the end makes clear, the problem still exists today. In fact, the subject matter of the film was so controversial in India that Mehta was forced to finish filming it in Sri Lanka after rioting shut down her set in India.

The movie is a great one because Mehta has a gift for understatement. She doesn't hammer you with either the moral or the political background, instead telling the story of real people whom you can care about and placing them in the context of the larger culture. It's currently playing in New York and Washington, D.C., and probably in several other major cities in the U.S. It opened in Canada last year at the Toronto Film Festival. Alas, it is not yet playing in India, as far as I know.

It's always dangerous to discuss feminist issues in a culture not one's own -- someone will always accuse you of culture-bashing. So I'll let Indian-born Mehta's powerful film make the statement and simply encourage everyone to go see the movie. But I will say this much: This movie shows that the need to address the rights of women in the world is far from a settled issue. We haven't reach the post-feminist age by a long shot.

Waiting for the next shoe to drop in Kansas & figuring out the real cost of school finance

After much gnashing of teeth and too-many hours in the Statehouse, the Legislature finally passed a school finance plan, yet no one knows if it will pass constitutional scrutiny. If the plan doesn’t, then the Legislature could be called into special session yet again, and well, all political heck will break loose.

I would also argue that an even more important question is whether this plan provides the funding schools need to properly educate Kansas kids, but that’s a discussion for another day.

Right now the legality of the legislative plan is taking center stage. As soon as this week, the Kansas Supreme Court is expected to lay out a schedule for arguments in the next phase of the case. The court is a key player in this drama because it was their original ruling that the state’s old school finance plan was unconstitutional that set the Legislature scrambling.

Thus, the Legislature’s work isn’t complete until lawmakers and the rest of the state learn whether the Supreme Court likes what lawmakers did – an outcome that is a bit in doubt.

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports:

Last year, the Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to base school spending on cost studies that take into account how much money it will take to ensure students score proficient on state exams.

The post audit study did that, saying it would take $470 million in new funding next school year for the state to meet the testing requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

But the post audit researchers didn't stop there.

NCLB requires more students to test proficient each year on state exams. Meeting those requirements, post audit said, would take greater numbers of dollars.

Not only would the Legislature have to put in $470 million next year, it also would have to increase spending by another $216 million in 2007 and $145 million in 2008.

That is a three-year total of $831 million

All of which is great, except that the Legislature actually passed a three-year plan that fell far short of that figure. Exactly how you figure the cost of the plan is somewhat disputed, though.

Most Kansas newspapers are reporting that the plan will cost the state $466.2 million over three years. (Note how far short that is of $831 million.) Chris Moon at the Capital-Journal is reporting that it’s a $541 million plan.

Just to clear things up, I emailed Chris, who kindly supplied me with his numbers. He noted that the figures were a subject of debate in the newsroom. The $541 figure includes $75 million for the teacher retirement program that “would have been added to schools regardless."

Chris said he uses the $541 number to report on the total cost of the plan. I see his point. However, for the purposes of the court case, I think I’ll stick with $466.2. That’s the amount that is actually going to deal with the issues the Supreme Court raised.

Given that, the Legislature’s plan falls even shorter of the mark set by the post audit report then it might appear at first glance.

Waiting for the next shoe to drop in Kansas & figuring out the real cost of school finance

After much gnashing of teeth and too-many hours in the Statehouse, the Legislature finally passed a school finance plan, yet no one knows if it will pass constitutional scrutiny. If the plan doesn’t, then the Legislature could be called into special session yet again, and well, all political heck will break loose.

I would also argue that an even more important question is whether this plan provides the funding schools need to properly educate Kansas kids, but that’s a discussion for another day.

Right now the legality of the legislative plan is taking center stage. As soon as this week, the Kansas Supreme Court is expected to lay out a schedule for arguments in the next phase of the case. The court is a key player in this drama because it was their original ruling that the state’s old school finance plan was unconstitutional that set the Legislature scrambling.

Thus, the Legislature’s work isn’t complete until lawmakers and the rest of the state learn whether the Supreme Court likes what lawmakers did – an outcome that is a bit in doubt.

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports:

Last year, the Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to base school spending on cost studies that take into account how much money it will take to ensure students score proficient on state exams.

The post audit study did that, saying it would take $470 million in new funding next school year for the state to meet the testing requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

But the post audit researchers didn't stop there.

