Tuesday, September 12, 2006

How George W. Bush helped Osama Bin Laden win the war on terror

By Diane Silver

I don't always agree with Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, but Cohen did a magnificent job today of stating the obvious: Osama bin Laden has won the war on terror, and George W. Bush is the person who made that victory possible.

The War on Terror -- or the WOT as Fox News likes to call it -- is not just a battle of bombs. It's a battle of ideas, and so far, Bush has played right into Bin Laden's hands. I agree with Cohen that Bin Laden couldn't have created a better situation for himself, then the one Bush has created.

There are so many ways that Bush has helped Bin Laden that to list them all, I'd have to quote Cohen's entire column, but I'll make do with just a couple of paragraphs. Cohen writes:
It is not merely that bin Laden has not been captured or killed and that videotapes keep coming out of his hideout like taunts. It is, rather, that his initial strategy has borne fruit. It was always his intention to draw the Americans into Afghanistan, where, as had been done to the Soviets, they could be mauled by the fierce mujaheddin. He tried and failed when he blew up the USS Cole off Aden at 11:15 a.m. on Oct. 12, 2000, killing 17 sailors and crippling the ship. But he succeeded beyond his wildest expectations when the United States responded to the Sept. 11 attacks by invading Afghanistan and, in a beat, then going to war in Iraq. It remains mired in both countries to this day....

How did bin Laden get so lucky? How did he get so fortunate in his choice of enemies? The Bush administration not only validated his wildest dreams -- dreams that even some of his aides thought were unrealistic -- but went even further. By using torture, by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, by employing "extraordinary renditions" of suspects to countries where they could be tortured, by insisting on going it almost alone in Iraq, by telling the international community to shove it, by declaring a war for an idee fixe -- this fierce obsession with Hussein goes back a long way -- the United States has made itself reviled in much of the world.
Isn't it time we walked away from this madness? We can't vote Bush out of office, but we can cripple him by getting at least one Constitutional check back in place. That's why a Democratic victory in the Congressional elections is so important in November.

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline appears in pulpits and then presses congregations for cash

By Diane Silver

The state's top law enforcement official apparently thinks the way to re-election is to bring the church as close to the state as possible, according to a memo leaked from Attorney General Phill Kline's campaign.

Reported this morning by Scott Rothschild of the Lawrence Journal-World, the memo was verified as authentic by Kline's campaign. The memo details the Republican's plan to use churches as a fund-raising platforms.

The Journal-World reported:
Kline is a frequent visitor to Kansas churches, often appearing as guest preacher. But the memo makes clear Kline is out to spread more than the Christian message when he takes the pulpit. And he wants to hit as many churches as possible.
...

(Sherriene Jones, a spokeswoman for the Kline campaign) said none of the fundraising occurred during actual church services, but at later receptions. Under federal tax laws, churches must maintain arm's length from political candidates or risk losing their tax-free status.
The memo names anti-gay pastors Terry Fox and Joe Wright as targets of Kline's fund-raising efforts.

All of this shows why the race for attorney general should be watched closely by progressives and queer Kansans. The campaign between Kline and Democrat Paul Morrison, in many ways, is a surrogate battle between the Religious Right and the moderate heart of Kansas.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

"Turning Daydreams into Reality"

By Diane Silver

The September Liberty Press is now on the streets and includes my new Hope and Politics column entitled "Turning Daydreams into Reality."

The column is not available online, but The Liberty Press is available free of charge throughout Kansas. In Lawrence, you can find it at the Community Mercantile on Iowa and 9th streets. You can also subscribe to The Liberty Press through the newsmagazine's web site.

DC Primary: Vote for Fenty, Patterson and Mendelson

By Nancy Jane Moore

The District of Columbia primary election is Tuesday, September 12. It's the key election -- whoever wins the Democratic primary will be elected in November. Here are my endorsements:

For Mayor: Adrian Fenty. I've already praised Fenty's stand against the meaningless "crime emergency" bill and deplored his main opponent's descent into name-calling. I also like Fenty's energy and openness to new ideas. And I've also seen a definite improvement in city services in Ward 4 -- where I live -- since he took over as our council member.

Fenty has also been endorsed by The Washington Post, the City Paper, the Examiner, the Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington Action Fund (I got an email from them), and former Mayor Marion Barry, along with a number of other organizations. That's a pretty wide base of support.

For Chair of the City Council: Kathy Patterson. What has really impressed me about Patterson has been her willingness to take strong stands, particularly in dealing with the police. She was particularly critical of police excesses dealing with political demonstrations -- an important issue, since DC gets major demonstrations on a regular basis. She's good on environmental issues as well. She didn't get The Post endorsement, but the City Paper and Examiner both support her.

For At-Large Council Member: Phil Mendelson. Mendelson's noted for his lack of charisma, but he's also one of those people who always asks hard questions and fights for good services for citizens, particularly those basic things we all need, such as firefighting and ambulance service. We need his voice on the council. He's collected endorsements from the City Paper and the Examiner and -- weakly -- from The Post.

For nonvoting Delegate to Congress: Eleanor Holmes Norton. Norton does a good job of representing DC in an impossible job. She has an opponent, but this race is unlikely to be close.

I shall pass on endorsements in the open council seats in the different wards, except to observe that Ward 1 Council Member Jim Graham deserves to be reelected. I don't know enough about the candidates in the other wards -- none are incumbents -- to express an opinion. However, the City Paper endorsements by Loose Lips columnist Jim Jones provide a good guide.

Since the "shadow" U.S. senator and representative positions are a joke, I don't intend to waste my time voting in those races. We need real activists fighting for our right to a vote in Congress, not sham elections for people who just want to get their names in the paper.

By the way, there will be two at-large seats on the ballot in the general election. Due to an odd DC law, one of those seats must go to someone who is not a member of the majority political party. That would open the door for candidates from the Republicans or the Statehood-Green Party, except for one thing: The incumbent, David Catania, is running as an independent, and he'll be a shoo-in, along with whoever gets the Democratic nomination, in November.

Catania used to be a Republican -- an openly gay, pretty liberal Republican -- but he gave up on the party after a few years of G.W. Bush. He's another one of our attack-dog council members.

So if you're registered as a Democrat, get out and vote in the primary. That's when all the key races will be decided. It doesn't matter much whether you vote in the other parties' primaries -- their candidates aren't in play this year.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Bush lied -- and a lot of people have died

By Nancy Jane Moore

Bush lied when he tied Saddam Hussein to September 11.

Bush lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

You don't have to take my word for it. Read the reports of the Senate Intelligence Committee (two long pdf files):
The New York Times begins its story on the reports:
The Senate Intelligence Committee said today that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization's most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The Times goes on to say:
The intelligence committee report notes that the Central Intelligence Agency concluded that, despite rumors of contacts between two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and members of the Hussein regime, "We have no credible information that Baghdad was complicit in the attacks on the Pentagon or the World Trade Center on 11 September or any other Al Qaeda strike."

The report also says that postwar findings in Iraq do not support a 2002 intelligence estimate that Iraq was busily reconstituting it nuclear-weapons program or was in possession of biological weapons.
No evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11. No evidence that Iraq was building up its weapons of mass destruction. No reason to go to war.

The Senate Intelligence Committee -- like all Senate committees -- has a majority of Republicans and is led by the very right wing senator from Kansas, Pat Roberts. But it still issued these reports.

Not that there wasn't a lot of partisan bickering. According to The Times:
Senator Roberts said Democrats were indulging in selective amnesia about their own earlier support of the war and were "cherry-picking through the intelligence and the facts in a political attempt to rewrite history."
Well, I was angry back in 2002 that so many Democrats let Bush get away with these lies, but at least they're now admitting they were wrong. Someone should tell Sen. Roberts that it's time to pack it in. The truth is out.

