Molly Ivins: Don't be shocked when the world starts comparing us to Nazis

Leave it to Molly Ivins to put her finger on the truth. She writes about the torture/detainee bill passed by the House and Senate:

This bill is not a national security issue -- this is about torturing helpless human beings without any proof they are our enemies.
...
Fellow citizens, this bill throws out legal and moral restraints as the president deems it necessary -- these are fundamental principles of basic decency, as well as law.

I'd like those supporting this evil bill to spare me one affliction: Do not, please, pretend to be shocked by the consequences of this legislation. And do not pretend to be shocked when the world begins comparing us to the Nazis.

Read more at Alternet.

34 Votes

By Nancy Jane Moore

Now I know why the Democrats said they'd forego filibuster if they got a vote on amendments. They didn't have the votes.

Only 34 senators voted against the shameful, immoral detainee bill, according to The Washington Post.

I guess I'm still too idealistic -- I really thought this bill had enough opponents to support a filibuster and that the Democratic leadership was just doing what it usually does best: going along.

But only 34 out of 100 senators -- a third of the Senate -- voted to save the soul of the country.

As Senator Patrick Leahy -- one of the 34 -- put it:

We are about to put the darkest blot possible on the nation's conscience. ... This is so wrong. .... It is unconstitutional. It is un-American.

What I don't get is why more senators didn't understand that by voting against this bill they had the opportunity to take a moral stand in favor of American values and improve their chances at the polls at the same time. Public sentiment has turned against Bush and his posse, and a vote against Bush in this situation ought to be a plus for most Democrats.

Apparently the senators who supported this bill are so afraid of Karl Rove that they assumed he would find a way to use a "no" vote against them even if a majority of Americans think this is bad policy. I don't for a minute believe that they actually think this nonsense will make us safer.

And Karl Rove's going to do his best to beat them anyway.

I'm sure the Democrats who supported this bill will tell you that they did it so that we'd elect a Democratic Congress in November. But what's the point of electing Democrats if they're going to do the same thing as Republicans?

Here are the 34 Senators who voted against the bill -- the ones who retain some belief in our fundamental principles. Note that they are all Democrats except for Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (who is a moderate Republican in a heavily Democratic state) and Jim Jeffords of Vermont (who left the Republicans to become an independent):

Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Chafee (R-RI), Clinton (D-NY), Conrad (D-ND), Dayton (D-MN), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Lincoln (D-AR), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Sarbanes (D-MD), Schumer (D-NY), Wyden (D-OR).

I notice that potential presidential candidates opposed it: Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Barack Obama.

Here are the 12 spineless Democrats who supported throwing the Constitution out the window:

Carper (D-DE), Johnson (D-SD), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Menendez (D-NJ), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Stabenow (D-MI).

Of course, Joe Lieberman voted for it. I sure hope that gives Ned Lamont a shot in the polls.

Olympia Snowe of Maine was the wimpiest of all -- she declined to vote.

The only Republican supporter I'll bother to chastise is Arlen Specter, who fought the habeas corpus provisions but then went along with his party. Pretty obvious that so-called moderate Republicans lack spines, too.

The only solace I have is that history is not going to be kind to these people. Unfortunately, there may not be much left of the United States of America by the time history gets around to pronouncing judgment.

Shameful Day: Senate passes immoral bill on torture & detainees

By Diane Silver

I'll let other people make the arguments about how the bill the Senate just passed endangers our military and all Americans.

I'll let others discuss the obscene politics of this vote, and the spineless capitulation of some Democrats.

Writing from the Heartland of Kansas, I want to talk about the heart of the matter: Morality.

Senate approval sends this horrifying bill back to the House, which has already passed its own version. The House is expected to rubber stamp the Senate version and send it to President George W. Bush, possibily as soon as tomorrow. Bush, of course, will be thrilled to sign it.

To paraphrase Dan Froomkin's marvelous column in The Washington Post: How far are we willing to stray, not only from our historic and Constitutional values, but from our religious and moral values as well?

As Froomkin so clearly puts it, this legislation:

...would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that's just for starters.

Oh yes, survival is important. No, I do not believe that the Constitution nor any religious text is a suicide pact as some conservative commentators have claimed someone like me would argue. We have to do everything we can to defend ourselves. We have to battle terrorists with bullets and bombs and ideas.