NCLB requires more students to test proficient each year on state exams. Meeting those requirements, post audit said, would take greater numbers of dollars.

Not only would the Legislature have to put in $470 million next year, it also would have to increase spending by another $216 million in 2007 and $145 million in 2008.

That is a three-year total of $831 million

All of which is great, except that the Legislature actually passed a three-year plan that fell far short of that figure. Exactly how you figure the cost of the plan is somewhat disputed, though.

Most Kansas newspapers are reporting that the plan will cost the state $466.2 million over three years. (Note how far short that is of $831 million.) Chris Moon at the Capital-Journal is reporting that it’s a $541 million plan.

Just to clear things up, I emailed Chris, who kindly supplied me with his numbers. He noted that the figures were a subject of debate in the newsroom. The $541 figure includes $75 million for the teacher retirement program that “would have been added to schools regardless."

Chris said he uses the $541 number to report on the total cost of the plan. I see his point. However, for the purposes of the court case, I think I’ll stick with $466.2. That’s the amount that is actually going to deal with the issues the Supreme Court raised.

Given that, the Legislature’s plan falls even shorter of the mark set by the post audit report then it might appear at first glance.

Not such a good idea after all: New poll shows unhappiness over domestic spying

[updated 5 pm Central Time to add USA Today poll]Newsweek is reporting a new poll that found 53 percent of those surveyed think the National Security Agency’s spy - on - just - about - everybody surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy.”

Meanwhile, USA Today reported on a Gallup Poll showing that 51 percent of Americans "disapprove of a massive Pentagon database containing the records of billions of phone calls made by ordinary citizens."

About two-thirds are concerned that the program may signal other, not -yet - disclosed intelligence efforts directed at the general public.

These polls are in stark contrast with a Washington Post poll taken on May 11, the day the spy scandal broke. That poll showed an overwhelming majority in favor of the program. However, the Post poll only sampled 500 people and had a margin of error of 5 percentage points.

The Newsweek poll was taken on May 11 and 12 by the Princeton Survey Research Associates International, and interviewed 1,007 adults aged 18 and older. Newsweek reports that “the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.”

The USA Today/Gallup poll was taken May 12 and 13 and surveyed 809 adults.

Newsweek also reports:

Americans think the White House has overstepped its bounds: 57 percent said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions, the Bush-Cheney Administration has “gone too far in expanding presidential power.” That compares to 38 percent who think the Administration’s actions are appropriate.

Meanwhile, Bush got the lowest approval rating of his presidency in the Newsweek poll, hitting 35 percent.

Are the Newsweek USA today polls more accurate then the Post poll? It’s hard to tell.

The Post sample seemed awfully small for a national poll, so the poll itself may have been inaccurate. The Post also didn’t report the questions asked, which always makes me a little leary. Timing may also have been a factor, since at least some folks in the Newsweek poll had one more day to consider and learn about the situation.

But all of these polls are nothing more then snapshots. Consistent results in different polls over time will tell. The real test, though, will come at the ballot box in November.

Not such a good idea after all: New polls show unhappiness over domestic spying

[updated 5 pm Central Time to add USA Today poll]

Newsweek is reporting a new poll that found 53 percent of those surveyed think the National Security Agency’s spy - on - just - about - everybody surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy.”

Meanwhile, USA Today reported on a Gallup Poll showing that 51 percent of Americans "disapprove of a massive Pentagon database containing the records of billions of phone calls made by ordinary citizens."

About two-thirds are concerned that the program may signal other, not -yet - disclosed intelligence efforts directed at the general public.

These polls are in stark contrast with a Washington Post poll taken on May 11, the day the spy scandal broke. That poll showed an overwhelming majority in favor of the program. However, the Post poll only sampled 500 people and had a margin of error of 5 percentage points.

The Newsweek poll was taken on May 11 and 12 by the Princeton Survey Research Associates International, and interviewed 1,007 adults aged 18 and older. Newsweek reports that “the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.”

The USA Today/Gallup poll was taken May 12 and 13 and surveyed 809 adults.

Newsweek also reports:

Americans think the White House has overstepped its bounds: 57 percent said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions, the Bush-Cheney Administration has “gone too far in expanding presidential power.” That compares to 38 percent who think the Administration’s actions are appropriate.

Meanwhile, Bush got the lowest approval rating of his presidency in the Newsweek poll, hitting 35 percent.