The reports included additional views by various members of the Senate committee. In one set of such views, Democrats on the committee included the following conclusion:
The Committee's investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq has revealed that the Administration's case for war with Iraq was fundamentally misleading. Administration officials repeatedly characterized Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs in more conclusive and threatening terms than were substantiated by the underlying intelligence assessments. Analytical judgments of the intelligence community that were not in line with the more strident Administration view on alleged Iraqi links to al-Qai'da and the 9/11 plot were ignored and denigrated by senior policymakers. Most disturbingly, the Administration in its zeal to promote public opinion in the United States for toppling Saddam Hussein, pursued a deceptive strategy prior to the war of using intelligence reporting that the U.S. intelligence community warned was uncorroborated, unreliable, and, in critical instances, fabricated.
Read that again: "The Administration ... pursued a deceptive policy ... of using intelligence reporting that ... was uncorroborated, unreliable, and, in critical instances, fabricated."

Bush lied. And he didn't lie about his sex life. He lied to drag us into war.

Now that is worthy of impeachment.

Historians tell ABC to yank broadcast as Bush seeks to profit from 9/11

By Diane Silver

Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and historians from Princeton, Georgetown, Harvard, Cornell and other universities have written to the chief of ABC to demand that the network pull the broadcast of "The Path to 9/11."

Talking Points Cafe has the full text of the letter, which calls the mini-series "disingenuous and dangerous." The show is set to begin airing Monday on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. In part the letter reads:
The key participants and eyewitnesses to these events state that the script distorts and even fabricates evidence into order to mislead viewers about the responsibility of numerous American officials for allegedly ignoring the terrorist threat before 2000.

The mini-series reortedly puts the blame for the 9/11 attacks on the administration of Bill Clinton while ignoring the responsibility of the administration of President George W. Bush.

Meanwhile, President George W. Bush has requested that the TV networks give him airtime for a "non-political" speech on the same night the mini-series begins. A Bush official said the Monday night speech will commemorate the anniversary of the attacks.

Personally, I am sickened by Bush's attempt to once again hijack a national tragedy for his own political profit. If Bush truly meant to take politics out of the broadcast, he would appear jointly with a Democratic leader, or he would appear with Congressional leaders from both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Can you imagine what it would mean for the nation to see that this painful moment was not being used as a campaign ad? That would be a healing. Ironically, it would also show that Bush and Republicans can act as true leaders and could help the GOP's chances in the mid-term elections in November.

Note: I have borrowed the graphic created by Think Progress because I like its message. If this offends the good folks at Think Progress, I'll be happy to take it down.

Strategy? We don't need no stinking strategy

By Nancy Jane Moore

Between all the saber-rattling at Iran and Bush's various speeches trying to tie the tragedy of September 11 to his failed war in Iraq, you may not have noticed that the situation in Afghanistan is going to hell. Again.

According to The Washington Post, Gen. James L. Jones, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, wants "2,000 plus" more troops. "Some 20,000 NATO soldiers and a similar number of U.S. forces are in Afghanistan trying to crush the emboldened Taliban insurgency," The Post reports.

In an earlier report, The Post said that Afghanistan's opium crop is up 59 percent this year. They produced 6,100 tons of opium -- enough to make 610 tons of heroin, which, according to the article, would outstrip demand.

Apparently the record opium crop and the resurgent Taliban are both in the southern provinces.

Of course, Bush is still talking about how successful he was in Afghanistan. The Post says:
After the attacks, his "new doctrine" of holding nations harboring or supporting terrorists responsible had allowed the removal of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and the installation of a democratic government, Bush said.
Somebody better tell the man the Taliban is back. And oh, by the way, Afghanistan's economy is based on heroin and the "democratic government" is hanging by a thread.

Juan Cole summarizes all this very well and brings up an additional point: A peaceful Afghanistan is important on the oil front. He writes:
Afghanistan is especially important to Washington because it is the only plausible way to bring natural gas down from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. The Turkmenistan alternative is being used to push Delhi away from any flirtation with an Iranian pipeline.
So the failed war in Iraq distracted us from Afghanistan, not only allowing the Taliban to come back and forcing the country back to its most traditional industry -- heroin -- but also making sure that we can't even make strategic use of Afghanistan for oil purposes.

If India and China want to deal with Iran for oil, they're certainly not going to sanction them or support a Bush escapade there.

I see a "domino theory" here -- that is, one stupid decision creates ten more problems. And, of course, Bush has made more than one stupid decision. Doesn't anyone in this administration know anything about strategy?

Good old-fashioned American values

Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post does a great job of pointing out the obfuscations and deflections -- maybe we should just call them lies -- in Bush's speech about bringing 14 actual terrorists from secret prisons abroad to the US for trial.

Robinson suggests that the prisons had to be kept secret because the people in the countries where they were located would have been outraged about their government conniving with the US on this matter. In other words, they were secret to protect those countries from the legitimate outrage of their own citizens, not from "terrorist reprisals."

And why weren't they being kept in the US in the first place? It's not like we have a shortage of maximum security lock ups. Ah, Robinson says, it's those pesky courts. They might decide that "an alternative set of procedures" -- i.e., torture -- was unacceptable.

Robinson also has an answer for those who point out that al-Qaeda and other groups of their ilk don't have to deal with judges who might make them treat their prisoners properly:
No, an American "detained" by al-Qaeda wouldn't enjoy a guarantee of due process. But we're not al-Qaeda. I thought that was the whole point.
Robinson says all this very wittily -- I'm fast becoming a big fan of his work. But the best part of his opinion piece is a little nub of fact he slips in at the end:
Oh, one more thing the president didn't mention, for some reason: Those 14 most-wanted terrorists who were kept in the secret prisons? As far as we know, not a single one was captured in Iraq.
Just another reminder that the Iraq War was never about dealing with terrorism. See my earlier post on this point, Follow the Money.

Even the military is horrified by Bush's detainee plan

The military's top lawyers are now attacking George W. Bush's latest kangaroo court plan for dealing with terrorist detainees. These so-called courts would have the power to order a detainee's execution without first allowing them to see the evidence against them.

The Washington Post reports:
Several uniformed military lawyers told the House Armed Services Committee yesterday that the White House goes too far in seeking to convict detainees on classified information never shared with the suspects.

"I am not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people where an individual can be tried and convicted without seeing the evidence against him," said Brigadier Gen. James C. Walker, staff judge advocate to the Marine Corps commandant.

ABC & Disney to broadcast show that allegedly blames 9/11 on Bill Clinton


AMERICAblog, Daily Kos, Think Progress and a bunch of other progressive blogs are taking on ABC & Disney for planning to broadcast a mini-series called the "Path to 9/11" that they say distorts history. The series begins airing on MOnday.

Actually, if what the bloggers, Democrats and others say is true, then the mini-series seems to have only a passing acquaintance with the truth. The series is alleged to include fabricated scenes that are being portrayed as being historically accurate.

The blogs -- particularly AMERICAblog & Think Progress -- are campaigning to get ABC to revise the series or to take it off the air.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Heterosexual writes: Gay weddings "made me happier to be married"

Allison Hantschel, who celebrated her very proper 8th wedding anniversary recently, writes about how watching same-sex couples marry has helped restore her faith in the institution of marriage. She writes in AlterNet today:

Gay union opponents can grandstand all they want about the "defense of the family." That doesn't change the fact that these loving couples fighting desperately for this right are actually reminding us, at a time when some heteros slip easily in and out of marriage and divorce at will, how precious this institution actually is. They're making it damn near impossible for even cynical sworn bachelors and bachelorettes to deny how desirable a state betrothal can be.
...
San Francisco's weddings made me remember my own wedding day, and the wedding days of some dear friends: thrown petals, good wishes, sufficient champagne, a bridesmaid snogging one of the groomsmen. They made me happier to be married, the joy of those couples reflected onto the rest of us, showing us how lucky we were to witness that kind of love.