But what are we doing to our souls?

Is there not a limit to our fear?

What does our country stand for now?

How do you turn the Golden Rule into a get-out-of-jail-free pass for our nation to wink and nod and look the other way as Bush defines interrogation as torture and ignores habeas corpus?

Do you all know what habeas corpus means? The good volunteers of Wikipedia write:

A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody.

In other words, without habeas corpus -- which dies for anyone Bush says is a terrorist -- the United States can toss you (and it could be you) into the deepest, darkest, most secret prison and throw away the key. I heard a sound clip on the news today where a Republican Congressman was going on about how this bill gives detainees tons and tons of legal rights.

That is utter and complete garbage.

Bush's people don't have to tell the world they've got you. How do you get any legal rights if no one knows you're imprisoned? And oh yes, don't tell me this won't happen. We already did it at Guantanamo Bay.

Shame, shame on Congress. Shame, shame on the news media for doing such a lousy job of covering this (see Froomkin again) that few people understand the stakes. AND SHAME SHAME on those people who do understand, but have done nothing.

Apologies to Austin Cline for borrowing his incredible poster. I'm a tad more spiritual and religious than he is, but his posters are amazing. The text says:

It's not brutality when Bush does it. America is a Christian Nation. America does not "torture," but Bush doesn't want his methods scrutinized by others. Bush sends people to secret prisons for "alternative" interrogation. Bush wants to change the law to protect his people from war crime trials. There are no war crimes being committed in our name. Nothing to see here. TRUST US.

This is what a Constitutional crisis looks like

By Nancy Jane Moore

I was going to post a rant telling Democratic Senators to locate their spines and block the detainee bill passed by the House, but fortunately The New York Times did it for me:

The Bush administration uses Republicans' fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws -- while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

I didn't expect any better from the right-wing Republican-dominated House. I knew they would pass this dreadful bill. Our only hope is that Senate Democrats will filibuster it. Come on folks -- there's more at stake here than your re-election. If you cede all power to the White House, it won't matter a damn who's in the Senate.

Here are some other posts you might want to read.

Marty Lederman on Balkinization sums it up well as usual:

In other words, the principal theme and effect of this legislation is to systematically abdicate and destroy existing legislative and judicial checks and balances.

He also points us to this wonderful comment from Katherine on Obsidian Wings:

No, no, no. The headline, "Rushing off a cliff," is completely unfair. Congress isn't driving the bus over a cliff--that's what the administration asked for, but thanks to the bold rebellion of Senators McCain, Warner and Graham, they refused.

Instead they simply removed the guard rail, fired the traffic cops, gave the keys to a drunk driver, and closed their eyes.

Andrew Sullivan thinks we're legalizing tyranny. And he still thinks so after pondering a bit on the subject. He also reminds us of my favorite quote from Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy:

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

(It's better on Sullivan's site, because he has a picture.)

The Washington Post yesterday told Congress to slow down, that there was no need to rush this legislation. I'm glad they oppose the bill, but I wish their editorial board would look for its spine, too. They seem to hedge everything they say.

Those of you who have senators: Contact them now.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tells Kansas that Iraq War is "the greatest disaster"

Speaking at the University of Kansas, Madeleine Albright delivered a scathing critique of President George W. Bush's foreign policy.

Albright served as secretary of state for President Bill Clinton

The Kansas City Star reports:

Want an unflinching opinion of the Iraq war?

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright delivered one Wednesday night, calling it "the greatest disaster in American foreign policy."
...
In a scorching presentation, Albright endorsed a central finding of a just-declassified intelligence report that concluded that the U.S. presence in Iraq was fueling global terrorism.

"I don't think creating more terrorists is going to make us safer," she told a crowd at the Lied Center on the University of Kansas campus. The event was sponsored by the Dole Institute of Politics.
...
On another topic, Albright said the U.S. military was so desperately short of soldiers that America's ability to respond to a sudden new crisis was seriously compromised.

She urged the administration to talk more to the North Koreans, saying the lack of communication invites problems.

The Lawrence Journal-World also covered Albright's speech and has audio of it. Scroll down their page to find the audio feed.