Are the Newsweek USA today polls more accurate then the Post poll? It’s hard to tell.

The Post sample seemed awfully small for a national poll, so the poll itself may have been inaccurate. The Post also didn’t report the questions asked, which always makes me a little leary. Timing may also have been a factor, since at least some folks in the Newsweek poll had one more day to consider and learn about the situation.

But all of these polls are nothing more then snapshots. Consistent results in different polls over time will tell. The real test, though, will come at the ballot box in November.

The ammo box or the ballot box?

I received an interesting comment on my post about Polite Debate…(a long title that has to do with who controls what you do in bed. Yes, that includes you heterosexuals.).

The poster noted that he feels helpless “as a citizen of only average resources” to change this country’s political slide. His solution is to think that we might be coming close to a time when the “ammo box” is the only cure for this country’s problems.

I respect his position, and I certainly understand his fear. I feel it often, along with outrage and pure, unadulterated fury. I am a lesbian progressive stuck in, of all places, anti-gay, anti-evolution Kansas. I know how it feels to be helpless and oppressed.

When you feel like you’re backed up to a wall, it seems as if the only solution is to put aside the tools of organizing, politics and rhetoric and, perhaps, even to pick up a gun. Seems reasonable, doesn’t it, particularly if the alternative is oppression? Yet, it isn’t.

Morally, I oppose the use of violence. Politically, even thinking about violence as a solution means giving into the kind of despair that takes away the tools we can use to change this country. Ironically, considering violence makes us weaker, not stronger.

Here’s the core of my argument: We. Are. Not. Helpless.

As an individual of average resources – and trust me, my financial resources are most definitely average – I can make a difference, and so can you.

The trick is to not get sucked into the Superhero Trap. That’s the too-easy-to-fall-into idea that you’ve got to solve it all. And, you’ve got to do it all by yourself.

It is a fact that I, for example, do not have the financial means to fund an entire organization, or even to make a huge contribution or even a significant contribution. But I can give something.

As a person who’s worked with grassroots political organizations, I can tell you that even $10 makes a difference. If enough people give $10 or $20 or even just a little more, then that makes a HUGE difference to any political group.

You or I may not have a lot of time to give to a political group, but we can always do something.

Out here in Kansas, I was privileged to work on organizing the Kansas Equality Coalition, the state’s first geographically diverse gay rights organization. It was created and is still being run by volunteers. We all had different skills, but we all found something to do, even the woman in a small town in rural Kansas who helped out by baking cookies for meetings. Her cookies were very appreciated.

The first step is to be informed about what is actually going on. I suspect most of us are, or we wouldn't be so darn upset about it.

The second step is to ask yourself: What one thing can I do today? In this moment, how can I make a difference?

Can I give even a small bit of money?

Can I take one hour and stuff envelopes for someone or help fold and stamp a newsletter?

Can I hand out fliers?

Can I tell a friend about a meeting?

One other thing to remember: Progressives don’t have to change everyone’s minds. There are some folks we will never reach. All we have to do is change enough -- just enough -- to alter the outcome of an election.

George Bush’s approval ratings are now at 29 percent. Public furor over the Republicans in Congress is at an all-time high and elections are coming up in November.

What can you do? If you do just one thing today to help out in the right Congressional race, you could make all the difference in the world.

Poll numbers for Bush & the rest of us: It was the best of times, and the worst of times

Some good news-bad news being released in the polls hitting the news this morning.

First, the good news. Our not-so-beloved president has just broken the big three-oh mark on his approval rating. Wahoo! The Wall Street Journal reports:

President Bush’s job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an “excellent or pretty good” job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January. Approval ratings for Congress overall also sank, and now stand at 18%.

Over at AMERICAblog, they’re popping champagne corks, but I’m not ready to do that yet, particularly when you take a look at this next poll. The Washington Post reports:

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

When taken in conjunction with Bush’s 29 percent approval rating, this poll leaves me feeling somewhat baffled. How can Americans not see what’s going on? Of course, the Post points out that the poll may be inaccurate and has a large sampling error. This also seems to be a pretty small sample for judging the national mood.

A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.

I guess we’ll have to just wait and see what happens, and more importantly, keep talking, explaining and uncovering the truth about what's happening. The real test will be what happens in the next few weeks, and in November, of course.