And though those marriages were later invalidated by the state of California in a mean and small-minded court decision declaring San Fran mayor Gavin Newsom had overstepped his authority in granting them, the images of hope, of courage, of determination to live in love whatever the consequences, those images inspired me and many others. Those images were our conscience, saying, Look, how can you not approve?

Applause to Hantschel for stating what should be obvious to all.

Al Gore is right: We have to do something about global warming

By Nancy Jane Moore

I finally saw "An Inconvenient Truth" last night.

I'd been putting it off. I know a lot about global warming and I figured it would be depressing. I even figured it might be kind of boring -- Al Gore has the reputation for being a little dull. But I finally went, out of duty.

It was great. Gore was great: He was earnest, he was witty, he was on top of the facts. And he made very complicated things easy to understand, without sacrificing the truth or reducing them to slogans.

Essentially, the movie is the presentation Gore has been making around the world -- a way of making his talk on global warming available to a much larger audience.

Yes, in some ways it was depressing -- the facts are difficult to take. I can't say I learned anything that I didn't already know, because I have been paying attention. But it was valuable to see all the facts tied together.

And I felt inspired, perhaps because Gore, despite his knowledge of political reality, has an underlying faith that we human beings are capable of solving our problems.

Gore is providing leadership on this issue. In fact, he's what we used to call a "statesman." He's talking about the most important issue facing the human race, and he's going to talk about it regardless of whether it's politically useful to him or not.

We've had a real dearth of statesmen and stateswomen among our political leaders of late. And our country has never needed them more. The current administration hasn't just ignored the problem of global warming; it has been adopting policies that make it much, much worse. (I'll post a report soon on a significant Clean Air Act case that will be heard by the Supreme Court this coming term.) Yet almost no one in Congress or in public leadership has taken a significant stand against Bush's environmental policies. Some of them vote right, but they don't do anything else. They're too busy trying to get elected.

Al Gore is out speaking the truth. I don't know if he still wants to be President of the United States, but I do know that he is the kind of person I'd like to see running the country.

If you haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" yet, go see it right away. Click here to enter your zip code and see if it's playing in your vicinity.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Follow the Money

By Nancy Jane Moore

Whenever I talk about politics or world affairs with my father, he always reminds me, "Follow the money."

He's right. National leaders may dress up their saber rattling with ideology ("We're bringing democracy to Iraq"), religion ("Take the Holy Land back from the infidels"), or national defense ("The Global War on Terror), but it always comes back to the money.

It's always been thus -- think about all those Spaniards, searching the new world for El Dorado, the famed city of gold. Look at Africa, still reeling from colonization because of all its diamonds and gold.

Today money means oil. In the future, money may well mean water -- and that's likely to be true regardless of whether global warming and other human idiocies send us back to the stone age or whether we are able to keep our move toward human civilization on its shaky path forward.

But for now, it's oil. And as Juan Cole demonstrates brilliantly today on Informed Comment, the quest for control of the world's oil reserves is the only coherent explanation for US policy in the Middle East.

Using a map, Cole gives us the strategic ellipse -- location of 70 percent of the world's oil reserves and about 65 percent of the natural gas reserves. It includes Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and several former parts of the Soviet Union: Kazakhistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.

Why did we invade Iraq? Well, there wasn't any oil to speak of in Afghanistan. Why are we threatening Iran? Could it have more to do with oil than the potential for nuclear weapons?

Cole also lists all the actual enemies of the United States -- North Korea, Syria, the Shiites of southern Lebanon, the Sunnis in Iraq (mostly secular, he says, with a few fundamentalists thrown in), Iran, Pushtun guerrillas in Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda and other tiny terrorist groups. It looks pretty pathetic when he lays out all the facts. They're not exactly Hitler's Germany, no matter how many times Bush calls them "Islamic fascists."

And some of our allies make our enemies look good. Check out this report from Craig Murray, Britain's former Ambassador to Uzbekistan in Sunday's Washington Post:
The next day, an envelope landed on my desk; inside were photos of the corpse of a man who had been imprisoned in Uzbekistan's gulags. ... We sent the photos to the University of Glasgow. Two weeks later, a pathology report arrived. It said that the man's fingernails had been pulled out, that he had been beaten and that the line around his torso showed he had been immersed in hot liquid. He had been boiled alive.
For taking a stand against human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, Murray was accused of misconduct and hounded out of his job by his own government. Uzbekistan is important to is. It's in the strategic ellipse.

Follow the money.

And if you still think all this warmongering is about terrorism, take a look at this report from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data gathering, data research, and data distribution organization associated with Syracuse University. According to TRAC:
  • Prosecution of people charged as terrorists has dropped to pre-September 11 levels.
  • Assistant US attorneys have declined to prosecute nine out of ten of the international terrorism charges recommended by law enforcement.
  • The median sentence for those who were convicted is 28 days. Before Sept. 11, the median sentence was 41 months.
As Cole points out:
Al-Qaeda is proven dangerous, and should be combatted by good police and counter-terrorism work. But it is small and mostly disrupted or under surveillance. If its ideology were so challenging to Bush, then he should shut up those videotapes by capturing Bin Laden and Zawahiri. He has not done it.
In other words, the only thing the Bush administration is doing about terrorism is using it as a red flag to scare us into supporting his attacks on civil liberties, his incredible accumulation of executive power, and his wars. Meanwhile, the real goal is the control of the strategic ellipse by the major oil companies. Never forget that Bush was elected to be the president from Enron. Enron itself may be gone, but the power structure it represented hasn't disappeared.

Follow the money.

Two steps forward, one step back for Muslim Americans

By Pamela K. Taylor

The Islamic Society of North America, one of the largest Muslim American organizations, recently announced that for the first time a woman has been elected as their President.

Ingrid Mattson had served two terms as ISNA's vice president, and was a natural choice. She ran unopposed on the ballot, but at the recent ISNA convention the members' support for for her simply poured from the audience every time she came to the podium. It was amazing how much enthusiasm the crowd showed for her.

Needless to say this is a big step for American Muslims, one with implications for Muslims worldwide. Although American Muslim women enjoy a better status than women throughout the Muslim world, there are still far too many masjids where women are relegated to back rooms, or hidden away behind screens (or where they hide themselves away behind screens), where they are not allowed to vote in mosque board elections, or who (according to bylaws or in practice) can only serve as the "ladies' committee" representative to the board. There are too many families that still have double standards for their girls and boys in terms of education, or life goals, or moral compass.

The election of a woman to the leadership of a national Muslim organization cuts at all those notions which prevent women from participating fully in the mosque, and debunks the traditions that women cannot attain to positions of national leadership. The fact that Ingrid is relatively conservative, will, one hopes, allay fears of overseas Muslims that women's leadership defacto means the destruction of established tradition and long-standing moral and social order. Lessening those fears could open doors for other women leaders and ease restrictions of women's participation in daily life.

At the same time, her leadership will not challenge certain traditions that need to be challenged, as far as I'm concerned. Among these are traditions that say women cannot lead men in prayer (despite concrete and validated evidence that the Prophet commanded at least one woman to lead men in prayer) and thus perpetuate a two-tier social order. Her leadership will not challenge traditions that say women are a source of temptation for men, and cannot be allowed to sing or dance in public. Her leadership will not challenge traditions that are used to keep women from speaking in public or participating in sporting events.

Ingrid will try to distinguish between types of speech and singing, between "healthy" public motions (ie sports) and "unhealthy ones" (ie dancing). In the long run, though, accepting this differentiation rather than trying to educate men about treating women as human beings (again a prophetic tradition) leads to the slippery slope by which all limitations can be rationalized.

One can't help but wonder if it is really a step forward for women to come to leadership if women are going to participate in shoring up the patriarchy in certain areas. In this case, I have to say, yes, it is better that she was elected than another old immigrant guy, but it she is far from the ideal.