Shame on Congress: House passes torture & detention bill

They did it.

Next up tomorrow, the Senate vote. How appalling.

From The New York Times:

"When our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the second - ranking Democrat in the House.

All of which doesn't even touch on the real truth. This is absolutely and completely morally wrong. Where is the powerfuly Religious Right now? Where are these so-called Christians now? Why aren't they screaming about this?

I am ashamed of my country .

Carnival of the Liberals

In This Moment came in for a nice mention on the latest Carnival of the Liberals, which was hosted by an Australian blog, Writings on the Wall. We thank them kindly for selecting this post and suggest that you surf over to their site and see the other stories they recommended and the interesting articles and posts on their site.

The End of America: Congress ready to pass bill green-lighting torture & denying basic rights

By Diane Silver

This is my view from the Heatland of the United States, from Kansas: This is the way the great American Dream dies. Out of fear and a desperate Republican need to win the mid-term election, we turn our backs on basic decency; we sell our souls.

AP is reporting that Republican leaders have cleared the way for the detainee bill -- the infamous let's - torture - it - out - of - them bill -- to pass Congress. AP says:

Debate on the bill began almost simultaneously (Wednesday) on both sides of the Capitol after hours of behind-closed-doors negotiations. The House was expected to pass it by late afternoon and the Senate could complete late Wednesday night or Thursday.

Although the version of the bill that is likely to pass isn't as bad as that originally proposed, this is still a horrible bill as Nancy Jane Moore noted in her post "The Bill Legalizing Torture Just Got Worse:

"Did you get that? They aren't just attacking foreigners -- they want to apply these rules, which clearly violate due process and other right guaranteed under the Constitution, to US citizens. And they don't just plan to detain those who have "engaged in hostilities;" they also want anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported" hostilities. How long do you think it will take before they definite "purposefully and materially" as "spoken out in support of opponents of the US?"

AP reports that House Republicans blocked any Democratic amendments, and GOP Senate leaders have "graciously" allowed Republican Sen. Arlen Specter and four Democrats to offer amendments that are expected to fail. Ap says Specter's amendment would strike a provision in the bill that denies terrorism suspects the right to appeal their detention in court.

This version of the bill also includes language that says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of the Geneva Conventions. AP reports:

While he would not be allowed to authorize interrogation techniques that would violate prohibited war crimes, he would be allowed to decide whether interrogation techniques are within bounds.

Let me ask you. If George W. Bush has the power to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and is allowed to decide whether torture -- sorry, I mean "techniques" -- are "within bounds," what do you think he will do? Shouldn't we judge him on his past actions?

It seems impossible to hope we can stop this, but still, call your senator our House member now.

Where is Congress?

By Nancy Jane Moore

Buried in the middle of today's Washington Post analysis piece on the National Intelligence Estimate is a bit of information that should make everyone in the US stand up and take notice:

This report was made available to Congress on April 26. April 26.

Today is September 27. Where has Congress been for the past five months?

The Post says:

Copies of the NIE were sent to the House and Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign affairs committees at the time, through normal electronic information channels available to all members, intelligence and congressional sources said. It arrived at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on April 26.

The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said the dog ate the report. That is, he blamed it on a massive computer failure that affected the classified stuff. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) told The Post: "The first that the committee knew of its existence was late last week, when 'it was requested specifically by a member. That was when it was found and scanned into our system.'" The Post went on to observe:

Whether the document was ignored or disappeared into cyberspace, however, it seemed to have made little impact on Capitol Hill at the time. No one in either chamber, on either side of the aisle, requested a briefing or any further information on its conclusions until now, the sources said.

"No one in either chamber, on either side of the aisle, requested a briefing or any further information on its conclusions until now."

What the hell are members of Congress doing? Are they so busy running for reelection that they don't have any time at all to spend on their jobs? Yes, Democrats, I'm talking to you! The Republicans have proved that they plan to follow Bush down the road to ruin, but why in the world haven't the Democrats made a stink?

I realize that the intelligence estimate -- or what we've seen of it -- just confirms what experts worldwide have said for a couple of years: The unnecessary war in Iraq inflamed Muslims everywhere. But even politicians more interested in keeping their jobs than doing them ought to be able to realize that the fact that US intelligence experts are saying the same thing means that it's time to take action.