Religious universities and the thought police

Religious extremists often like to wrap themselves in the flag and to loudly declare that they are the most patriotic of Americans. What I don’t understand, though, is why many theocons and theocrats don’t support basic American values. Case in point: Brigham Young University’s current investigation – and possible expulsion – of five students for doing nothing more than exercising their Constitutional right to protest.

The university, which is run by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is investigating students who participated in an Equality Ride demonstration in April. Four of the five were among 29 people arrested during two days of demonstrations at the Utah campus. The other student protested off campus.

Organized by the nondenominational group Soulforce, The Equality Ride was a cross-country trip designed to draw attention to schools that ban lesbians and gays from enrolling.

365gay.com reports:

The university's Honor Code Office has launched an official probe of the student's conduct. It could clear the students of violating the code or find them guilty and punish them with anything up to expulsion.

While the code does not explicitly bar gay students it does forbid them from having sex or from advocating for a "gay lifestyle."

I would be curious to know if BYU receives any public funding. Private schools can, at times, be rolling in public money. (Note the Kentucky Baptist college that is getting $11 million in state money even though it discriminates against gays.)

However, leaving aside the question of how private any particular religious school might be, the issue under discussion today isn’t a legal one. BYU officials can legally do what they want. My issue, though, is a moral one, or I guess you could call it, a patriotic one.

Isn’t free speech a basic American principle? Isn’t the idea of a Thought Police, whether it is a religious one or a Communist one, a bit un-American? What good does it do for officials at BYU to preach a particular theology if the only way they can get their students to buy into it is to threaten them with explusion if they don't?

What is the honor in that?

The 12th Carnival of the Liberals takes the stage - or - a few words from the reality-based community

The 12^th Carnival of the Liberals is up at Daylight Atheism where a host of bloggers chime in on the various aspects of being a liberal. In the process of introducing the posts, our host writes a great little essay on what it means to be a liberal.

Among other things, he notes (and I most heartily concur) that "being a liberal means belonging to the reality-based community." He also explains that "being a liberal means supporting the right to privacy," and very kindly links to my post "Polite debate, cultural controversy, or civil war: What's the next step in the sex wars?" Many thanks for the link and the recommendation!

Our host, who writes as Ebonmuse, says his blog Daylight Atheism, is primarily aimed at bringing “to light the hate-based agenda of the religious right, the better to organize opposition to their noxious policies.” Again, a round of cheers.

But on the following comments, I have to respectfully disagree and offer a bemused chuckle. Ebonmuse writes (the emphasis is mine):

I'd like to make one remark in closing. Recognizing that the last few Carnivals of the Liberals have been hosted by atheists, and not wanting religious progressives and liberals to feel underrepresented, I put out a call for them to submit posts for this edition. However, none did. Perhaps this is because religious liberals are less engaged on the Internet or because they are unaware of the Carnival of the Liberals specifically, but I can't help wondering if this is another manifestation of whatever underlying cause has kept them so underrepresented in politics more generally. Although I am an atheist, I bear no ill will toward religious progressives; if anything, I wish they would speak out more often. With that in mind, I issue a challenge to the liberal religious people whom I know are out there: If you don't want your tradition to be defined by the evil of the religious right, then speak up! Show the world that you are out there and that the likes of James Dobson and George W. Bush do not represent you.

While I’m not exactly a Christian, at least not in any traditional sense, I am a member of a church (in Kansas of all places), and I do consider myself to be deeply spiritual if not down-right religious. Committed to science, I am also a firm believer in mysticism and things you can’t always see and measure. And yes, I guess that puts me firmly in the camp of the elusive religious liberal.

To understand my perspective, take a look at The Lesbian and The Fundamentalists.

I am a lesbian, feminist, single mother whose spirituality is closer to New Age and Buddhism than Christianity. This spring I battled the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions in Kansas. Imagine my surprise when I realized how much I have in common with fundamentalists.

To find some more very politically active religious progressives online go to Talk To Action, which includes a mixture of folks like Mainstream Baptist and very secular bloggers. Also check out the Network of Spiritual Progressives.

Bush says don't worry. Now, don't you feel better?

In a hastily arranged “appearance,” our not-so-beloved president assured us that all is OK with the newly discovered spying program. By the way, you can’t call this morning’s whatever-it-was a news conference because President Bush didn’t take questions. The Washington Post quotes him as saying:

"We are not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al-Qaeda and their known affiliates."