I hope her leadership will improve the situation many American Muslim women face in their daily lives. Unfortunately, her leadership will not change things far enough. It is, no doubt, a great step forward in many ways. I hope it will pave the way for the greater progress that is needed.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Taking Back Kansas: Gov. Kathleen Sebelius still leads & even her opponent wonders

By Diane Silver

Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius continues to defy the odds in red-state Kansas as a new poll shows her holding a double-digit lead over her Republican opponent. The polster picked Sebelius to win.

The new Rasmussen Reports poll shows the race narrowing with Sebelius' lead dropping from 17 points in July to 11 points. In a poll taken Aug. 23, Sebelius leads 48 percent to 37 percent. The poll surveyed 500 adults and has a margin of error of 4.5 percent. The Rasmussen article notes:
The Governor's support has yet to rise much above 50% in any case. But the decline reflects the closer competition we often see in a final campaign stretch and have been seeing in races around the country

Sebelius's current lead is comparable to what we saw in April, when her support was at 49%. A Democrat in a Republican-leaning state, the incumbent continues to enjoy high favorables and job ratings, with 35% viewing her "very favorably," only 11% "very unfavorably." Thirty-two percent (32%) "strongly approve" of her performance as Governor.

Barnett is viewed very favorably by only 19%, and although fewer (9%) see him very unfavorably than see the Governor that way, he's still an unknown to 18%. By contrast, only 3% are "not sure" what to think of the Governor (and only 1% abstain from assessing her performance).

By the way, to call Kansas a "Republican-leaning state" is to understate matters a bit. We're a Republican-dominated state with nearly twice as many registered Republicans in Kansas as registered Democrats.

The Lawrence Journal-World quotes Washburn University Political Science Professor Bob Beatty on the poll:
Sebelius' 11 point lead represents what is now a fairly (and strikingly) consistent 8-13 point lead over Barnett in RR polls taken since January. This lead has remained consistent through the legislative session, the GOP primary, Barnett's victory, and Sebelius' first three TV ad campaigns ("Respect," "Clips" and the now famous ad of the Governor driving a school bus).

Meanwhile, Barnett is still trying to raise money. He told AP:

"It's going to be a tough race," Barnett acknowledged during an interview. "I'm not saying I will win, but I have the faith that I can win."

Monday, September 04, 2006

Yee-Haw Religion! Terry Fox opens new Kansas church & declares love for homosexuals

By Diane Silver

Anti-gay minister Terry Fox, late of Immanuel Baptist Church, drew 500 people to his first service Sunday at his new church, The Wichita Eagle reports.

His new venue, called Summit Church, meets in the Johnny Western Theatre at Wild West World in Park City, less than 10 miles from his old church. Many of the people attending on Sunday formerly went to Immanuel.

Fox' reportedly left his old church just before Immanuel's deacons were going to confront him on possible ethical lapses, arrogance and host of other issues.

Fox told his new congregation that dress would be casual so folks could come for a little religion and then spend the day in the theme park.

Fox also said that he wants to reach out to "all people." The Eagle reports:
That includes reaching out to people of any lifestyle, even if it's a lifestyle the church doesn't agree with. He cited one such lifestyle.

"We love homosexuals," he said. "And they're welcome to come to church here."
No word yet, on whether lesbian and gay parents would have to give up their children at the church door as Fox doesn't believe queers should be parents.

No word yet on whether people in decades-long and deeply loving same-sex relationships would be required to abandon each other. Fox thinks such love destroys heterosexual marriage.

Actually, there's no word yet on whether Fox will tackle the issues that are really threatening heterosexual marriages such as infidelity, divorce, poverty, substance abuse, etc.

Stay tuned for further signs of Fox' love.

Labor Day Reading: Understanding the life of an American Muslim

By Diane Silver

Recently Pamela K. Taylor -- an American Muslim -- posted two fascinating entries to In This Moment. I suspect that most folks may have overlooked her posts.

Her posts weren't about fighting for gay rights or Kansas fundamentalists or about cyclist Floyd Landis and drugs in sports. Those were the topics that seemed to monopolize most folks attention. Those were all good posts. Heck, I wrote many of them myself.

Pamela, though, brings something unique to this blog. She gives those of us with a Waspish, Christian, non-Muslim background a chance to learn just a tiny bit about what it's like to live as a Muslim in post-9/11 United States.

In one post, she brings compassion and a deep understanding to the tragedy of the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

In a second post, she talks about committing the "crime" of attempting to take a commercial flight while being a Muslim.

Barking up the wrong tree in Israel and Lebanon

Flying while Muslim

Sunday, September 03, 2006

In memory of a good neighbor, Martin Ritter Jr.

By Nancy Jane Moore

My neighbor Mr. Ritter passed last week. His death broke the hearts of everyone on the block.

We're not an especially close-knit block. People know each other, but we talk on the sidewalk, not in each other's living rooms.

But everyone knew Mr. Ritter. We often saw him walking down the street or alley, stopping to talk with each person he met. Like the traditional Zen monk, Mr. Ritter was not intimidated by rank or shows of strength. He presented the same friendly, but firm, manner regardless of whether he was talking to an elderly woman, a tough kid, or an elected official.

A tall, slim man, Mr. Ritter still walked with the cockiness of someone half his age. I don't know how old he was, but he was already retired when I first moved into the neighborhood fifteen years ago, so he certainly wasn't a young man. He'd managed to make the transition to the wise elder -- a role he definitely played on our block -- without forgetting what it was like to be young.

It was Mr. Ritter who kept making phone calls to the mayor's office until they finally sent a front-end loader out to clear the snow from our block after a particularly bad blizzard. And I'm sure he was responsible for the fact that both our street (a narrow one-way route used only by people who live here and their visitors) and our alley were repaved years ago while streets around us in worse condition are still full of potholes.

His yard has always been the showpiece of the block. His grass was always cut to just the right length -- he used clippers, not a mower. And it was real grass -- not the green weeds that most of the rest of us have. There were flowers, statues, an archway leading to the side of the house, all impeccably maintained. So was his Jaguar, kept under a cover when not in use. It must be an old car, because he's had it as long as I've lived here, but it still looks brand new.

My neighbor told me he fell from the roof he was repairing on his other house in Michigan -- so typical that he would be fixing it himself. It says a lot about his presence on the block that he was so well known even though he spent a lot of the year in other places.

Mr. Ritter never ran for public office, at least not in the years that I knew him. He provided leadership for our neighborhood not to build up his reputation, but just because it was what he did. He took care of things.

Every neighborhood needs someone like Mr. Ritter. We of the 800 block of Somerset Place N.W. in Washington, D.C., were lucky to have him for as long as we did. We're going to miss him.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

"Integrity failures" & arrogance may have forced departure of Kansas minister Terry Fox

By Diane Silver

Possible failures of integrity, arrogance toward his own congregation, frequent absences and an obsession with politics may be the issues that prompted Rev. Terry Fox' departure from Wichita's Immanuel Baptist Church. He reportedly walked out just as the church deacons were preparing to confront him.

That's the word today from two deacons of the church who spoke to Joe Rodriguez of The Wichita Eagle.

The deacons also gave a detailed account of how Fox came to resign abruptly on Aug. 6, stunning the congregation he had lead for 10 years. Also discussed is the conflict between Immanuel and a new church Fox is starting in a Wichita wild west theme park. That new venue, called Summit Church, is being launched tomorrow with a service at the same time as Immanuel's 10:30 service.

Fox called most of the deacon's comments "rumors."

The Eagle reports:
The leaders of Immanuel have said little officially about why Fox left. But two Immanuel deacons, who asked to remain anonymous, said congregational leaders were upset with Fox's frequent trips away from the church, his "arrogant" attitude toward the congregation, "the appearance of integrity failures," and his constant references to political and social issues, such as abortion, from the pulpit.

"You don't need to tell me that every Sunday for 52 Sundays in a row," one deacon said in reference to Fox's opposition to abortion.
The entire article is well worth reading. Kudos to reporter Joe Rodriguez for staying on the story.