No wonder the people in this country have so little respect for Congress. If it wasn't for the fact that our only hope of reining in Bush and his posse rests with Congress, I'd give up on the institution, too.

Yo, Democrats: Stop being the "loyal opposition." Read the report. Filibuster the detainee and wiretapping bills. Start working on a real plan that not only gets us out of Iraq, but lays the groundwork for rebuilding our shattered relationship with the rest of the world -- particularly Muslims.

It's a really good time to pick a fight.

National Intelligence Estimate fallout: Now what do we do about Iraq?

By Diane Silver

As Oliver Hardy used to say to Stan Laurel: Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into. The sad thing is that both the United States and the world would be incredibly lucky if the situation in Iraq were just a millionth as light hearted as one of Laurel and Hardy's old movies.

Unfortunately, the war the Bush Administration drove us into is not only killing the brave soldiers we sent to Iraq and killing Iraqis, but it's doing the opposite of what it was supposed to do: Stop terrorism.

Looking at the National Intelligence Estimate released late yesterday by the White House, it's obvious there isn't much to laugh about. Looking at the coverage and comment on the report, though, there is one bit of hope: It's obvious that finally, FINALLY people are understanding the horrible truth.

Here's a smattering of views and coverage of the report.

Juan Cole: "Bush should be ashamed."

The Washington Post: "The overall estimate is bleak, with minor notes of optimism."

Several active and retired intelligence officials stressed that the judgments were nothing new and followed a series of similar assessments made since early 2003 about the impact of the Iraq war on global terrorism.

The New York Times news story: "The harder we work, the behinder we get"

The New York Times editorial: "Maddening circular logic that passes for White House rationale"

AMERICAblog also has a good roundup of links on the report.

The intelligence estimate has led to much talk, but the question now that has to be asked and finally answered is: What do we do? How do we truly stop terrorism? Do we really think we can just kill all the terrorists and not create new terrorists? What do we do about their surviving family, friends and neighbors? How do we defend ourselves, and yet, not make the situation worse?

I'm with the Wichita Eagle on this one: It's time to have a REAL debate about the war on terror. Let's talk about the nuances of it. Let's search for REAL answers and let's enter the world of the reality-based community. Neither the United States nor the rest of the world can afford anymore fantasy-based military adventures.

Kansas newspaper calls Iraq War "disastrous" & pleads for serious debate

By Diane Silver

Wichita, Kan., has got to be one of the most conservative places in the country. Surrounded by ranches and farms and next door to McConnell Air Force Base, Wichita is rock-solid Republican. Its political and social life is dominated by the ultra-conservative churches of the Religious Right.

All of this means that George W. Bush, the Republican Party and, yes even Democrats, might want to pay close attention to today's editorial in The Wichita Eagle. The newspaper calls the conclusions of the newly disclosed National Intelligence Estimate a "bombshell" that can't be "ignored or easily dismissed." The Eagle writes:

To some extent, it's obvious. By declaring Iraq the "central front" in the war on terror, President Bush has found a convenient way to retroactively justify this disastrous conflict to Americans.

But clearly, as the report argues, the war has also provided a training ground for terrorists and a ready-made recruitment poster for jihadists around the globe, who point to U.S. occupation as proof that Western "crusaders" are intent on conquering the Middle East for their own ends.

The war is not just attracting bad guys -- it is creating them, possibly faster than we can rally resources to oppose them....

In light of this report, Americans must demand of the leaders of both parties a more specific, nuanced and honest debate about Islamic terrorism and how best to fight it.

Oh yes.

Meanwhile, Bush just announced that he is releasing part of the Intelligence Estimate.

The bill legalizing torture just got worse

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Senate bill on how the US will handle foreign detainees -- the supposed "compromise" legislation that legalizes treatment forbidden under the Geneva Conventions -- has been expanded to define as an unlawful combatant anyone who "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."

According to The Washington Post:

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant.

Did you get that? They aren't just attacking foreigners -- they want to apply these rules, which clearly violate due process and other right guaranteed under the Constitution, to US citizens. And they don't just plan to detain those who have "engaged in hostilities;" they also want anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported" hostilities. How long do you think it will take before they definite "purposefully and materially" as "spoken out in support of opponents of the US?"