Meanwhile, not even all Republicans are thrilled with the program. The Post reports:
Earlier, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said the panel will demand answers from America's leading telephone companies on the reported National Security Agency program to collect information on millions of calls.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) vowed to haul the companies before his committee in response to a USA Today report that says the NSA has been secretly using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth to build a massive database of foreign and domestic phone calls.

Declaring war on birth control

As a follow-up to my Sex Wars post, take a look at an article over at Talk To Action that details the history of the anti-birth control movement. The author argues that The New York Times is a bit off when it says this is a new phenomenon.

While Judie Brown and her allies in the Protestant ranks are waging a full frontal assault against contraception, they declared war on birth control some time ago. The only thing new is that these days -- flushed with victory over the Roberts and Alito confirmations, and in giddy anticipation of the arrival of the South Dakota abortion ban's arrival before a more conservative Supreme Court - they've gotten a little braver about admitting it.

New & improved Bush definition of an American citizen -- criminal until proven innocent

As a political gadfly of the lesbian, feminist and anti-war persuasion, I always figured the government might watch me sometime. Even though I have never entertained any thought that could remotely endanger anyone, I always figured that such a possibility goes with the territory of promoting unpopular political views.

Imagine my surprise, though, when I realized this morning – thanks to USA Today reporter Leslie Cauley – that the feds’ domestic spying operations have swept up everyone from my 79-year-old mother to my very Republican and George Bush supporting aunt. Heck, if my cat, Ernestine, could own a phone, the feds would be watching her, too.

Our crime? No crime.

No suspicion.

No evidence.

No warrant.

If we are guilty of anything it is only that we live in the United States and we own a phone – that is a Verizon, AT&T or BellSouth phone. All you folks who telephone through Qwest, count yourself as lucky. That company actually said no to the Bush Administration’s massive post-9/11 request for information.(Good for you, Qwest!)

Perhaps one of the most chilling part of USA Today’s story about the National Security Agency program is a question and answer sidebar that starts with this very simple entry.

Q: Does the NSA's domestic program mean that my calling records have been secretly collected?
A: In all likelihood, yes. The NSA collected the records of billions of domestic calls. Those include calls from home phones and wireless phones.

The information collected is known as “call-detail” records, apparently, on every phone call made since 9/11 within the United States. These records include the numbers being dialed and, I suspect, dates and times. Even though names, addresses and other personal information are not included that is easy enough to get. It’s easy for me to find, let alone the NSA.

We’re supposed to be OK with this because we are told the NSA is only looking for patterns and not actually listening to what anyone is saying. But since everything is secret, there is no way to know what is actually being done and how this information is being used.

In some ways, this doesn’t surprise me at all. In other ways, I have to admit that I am stunned at how little the Bush Administration believes in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The American Prospect’s Tapped blog does a good job of linking this news to “the broader chain:

One thing the Bush administration says it can do with this meta-data is to start tapping your calls and listening in, without getting a warrant from anyone. Having listened in on your calls, the administration asserts that if it doesn't like what it hears, it has the authority to detain you indefinitely without trial or charges, torture you until you confess or implicate others…

Golly! The Kansas Legislature finally funds schools

Out here on the prairie, we’re waiting for the next shoe to drop. The Kansas Legislature finally yelled, wrestled and strong-armed itself last night into passing a three-year $466 million school finance plan, but serious questions remain.

Will this plan actually help Kansas kids? Will the Kansas Supreme Court accept it, given that it’s far less than expected? Will lawmakers have to cut other needed programs to pay for this plan and the nifty new business tax cut they seem determined to pass?

The answer to the final question will come today when the Kansas Legislature goes back into session at 10 a.m. After a nearly record-breaking wrap-up session (15 days), lawmakers appear determined to finish up today and go home.

As a citizen of the Sunflower State, I’ll be thrilled when they leave. One is never fully safe when the Statehouse is humming, particularly if one is a member of a hated minority.

Meanwhile, Alan Rupe has already said he will challenge the plan in court. Rupe is an attorney for the school districts whose lawsuit prompted the state Supreme Court to order lawmakers to actually live up to their Constitutional duty to fully fund schools.

Is this plan the best one for kids? We already know that the Legislature may have already caused grief to some parents and kids in my own town of Lawrence.