The next thing Wichita needs is for someone from Immanuel to speak on the record. For a man as politically and spiritually powerful as Fox, possible lapses in judgment should be completely and publicly explained. If Fox is the equivalent of a snake-oil salesman, his new congregation deserves to know.

Fox gained fame statewide last year as one of the movers and shakers behind the push that successfully banned same-sex marriage, civil union and any other legal rights for lesbian or gay couples. Those rights could include the ability to visit a dying spouse in a hospital.

I am one of many people who fought hard to defeat Fox. I continue to oppose his political campaigns. Foolish me, though. I always thought Fox merely had a different point of view than I did. I never imagined there might be other issues

The problem,of course, is that without someone from Immanuel speaking on the record, we will not know for certain what Fox did.

Here is In This Moment's coverage of Terry Fox' strange, unfinished odyssey.

Labor Day Reading: Fighting to fly the rainbow flag in outback Kansas

For those Americans not frolicking in the last long weekend of summer and for those many readers from other countries, here are some bits of commentary and news from In This Moment's most recent hot topics.

First up on the list of most-read posts is the battle over the right of the owners of the Lakeway Hotel to fly a symbol of gay rights, the rainbow flag, in tiny Meade, Kansas. The town of 1,600 is located in the southwestern part of the state that is known for wide open ranches and the Dalton Gang outlaws of the old west.

The controversy has included visits from the funeral-picketing Westboro Baptist Church, bricks thrown through a window and a myriad of other events. Here are some of our latest posts.

Friday, September 01, 2006

Taking Back Kansas: The Great & Invisible Republican running for governor

By Diane Silver

This is part of a continuing series on the campaign to bleach the red out of red-state icon Kansas and to loosen the Religious Right's stranglehold on the state.

Today's topic: The odd race for governor.

The campaign for governor pits the one bright spot for progressive and moderate Kansas -- Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius -- against a no-name Republican.

And why is no-name state Sen. Jim Barnett of Emporia the GOP candidate in a GOP state? It's very simple. All of the name candidates were scared off by Sebelius' high approval ratings.

What's the status of the race today?

Ric Anderson of the Topeka Capital-Journal accurately assesses the situation when he notes:
Say what you will about Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' school finance ads -- and "dopey" really is a word, in case you were wondering -- but at least she's getting herself out there.

Where is Jim Barnett? That's a question many Kansans might be asking if not for one thing: They"d first have to ask, "Who is Jim Barnett?"
So far the campaign has consisted of Sebelius airing TV ads (three so far), and Barnett and other assorted Republicans complaining about the ads' content.

Barnett appears to be dialing for dollars in the hopes of raising money to pay for his own ads. Anderson reports that Barnett is supposed to begin running ads after Labor Day. At least one Sebelius ad has run since the middle of summer.

Meanwhile, one anonymous blog is claiming that Barnett is going to remove his far-right running mate Susan Wagle from the campaign. (This blog -- Kansas Governors Race -- appears to be Republican run. Its comments during the primary leaned towards one of Barnett's opponents, Ken Canfield. However, no one knows for sure who is posting on the blog.)

The really big news for Barnett is that some mainstream Republicans have endorsed him. The fact that is even news illustrates the deep split in the party between moderates and the Religious Right.

The question in the minds of some Democrats is whether Karl Rove and company will descend on Kansas. Some feel the national GOP might want to damage Sebelius, even if they can't defeat her, because of her potential to jump from governor to senator or beyond.

Although Kansas does have a tradition of electing Democratic governors, Sebelius seems to be the odd one out. She leans left and is pro-choice in the reddest of red state. She maintains a 63 percent approval rating and even gets 59 percent approval from pro-life Kansans.

Coming Soon: A post on the enigma of Sebelius.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...

By Nancy Jane Moore

Bush is at it again. In the first of a series of speeches designed to terrify us all into re-electing the idiots in Congress who have let him get away with starting unnecessary wars and dismantling the Constitution, he repeated the lie that invading Iraq was a necessary part in his "war on terror."

The Los Angeles Times says he suggested "a new version of the discredited domino theory ... that if the United States left Iraq before that country was secure in its democracy, the battle against terrorism would eventually be fought on American streets."

Of course, the odds of making Iraq secure in any way -- much less making it a democracy -- lie somewhere between slim and none after the way Rumsfeld and his cronies have mangled the situation. I wonder why these people always raise the domino theory at times when things have spun so far out of control that there is no hope of a good outcome. Another parallel to Vietnam.

Bush even used an updated version of the tired old trick of tying Iraq to Sept. 11. The Washington Post quoted Bush as saying that pulling the troops out would
be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies: Saddam's former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran and al-Qaeda terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Would someone please explain to the man that any influence wielded in Iraq by either Iran or al Qaeda is the direct result of our invasion? He should also know that Iran and al Qaeda are not on the same side, even if neither of them is on "our" side.

The LA Times also said Bush compared the situation to World War II and called it "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century." Gosh, we're what, five years into the 21st Century? Somehow I suspect there are some other ideological struggles to come. Right now my money's on a conflict between religious fundamentalism (in all religions, but particularly Christian and Muslim), and science.

But like I said, the century's still young. Global warming could end up making even religious conflict irrelevant.

The New York Times says Bush "scoffed at his critics' charges that the American-led campaign in Iraq is a distraction from the real struggle against Al Qaeda terrorists." Let's see: we're throwing money down the drain and losing soldiers left and right in a vain effort to keep the peace in a civil war that started because of our invasion. Meanwhile Osama bin Ladin is still running around and people are apparently planning terrorist attacks. The Iraqi civil war sure looks like a distraction to me.

According to the LA Times, Bush told his friendly audience in Salt Lake City:
The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq.
If our security really depends on victory in Iraq -- a very unlikely occurrence, no matter how many more years we hang in there -- we're in very big trouble.

I say the security of the civilized world depends on getting Bush out of power as soon as possible. Ending up with enough new faces in Congress to impeach him is probably a pipe dream, but if we want this country to survive much longer we better at least end up with a majority of senators and representatives who are willing to tell him no.

We can't afford to get fooled again.

It's the economy, stupid

By Nancy Jane Moore

You know that working people in the US are in trouble when even the National Association of Manufacturers admits (PDF) that real hourly wages are falling even though productivity is way up.

NAM tries to spin the numbers, of course, blaming the decline in real wages on the cost of oil. They also point out that total compensation is up -- because the cost of employee benefits such as health insurance is skyrocketing, not because employers are providing more benefits.

But the fact remains: productivity is up 2.4 percent in the last year, but workers are effectively earning less than they did the year before.

As a detailed analysis piece by Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt in the Aug. 28 New York Times explains:

[T]he current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers.

Here's the nitty-gritty of their report:

Worker productivity rose 16.6 percent from 2000 to 2005, while total compensation for the median worker rose 7.2 percent, according to Labor Department statistics analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group. Benefits accounted for most of the increase.
Again, don't forget that it's the cost of benefits that has gone up, not the actual benefits themselves.

This decline in wages for the people who do the actual work is in sharp contrast to the increased wealth for investors. As Greenhouse and Leonhardt observe:

As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960's. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as "the golden era of profitability."

The rich are getting richer, the workers are losing ground, and the poor remain stuck. 37 million people still live below the poverty line in the US -- that's about 12 percent of the population. That number and most of the data in the newspaper articles I've mentioned comes from a Census Bureau report (PDF).

A New York Times story on the Census report points out that the level of income for defining poverty for a family of four was $19,971; for a family of two, it was $12,755. The last time the poverty rate dipped in the US was in 2000.

It's always interesting to see how news reports can slice and dice data such as that in the Census report. For example, The Washington Post put the following headline on its Census Bureau story:

D.C. Suburbs Top List Of Richest Counties

The subhead was more to the point:

Nationwide Data on Health Coverage Bleak

After bragging about how rich our suburbs are, The Post conceded:

The new figures showed that a record number of Americans lack access to health insurance.

The Times also lead with a positive spin on the Census news, headling its story:

Census Reports Slight Increase in '05 Incomes

But the story quickly got to the real facts: Incomes are up because people are working second jobs or earning money besides wages. "[B]oth men and women earned less in 2005 than 2004," the article reported. It went on to observe:

Nationally, the small uptick in median household income reported yesterday, 1.1 percent, was not enough to offset a longer-term drop in median household income -- the annual income at which half of the country's households make more and half make less.

That figure fell 5.9 percent between the 2000 census and 2005, to $46,242 from $49,133, according to an analysis of the data conducted for The New York Times by the sociology department of Queens College.

The Times minced no words on its editorial page. It quoted President Bush as telling reporters, "Things are good for American workers," and then observed:

The comment is preposterous.
Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson was even harsher. In an Aug. 30 op-ed, he pointed out:

From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. . . .

That America is as dead as the dodo. Ours is the age of the Great Upward Redistribution.

And he provides a good explanation:

According to a report by Goldman Sachs economists, "the most important contributor to higher profit margins over the past five years has been a decline in labor's share of national income."

That is, those who actually do the work in our society aren't getting the benefit of economic growth. In addition, the only wage earners who actually do see some benefit from economic growth are the people at the top. The Greenhouse/Leonhardt article points out:

In 2004, the top 1 percent of earners -- a group that includes many chief executives -- received 11.2 percent of all wage income, up from 8.7 percent a decade earlier and less than 6 percent three decades ago, according to Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, economists who analyzed the tax data.

The Post article on the Census report puts the inequity in simple terms:

Between 2004 and last year, earnings increased by an average of nearly $1,200 for people with incomes in the top 10 percent, compared with $17 for those in the bottom 10 percent.

Happy Labor Day.

Jimmy Carter blasts fundamentalists in Spiegal magazine

This is old news, but I've recently noticed that people are still searching for our coverage and commentary on Jimmy Carter's amazing interview in Spiegel magazine. In the interview, Carter talks tough and true about Christianity and fundamentalism, among other things.

That coverage has gotten a bit buried, so here are the links again.

Jimmy Carter shows you can be a good Christian while rejecting right-wing fundamentalism

Carter talks about Bush's un-Americanism, Israel's mistakes and fundamentalist's flaws

Red State Politics: Get involved in the continuing Kansas battle over evolution

Red State Rabble reminds us this morning that the fight for the future of evolution, science and education in Kansas isn't finished.

The yo-yo swing of the Kansas Board of Education between the anti-evolution Religious Right and the voices of moderation may not end until one side wins a commanding majority. Pro-science moderates have a chance to do that on Nov. 7.

Rabble details how you can get involved, even if you don't live in Kansas.

For more In This Moment coverage of the election, see The Kansas Evolution Election: It isn't over yet

Red State Politics: Could ultra-conservative Jim Ryun finally be defeated?

By Diane Silver

Yet another darling of the Religious right -- Rep. Jim Ryun -- might be vulnerable this year. It's a long shot, but stranger things have happened.

Once thought unbeatable, Ryun has gotten some attention from MyDD, one of the most well-connected liberal blogs. David Kowalski writes:
Ex-miler Jim was held to 56%, three points behind Bush in this district. Kansas Republicans are splintering with prominent moderates fleeing to the Democrats. Kathleen Sebelius is a strong favorite to repeat as Governor and GOP anti-evolution candidates are finding open opposition not only from Democrats but from Republicans sworn to defeat them. Nancy Boyda makes a repeat run with lower expectations but a great environment (at least for a Kansas Democrat).
Josh at Thoughts From Kansas is also high on Boyda.

Personally, I fall into the anybody-but-Ryun camp on this race. I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of Boyda. She may well be a hold-your-nose choice.

The last time she ran Boyda appeared to be anti-gay, at least in public. Right now Boyda seems to be staying far away from any statement having to do with same-sex marriage or fair laws for all. That, of course, might help her in this conservative district.

The other criticism heard around the district was from political sources. The rap was that Boyda ran an awful, fairly amateur campaign last time. Let's hope she has learned from her past mistakes.

Boyda can't possibly be worse than Ryun, though. I was present at the birth of Ryun's political career in Lawrence in the late 1980s. His first big issue? Opposition to a local ordinance protecting queers against discrimination in housing and employment.

During that fight, Ryun and his wife showed up one night on the porch of the lesbian couple leading the campaign for the anti-discrimination ordinance. The Ryuns were reportedly there to "save" them from their life of sin. The lesbians told the Ryuns to leave, and apparently the only thing that was saved was Ryun's political career.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Female presence at Supreme Court declines -- and not just on the bench

By Nancy Jane Moore

The New York Times reports that the current Supreme Court justices have hired only seven women to serve as law clerks for the coming term -- out of 37 total clerkships.

This is less than half the number in the last term, when there were 14 women originally and a fifteenth was added after Samuel Alito was confirmed. It's also the first year since 1994 that there were fewer than 10 women clerks.

Not only that, but this drop comes at a time when the number of women law school graduates is just below 50 percent. It also comes after the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court clerkships are considered a major career-building move in the legal profession. Several of the current justices were once clerks and The Times reports that law firms are offering $200,000 bonuses to former clerks.

According to The Times, the court's sole female justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- who hired two women and two men as clerks -- was already aware of the situation and had mentioned it in a recent speech. Other justices dismissed the situation as a "random variation," The Times said.

Some observers speculated that there were fewer women clerks in the federal circuit courts of appeal, which is a source for Supreme Court clerks. I recently examined the list of judges on the circuit courts and found that a clear majority of them were appointed by Republican presidents. I'd also note that the most conservative member of the Supreme Court -- Antonin Scalia -- has hired only 2 women clerks in the last seven years, out of a total of 28.

Draw your own conclusions as to whether there's any correlation between the political leanings of the justices and lower court judges and who they hire. There are, of course, some very prominent right wing women on the circuit court bench. It would be interesting to know how many women clerks they've hired.

The Times didn't provide any figures on the racial make up of the new crop of clerks, except to observe that "the clerkship cadre remains overwhelmingly white." Women may be underrepresented in the top echelons of the legal profession, but minorities make up an even tinier percentage of those in powerful positions.

Hurricane Katrina: A round-up of analysis

The one-year anniversary of Katrina -- and the fact that rebuilding is proceeding at a snail's pace -- has produced some good reporting and opinion pieces, along with some detailed analysis.

The Washington Post reports on the problems local governments affected by the storm have in getting money from FEMA. According to the Post, FEMA has quibbled over paying for everything from removing dead trees to repairing water and sewer systems. The Post sums up the problem:
Current and former officials at all levels blame FEMA workers' inexperience with eligibility rules, weaknesses in U.S. disaster laws and inconsistent treatment by Congress for much of the wrangling. The huge scale of the storm and honest disagreement over whether federal or local taxpayers should pay the tab add to the conflict.
The Post article also adds these observations from David A. Craig, former chief of recovery operations for FEMA who left last October and now consults for New Orleans:
Disasters should be difficult to declare. . . . But once you get them, FEMA should not worry about cutting costs. . . . Public entities are eligible for everything they have lost due to the disaster. It is not up to FEMA to cut corners or makes sure money is saved.
Craig is just one of the many experienced people who have left FEMA.

NOW President Kim Gandy takes a cynical look at the post-Katrina situation in her regular online column:
Pardon my cynicism, but has it occurred to anyone that Bush's "mismanagement" of the Katrina aftermath actually accomplished longstanding political goals while benefiting his political allies?
Gandy goes on to list the money paid to Halliburton and other major Republican-friendly corporations for disaster work and suggests the Bush administration is using Katrina-related expenses as an excuse to cut other social services programs. She also speculates that the slow recovery works in Republican favor, since it has kept a lot of African Americans from returning home.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Tom Paine.com has a good wrap up called Katrina: The Continuing Storm. Tom Paine is not a latecomer to the debate -- the first article in their compilation is dated Sept. 1, 2005, and they have been regularly addressing the Katrina problems ever since.