Because of the delay in passing a finance plan, the Lawrence school district announced that it pulled the plug yesterday on a plan to run all-day kindergarten. One local lawmaker thought the bill would allow the district to reconsider its decision, though.

More details in the Lawrence Journal-World and the Wichita Eagle.

Sex wars

[bump]
While the blogosphere has been tied up in screaming fits about the politics and possible scandals surrounding Porter Goss’s resignation as CIA director and Gen. Michael V. Hayden’s appointment to that position, I have been pondering what goes on in people’s beds. Most specifically, I am wondering what is going to happen when American heterosexuals realize that their sex lives are being targeted by Christian dominationists.

At the same time, I wonder what the future of our great and continuing culture war will be. What will we do as those dominationists, who are more properly known as dominionists, attempt to control the most intimate parts of all of our lives?

Think I’m exaggerating? Take a look at Russell Shorto’s fascinating article in this Sunday’s New York Time’s Magazine. Shorto argues, quite convincingly, that the next step for the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-anything-but-them movement is to take control of everyone – and I do mean everyone’s – sex life. Shorto writes (the emphasis is mine.):

Many Christians who are active in the evolving anti-birth-control arena state frankly that what links their efforts is a religious commitment to altering the moral landscape of the country. In particular, and not to put too fine a point on it, they want to change the way Americans have sex.

In other words, these folks want to control every heterosexuals' sex life. Shorto reports that the anti-birth control folks want to reserve sex for married heterosexuals who are jumping into bed for the sole purpose of making babies.

Shorto continues:

The subject is talked about in evangelical churches and is on the agenda at the major Bible-based conservative organizations like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition. It also has its point people in Congress — including Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, Representative Joe Pitts and Representative Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — all Republicans who have led opposition to various forms of contraception.

Although I’ve never seen this discussed in such detail, the idea doesn’t surprise me. I’ve heard it bouncing around Kansas for at least a decade, coming out of the mouths of both ministers and politicians.

As a lesbian, I’m familiar with the rip-out-your-gut feeling of knowing that a group of people – well funded, well organized and determined – want to do nothing less than walk into your bedroom and keep you from expressing your love the way you need to. People do desperate things when they feel this way. I wonder if the anti-birth control people realize that?

All of this is coming as I’ve been enjoying a new column in Newsweek. (Who knew I’d be so enamored with the mainstream media this week?). Written by Jon Meacham, the author of “American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation,” the column is tackling the central issues of the culture war.

Meacham says he came in for some harsh criticism after he published his first column. In it, he suggested that it was possible to actually talk to Christian dominationists, and he suggested some theological arguments to use. I discussed that here.

I have received a number of replies; the most interesting—and, to me, most discouraging—were from people who seem to think that we are trapped in a permanent conflict that will admit no resolution. One reader wrote: "When dealing with zealots, your logic makes no difference in what they hear/believe or feel should be forced upon others—the only folks that would read your article and agree with you are the same folks that already agree with you."

Mecham adds:

If we decide that it is impossible for people who do not believe that they are in possession of the ultimate, only truth to speak reasonably to those who do, then it is not a far jump to saying civil society is unsustainable. The point of a republic like ours is for opposing forces to contend against one another peaceably, within a sphere of checks and balances. Given that some fundamentalists believe in forced conversions or in holy war, what are we to do in the face of such threats to our security and serenity? Surrender? Do nothing?

I would add that many people who would be my allies might well feel that the only alternative is to do to them before they do to us. In other words, use force. I suspect that people would first support the use of political campaigns. However, if these folks from this one, narrow band of Christianity are so determined to march into all of our bedrooms, how long will it be before people feel backed into a corner and decide they have to fight back physically?

It seems insane to even suggest that could happen, but when you mess in the most intimate parts of peoples lives, all bets are off.

And yet, I put my faith in Mecham’s approach. It’s an approach that I’ve argued for vigorously and have been attacked for taking. (Call it the “Respect-Their-Right-to-Exist / Argue-With-Them / Organize-Against-Them Approach.) As a lesbian, I’ve had to deal with these people and their desperate need to control my bed for my entire life. I am truly tired of it, yet what good does it do if we become as bad as they are? Where will it lead us if we don’t even try to talk?

Thus, I throw my lot in with Meachem:

It seems to me that we must keep the conversation going.

Down he goes! The tumbling, free-fall spring of George W. Bush

Yet another low for our-not-so-beloved president. Bush rates only a 31 percent approval rating in the New York Times/CBS News Poll released tonight.