One piece that really caught my eye is by Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute. Brown reminds us that Katrina forced a major evacuation -- one we might have expected to see in another country, but not in the US:
Hurricane Katrina, which made landfall in late August 2005, forced a million people from New Orleans and the small towns on the Mississippi and Louisiana coasts to move inland either within their state or to neighboring states, such as Texas and Arkansas. Although nearly all planned to return, many have not.
And he suggests that this is an omen of future population shifts due to climate problems.

Brown's article led me to a special analysis (PDF) by the Brookings Institution, which provides an excellent overview of the current situation. The conclusion summarizes:
One year after the storm, New Orleans is showing signs of early promise. The housing market is beginning to turn. Half of the major hospitals in the city are now seeing patients and more public schools, including a spate of new charter schools, are slated for opening this fall. Business and visitor travel to the region are fast approaching pre-Katrina levels, helping to bolster the region's tax base and economy.

But the majority of the indicators are troubling. The level of basic city services and infrastructure remain thin, does not cover all neighborhoods, and has yet to strengthen overall in the past six months. Affordable, rental housing is critical for workers, and the employers who rely on them, and yet that seems increasingly out of reach. Job growth has inched upward but so has the unemployment rate, sending mixed signals about worker security.

Red-State Politics: Taking Kansas away from the Religious Right

By Diane Silver

Kansas' Nov. 7 election offers a good chance to judge the political strength of the Religious Right -- not only in the state, but possibly in the nation.

As Thomas Frank showed in his book What's The Matter With Kansas, the Religious Right's toehold in this reddest of red states grew to a stranglehold in the 1990s. Frank argued that the events in Kansas provided a model for other states.

I agree. It's also important to watch Kansas because if the Religious Right can be defeated here, it can be defeated almost anywhere. That's why this year's election in Kansas is important for folks who have never done more than fly over the Plains.

Of course for those of us who actually live here, this election represents the "minor" matters of our future and our freedom.

The good news is that some interesting trends may well have been emerging in the last five years in Kansas politics. We've seen the first signs that the Religious Right's hold on Kansas could be slipping.

For example, voters ousted the anti-evolution majority on the Kansas Board of Education in the Aug. 1 primary. That vote marked the first chance voters had to change the makeup of the controversial board, and Kansans didn't hesitate to switch two seats from ultra-conservative to moderate.

Meanwhile, a handful of Republican leaders defected to the Democratic Party this year. They include a former state GOP chairman who has signed on as the running mate of popular Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

The fact that Sebelius was even elected to one term also shows the limits of the Religious Right's power. In 2002 her opponent was a darling of the ultra conservatives. Sebelius, meanwhile, has a 63 percent approval rating.

Over the next two months, In This Moment will be taking a close look at this year's key races for governor, attorney general and the state House of Representatives. We'll also be watching the four Congressional races in Kansas with particular attention to attempts to unseat the state's only Democratic incumbent, Dennis Moore, and to defeat Republican incumbents Jim Ryun and Todd Tiahrt. The two Republicans are to the right of Atilla the Hun.

Stay tuned. The fun is only beginning.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Hurricane Katrina: It's time to change how we deal with disaster

By Nancy Jane Moore

I grew up 35 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico in a little town outside of Houston. Hurricane country. I remember riding out Hurricane Carla in 1961 and getting ready for any number of smaller storms over the years. And I've seen the kind of damage floods can do, even from much less serious storms.

I lived for awhile in Wichita Falls, Texas -- part of that wide swath of the Great Plains known as Tornado Alley. I was there in 1979 for the last really bad one, the mile-wide tornado that took out 20 percent of the housing in town and left all of us without electricity.

I was still there the next year when a heat wave roared across the country -- in Wichita Falls the average high for 45 days in a row was 110.

I've seen the damage caused by earthquakes in Guatemala -- and felt the earth move because the nearby volcanoes were erupting. I've seen deep enough snow in Washington, D.C., to convince me that I don't want to live anywhere likely to suffer a real blizzard.

I have friends who managed to protect their home from the Southern California fires of a few years ago because they spent a lot of money and brainpower designing an effective water system. Most of their neighbors were wiped out.

Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires, earthquakes, volcanoes, heat waves, blizzards -- not to mention fog, high winds, heavy rainfall, drought, dust storms -- all of these things happen all over the Earth on a regular basis. Global warming is already making some of them worse; others have even more obvious human causes.

But even if the human race was doing a superb job of taking care of our planet, we'd still be faced with dangerous and destructive weather. It's a fact of planetary life. And while there's still a lot we can learn, we aren't ignorant about these weather patterns.

We know hurricanes are going to hit the Gulf Coast. We know tornadoes are going to hit the Great Plains. We know volcanoes are going to erupt and tectonic plates are going to shift. We know it's going to snow. We know heat waves happen. We know fires will break out in certain areas.

And yet, we run our lives as if none of these things will happen. We let people build on barrier islands, fill in wetlands, construct inadequate levees, and just hope the hurricane doesn't hit. We put up major cities along active fault lines. We allow too many people to live in an area with too little water. We allow people to farm areas that should never have been tilled. Our plans for excessive cold or hot weather often fail to protect our frailer neighbors.

We can't stop hurricanes and tornadoes and earthquakes and all the other "acts of God" that hit the Earth each year, but we can start planning our lives as if they were likely to hit. We can do land use planning that protects the natural barriers that protect us -- including prohibiting building in certain areas. We can have adequate evacuation and disaster relief plans in place. We can make sure to allocate appropriate amounts of tax dollars to address disasters of all kinds -- enough money to make it possible for most people to rebuild their lives. We can require certain minimum insurance on homes -- including flood insurance -- the same way we require automobile insurance. We can make sure our infrastructure -- roads, power lines, levees, and the like -- is strong enough to withstand the problems we're most likely to face.

Everyone knew a big hurricane was going to hit New Orleans. A quick look at history suggests the Big Easy is likely to get a bad storm every 30 years or so. Yet the only concession to this were the levees -- levees that weren't built to withstand a significant storm. Nobody prepared, even though everyone knew it was coming.

I, like Diane, remain appalled at the incompetence of the Bush administration. Here we are, a year later, and people are still displaced, still unable to rebuild, still fighting with bureaucracy. Billions have been allocated, but much of the money hasn't been spent -- FEMA can't even get available money to people. A Washington Post report filed from Biloxi, Mississippi, says:

Fewer than 5 percent of the thousands of destroyed homes are being rebuilt, local [Mississippi] officials said. Most of the affected homeowners in Mississippi and Louisiana have yet to see any of the billions in federal money approved to help them get back home.

But the overall problem is bigger than Bush's failures. While it's outrageous that the richest country in the world can't do a better job of picking up the pieces after a disaster, it's equally outrageous that we're not taking the common sense steps to minimize the effects of disasters that are going to happen.

Given how badly we handle predictable disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes, is it any wonder that we're at such a loss for handling more random events like pandemics and terrorist attacks?

For a good roundup on the post-Katrina situation, see Tom Paine.com's series called Katrina: The Continuing Storm.

Hurricane Katrina: Where were you a year ago, Mr. Bush?

By Diane Silver

I've never been to New Oreleans or even driven through any of the other places swamped by Hurrican Katrina. One year after that horrible storm and the even worse response by our government, though, I find myself filled with pain and anger.

I see headlines like the one in The Washington Post about George W. Bush and Democrats flocking to New Orleans, and I wonder: Where were you a year ago when people were dying?

Bush's visit is particularly obscene.

A year ago, he couldn't be bothered. A year ago, his government, his people, his "heckuva job" FEMA director abandoned the Gulf Coast. His response to the storm made what was horrible unthinkable.

I have much more to say, but it's all a jumble inside. Consider this an open thread on Katrina. Where were you a year ago? What do you think now?

Saga of the Rainbow Flag: A note about Fred Phelps & the REAL Kansas

By Diane Silver

To those reporters who were shocked (yes, shocked) that gay rights supporters outnumbered anti-gay protesters in tiny Meade, Kansas, this weekend, here's information you might find useful. The frothing-at-the-mouth anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church is always outnumbered...even in Kansas... even in small-town Kansas.

I felt compelled to post this after reading the following breathless headline at 365Gay.com: "Gay Supporters Outnumber Phelps Clan In Flag Protest." The story said:
If followers of anti-gay pastor Fred Phelps thought they were going to find support in tiny Meade, Kansas they were mistaken. The militant group demonstrated across the street Sunday from a small hotel that stirred up a local hornets nest when it displayed a rainbow flag.

About 30 of Phelp's followers, mostly relatives, held signs saying "God Hates Fags", and "AIDS is God's curse."

Not far away a crowd nearly double in size help up their own signs. "God Loves Fags" read one sign. "Go home" read another.
Given all the recent publicity and the stereotyping about Kansas as a backward, bigoted state, I suppose I can understand the tone of this report. And yes, given that Sunday in Meade was filled with protests and counter protests because of a controversy over a rainbow flag, one might be lead to believe that all Kansans are fools.

But the stereotype of Kansas isn't any more real than any other stereotype. Yup, there are certainly bigots out here. However, pretty much everyone in Kansas is thoroughly and utterly sick of Phelps and his minions.

They are almost always outnumbered, or ignored, when they protest in their home state. That's because even us backward Kansans can see the nastiness and destructiveness of the Phelps clan.

Some of us believe that Phelps has even helped the cause of fairness and basic decency for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Kansans. He certainly provides a clear example of the hatred we face. I have yet to find anyone except for some (but not all) of his family -- even out here on the blasted Plains -- who embraces Phelps.

What we need to do now is to move beyond Phelps. He is hurtful, but he is largely a joke. The real threat to equality for thousands of Kansans isn't an abusive fool and a handful of his children and grandchildren. The real threat is the nice person who would never think of hurting a soul who repeatedly and blindly votes for laws that destroy people's lives.

These real, nice people can do this because they don't understand the reality of our lives. They don't get it that they are actually hurting families and children by, for example, voting to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and any other legal rights for lesbian and gay families.

Phelps is a sideshow and a joke. It's the nice people we need to worry about. The good news, though, is that the nice people are sane, yes, even in Kansas. They can be reached.

For more coverage of the events in Meade this weekend, see below and Saga of the Rainbow Flag: Westboro Baptist Church teaches Meade, Kansas, about "despicable"

Monday, August 28, 2006

Saga of the Rainbow Flag: Investigate incident in Meade, Kansas, as a hate crime

Thomas Witt, the chair of the Kansas Equality Coalition, has called for an incident at the Lakeway Hotel to be investigated as a hate crime.

The incident occurred Aug. 11 when a brick, or piece of a block, was thrown through the window of the hotel, which was flying the rainbow flag, a symbol of gay rights. The brick had the word "fag" inked on it. Another brick with the message "get the fuck out of town" was discovered outside the hotel.

The Hutchinson News reported Witt's comments.
"The anti-gay profanity written on the bricks demonstrates this is clearly a hate crime and we insist that it be treated as such," Witt said Sunday at a gathering here of the coalition, which fights discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Witt differentiated the window incident from the clandestine removal of a rainbow flag from the pole in front of the Lakeway on July 31. The boys who later confessed to taking the flag - which has since been replaced - left no message when they did the deed.

Robin Knight, who runs the Lakeway with her husband, J.R. Knight, agrees the window breaking should be pursued as a hate crime while Meade County Sheriff Michael Cox said only that his office continues to investigate.

Saga of the Rainbow Flag: Fighting for the "right to coexist"

Living without intimidation -- or a brick through the window -- is one of the reasons gay rights supporters came to Meade, Kansas, on Sunday.

Tiny Meade in southwestern Kansas became the focus of the anti-gay and funeral-picketing Westboro Baptist Church, The Kansas Equality Coalition and the media after a controversy over the right of a local hotel to fly the rainbow flag. In the last month, the flag has been cut down and stolen and a brick with the word "fag" was thrown through the window of The Lakeway Hotel.

The Hutchinson News provided good coverage of the day's events and explanation of why the civil rights supporters and the Equality Coalition and its Southwest Kansas Chapter has focused on the town. The News reported:
"We're basically trying to stand up for the right to coexist with others without having a brick thrown through the window," said Dennis Russell, a Wichita State University student sporting a rainbow flag over his shoulders and a rainbow wig on his head.

Sherry Coles of Coldwater, a coalition member whose son died of AIDs, called the Westboro showing "a good opportunity to let people see hate masquerading as religion." She said the Topeka church represents "pure evil" and, in touting the rights of gay people, said "all men are created equal," alluding back to the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

Saga of the Rainbow Flag: Westboro Baptist Church teaches Meade, Kansas, about "despicable"

About 30 supporters of anti-gay minister Fred Phelps protested a symbol of gay rights in tiny Meade on Sunday. The angry sign-toting members of Topeka's Westboro Baptist Church, though, ended up teaching at least one local resident about the true meaning of bigotry.

As always, the Phelps clan brought their children, who picketed, carried signs and shouted about how God hates gays and anyone else who doesn't agree with Phelps' theology. The central principle of his theology appears to be how all people must bow down to an abusive God.

Susan Seybert, who has lived in Meade for 30 years, "stationed herself at St. John Catholic Church to put herself between" the protesters and the church, The Wichita Eagle reported. Seybert told The Wichita Eagle:
"It's just not right," she said, shaking her head while watching children connected with the church chant about homosexuals burning in hell.

"I think it's despicable to start to teach your children at such a young age the word 'hate.' It's just the worst thing you can do," Seybert said.
The Eagle has complete coverage of Sunday's events in Meade where Phelps, the townspeople and the state board of the Kansas' largest gay rights group, The Kansas Equality Coalition, came together for a raucous afternoon.

Meade became the subject of international news in August when a rainbow flag being flown at the Lakeway Hotel in town was cut down. Later a brick with the word "fag" was thrown through the hotel's window.

See an index of In This Moment's coverage at:

Saga of the Rainbow Flag: It all comes together tomorrow in Meade, Kansas

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Justice in Alabama: Vote electing out lesbian allowed to stand

Good news out of Alabama this weekend! Democrat Patricia Todd survived a challenge to her election victory. That makes her the first out queer member of the Alabama Legislature.

Patricia Todd won the Democratic primary for a seat in the state House of Representatives. She did not face any Republican opposition in November, but her electoral victory was challenged by some in her own party. They pulled out an obscure rule in an attempt to disqualify her. The problem was that no one else was following the rule either.

Yesterday, the Alabama State Democratic Executive Committee voted 95 to 87 to drop the challenge to Todd's victory.

Here's some of the best coverage.

Eyewitness reports from Birmingham Blues:

More on the SDEC Meeting

A couple of cool stories from yesterday's SDEC meeting

From AMERICAblog:

Patricia Todd is the victor in Alabama -- finally

The Victory Fund also released a statement."Finally, the voters have prevailed."

From Pam's House Blend:

More details on Kathy on the big day for Patricia Todd where Pam, who is black, talks about how the controversay was not about race. Pam wrote:
Yes, people it's not just about race, no matter how many folks try to spin it that way. Black homophobia cannot be ignored as a core part of the problem in this dust up -- it is a serious impediment to progress and dialog within the party when it gets continuously swept under the rug.

Civil rights cannot be defined a race-only matter, and not as a zero-sum game either.
Here at In This Moment, we wrote about the Todd case in:

Alabama Democrats defy democracy by moving to overturn lesbian's election victory