Bush’s rating ties the low point reached by his father in July 1992, just before Bush the Elder lost his effort to win a second term. The Times reports that this is the “third lowest approval rating of any president in 50 years” with only Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter rating lower.

Americans have a bleaker view of the country's direction than at any time in more than two decades, and sharp disapproval of President Bush's handling of gasoline prices has combined with intensified unhappiness about Iraq to create a grim political environment for the White House and Congressional Republicans.

What’s surprising to me is that 46 percent of those polled still approve of Bush’s handling of the “campaign against terrorism” as The Times calls it. Meanwhile, only 29 percent approve of the way he’s handling Iraq and only 27 percent approve of his foreign policy.

I’m not certain how those numbers make any sense together, not to mention why anyone would agree that the who-the-heck-is-Osama president is great in dealing with terror. (I'm not kidding about Bush forgetting Al Qaeda. Given his obsession with Iraq, has Bush even mentioned Osama bin Laden anytime recently?)

Oh yes, can't forget this: Only 13 percent agree with Bush’s handling of the issue of gas prices. Youch! Not even the most conservative conservatives agree with him on that one.

Business as usual: Radical conservatives push for radical conservatives on the Kansas Board of Education

Hat tip to Red State Rabble for pointing out that the ultra-conservative Kansas Republican Assembly recently endorsed the Radical Republican Four running for the state board of education. These are: John Bacon, Connie Morris, Ken Willard and Brad Patzer.

Bacon, Morris and Willard are among the current board members who never met a scientific principle, such as that little thing called evolution, they liked. They also pushed through the appointment of an ideologue with zero education experience to head the state's education department. Patzer is expected to vote the same way.

Rabble notes:

The Kansas Republican Assembly has played a key role in financing right-wing activists on the state school board through network of interlocking political action committees constructed to skirt Kansas campaign finance laws and channel money to conservatives on the board.

The election this November will test the ability of radical social conservatives to win politically when voters know their agenda. If we can beat them here in Kansas, they can be beaten anywhere.

For those of you outside of Kansas, it will be an interesting campaign to watch in a detached way. For those of us living in the Sunflower State, the November fight is a lot more important. The stakes are nothing less than control of our children’s minds.

He’s Sinking! George Bush’s continued descent to Nixonian depths

Following up on my previous thoughts about whether President Bush will beat Richard Nixon for the coveted title of Most Hated President, Bush is now closing in on the 20^th percentiles in his approval ratings.

The USA today/Gallop Poll has him at 31 percent with his disapproval rating at a record 65 percent.

Polite debate, cultural controversy or civil war: What’s the next step in the sex wars?

While the blogosphere has been tied up in screaming fits about the politics and possible scandals surrounding Porter Goss’s resignation as CIA director and Gen. Michael V. Hayden’s appointment to that position, I have been pondering what goes on in people’s beds. Most specifically, I am wondering what is going to happen when American heterosexuals realize that their sex lives are being targeted by Christian dominationists.

At the same time, I wonder what the future of our great and continuing culture war will be. What will we do as those dominationists, who are more properly known as dominionists, attempt to control the most intimate parts of all of our lives?

Think I’m exaggerating? Take a look at Russell Shorto’s fascinating article in this Sunday’s New York Time’s Magazine. Shorto argues, quite convincingly, that the next step for the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-anything-but-them movement is to take control of everyone – and I do mean everyone’s – sex life. Shorto writes (the emphasis is mine.):

Many Christians who are active in the evolving anti-birth-control arena state frankly that what links their efforts is a religious commitment to altering the moral landscape of the country. In particular, and not to put too fine a point on it, they want to change the way Americans have sex.

In other words, these folks want to control every heterosexuals' sex life. Shorto reports that the anti-birth control folks want to reserve sex for married heterosexuals who are jumping into bed for the sole purpose of making babies.

Shorto continues:

The subject is talked about in evangelical churches and is on the agenda at the major Bible-based conservative organizations like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition. It also has its point people in Congress — including Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, Representative Joe Pitts and Representative Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — all Republicans who have led opposition to various forms of contraception.

Although I’ve never seen this discussed in such detail, the idea doesn’t surprise me. I’ve heard it bouncing around Kansas for at least a decade, coming out of the mouths by both ministers and politicians.

As a lesbian, I’m familiar with the rip-out-your-gut feeling of knowing that a group of people – well funded, well organized and determined – want to do nothing less than walk into your bedroom and keep you from expressing your love the way you need to. People do desperate things when they feel this way. I wonder if the anti-birth control people realize that?

All of this is coming as I’ve been enjoying a new column in Newsweek. (Who knew I’d be so enamored with the mainstream media this week?). Written by Jon Meacham, the author of “American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation,” the column is tackling the central issues of the culture war.

Meacham says he came in for some harsh criticism after he published his first column. In it, he suggested that it was possible to actually talk to Christian dominationists, and he suggested some theological arguments to use. I discussed that here.

I have received a number of replies; the most interesting—and, to me, most discouraging—were from people who seem to think that we are trapped in a permanent conflict that will admit no resolution. One reader wrote: "When dealing with zealots, your logic makes no difference in what they hear/believe or feel should be forced upon others—the only folks that would read your article and agree with you are the same folks that already agree with you."

Mecham adds:

If we decide that it is impossible for people who do not believe that they are in possession of the ultimate, only truth to speak reasonably to those who do, then it is not a far jump to saying civil society is unsustainable. The point of a republic like ours is for opposing forces to contend against one another peaceably, within a sphere of checks and balances. Given that some fundamentalists believe in forced conversions or in holy war, what are we to do in the face of such threats to our security and serenity? Surrender? Do nothing?

I would add that many people who would be my allies might well feel that the only alternative is to do to them before they do to us. In other words, use force. I suspect that people would first support the use of political campaigns. However, if these folks from this one, narrow band of Christianity are so determined to march into all of our bedrooms, how long will it be before people feel backed into a corner and decide they have to fight back physically?

It seems insane to even suggest that could happen, but when you mess in the most intimate parts of peoples lives, all bets are off.

And yet, I put my faith in Mecham’s approach. It’s an approach that I’ve argued for vigorously and have been attacked for taking. (Call it the “Respect-Their-Right-to-Exist / Argue-With-Them / Organize-Against-Them Approach.) As a lesbian, I’ve had to deal with these people and their desperate need to control my bed for my entire life. I am truly tired of it, yet what good does it do if we become as bad as they are? Where will it lead us if we don’t even try to talk?

Thus, I throw my lot in with Meachem:

It seems to me that we must keep the conversation going.

2 Comments:

Anonymous said...

First, there is a little gem floating around that I wish to share: "There are three boxes used to defend liberty: ballot box, jury box, ammo box. They are to be accessed in that order.

I would argue, in fact, that we are very nearly ready for step three. Sexuality is one area that has become unbearably oppressive, but there are others: Eminent domain, the drug "war", all of the infrastructure that comprises our "laws for money" system, the acid-like erosion of civil liberties; Sadly, I can go on.

The worst part is the complete feeling of helplessness. There is absolutely no venue or means available to me, as a citizen of only average resources, to have any real effect upon the situation. I can speak to like-minded individuals, as I am here, but aside from outright revolt, what am I accomplishing? You already agree with my distress over the extant situation.

It is truly a sad time to live in for those who value freedom and liberty, as I do.

Ben

8:20 PM

Jordan Glassman said...

An interesting question, due in no small part to the fact that many have been faced with situations where a sour debate ended with one or both sides wondering if the other person was even listening. Sometimes, following a discussion, argument, or debate with a person with extreme conservative, religious views, I walk away, shaking my head and wondering how a person could possibly think that stuff. And if they actually heard or understood anything I just said.

Let's assume for the moment that the answer is no, that zealots pay no attention to logic or reason, and believe what they may, in defiance of empirical data. Then how does positive change ever occur?

The answer, I think, lies with children. These zealots are parents... too old, too invested, too hardwired to change their ways. Maybe they are in a rut, or maybe they can't change. It is the children, modern children, with unlimited access to information. Though influenced by irrational parents, they are gradually introduced to and influenced by different points of view, and reach the only logical conclusion.

Of course, this has been going on for years, independent of contemporary technology. Maybe it just happens faster now.

Either way, the conversation must keep going, else the next generation will have nothing to read. But it is not at all difficult to imagine that there are many, if not most, of my ultra right-wing implacable peers who hardly listen or think at all, and certainly can't be convinced of anything.

10:17 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mississippi governor refuses to pardon black man framed by state

From The New York Times:

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

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

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

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

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