The bill also suspends the right of habeas corpus -- the right to bring an action challenging the legality of one's detention. According to The Post, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.):

assailed the provision as an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, which he said was allowable only "in time of rebellion or in time of invasion. And neither is present here."

However, the Republicans who initially fought the bill appear to be going along with it, The Post says. So much for the much-vaunted integrity of John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Law Professor Marty Lederman explains the effect of the habeas issue in a post on Balkinization:

It is worth noting one thing about the breadth of the habeas-stripping provision, both in the new draft and in last week's version, that has thus far received inadequate attention in the public debate. That provision would eliminate the right to petition for habeas for all alleged alien enemy combatants, whether or not the detainee has been determined to be an "unlawful" combatant -- indeed, even if the detainee is deemed a lawful combatant (e.g., a POW) -- and no matter where they are detained, including in the United States.

Lederman also provides a PDF link to the legislation. Read it for yourself, if you can stomach it.

The US lags behind on gay immigration rights

Nineteen countries allow gays and lesbians who are citizens to sponsor their non-citizen partners for legal residency. The US isn't one of them.

Some of these countries -- such as Belgium -- also recognize gay marriage; others, like Brazil, have not changed other laws but still allow gays to sponsor their partners for immigration purposes.

The US is currently looking to overhaul its immigration laws, but granting immigration rights to gay and lesbian couples isn't even on the agenda -- not a huge surprise in a country obsessed with "defense of marriage" laws, but depressing nonetheless.

This analysis is part of a longer report from Human Rights Watch called Family, Unvalued Discrimination, Denial, and the Fate of Binational Same-Sex Couples under U.S. Law, which can be read on the Web or ordered in book form.

Women's eNews has a report on how this issue particularly effects lesbian couples in today's issue. The Love Exiles Foundation provides general resources on the subject.

The nineteen countries that allow gays to sponsor their partners for immigration are: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Details of what each country allows are available here.

As laughter builds over Kansas Sen. Kay O'Connor's retirement, the joke's on us

By Diane Silver

Newspaper columnists are having a wonderful time chuckling over the impending retirement of state Sen. Kay O'Connor, R-Olathe, but in the long run I wonder if the joke will be on us.

By "us," I mean the smart-aleck progressives and moderates who are so happy to see O'Connor go.

O'Connor announced last week that she would leave the Kansas Senate before the January start of the next session.

An ultra-conservative, O'Connor is most well known for saying that women shouldn't have the vote, or at least, for claiming women wouldn't need the vote if their men took proper care of them. (It was sometimes difficult to pin O'Connor down on exactly what she said. She often claimed she meant something else than she said and then turned around and said the same thing again, but I digress)

First elected to the Kansas House in 1992 from her suburban Kansas City district, O'Connor was elected to the state Senate in 2000 and re-elected in 2004. Last month she was defeated 73 percent to 27 percent in the Republican primary when she ran against incumbent Ron Thornburgh for secretary of state. It didn't help that she was running for the job of Kansas' top election official and had just been fined for breaking election laws twice.

Here's how the newspaper pundits are viewing her retirement.

Mike Hendricks from the Kansas City Star laments:

Kay O'Connor quitting politics!?! Great, now what do I write about?
...
You want irony? O'Connor served it up like spaghetti and meatballs at the K of C Hall on all-you-can-eat pasta night.

Sometimes I had to fight off the temptation to write about her.

Naturally, the news story of her retirement hit on the more 'colorful' aspects of her 14-year career in the Kansas Legislature.

Most notably the reason why Jay Leno once joked that the Taliban named her "woman of the year."

Ric Anderson of the Topeka Capital-Journal notes:

When O'Connor announced recently that she was leaving the Kansas Senate, the Statehouse lost one of its most colorful characters. Or, depending on whom you asked, one of its most loony.
...
For my money, though, O'Connor's masterpiece came last May when she voted against a bill aimed at prohibiting 14-year-olds from marrying. O'Connor fought the bill on two fronts, saying it would pressure pregnant teenagers to get abortions and that it wasn't needed because history was chock full of successful women who married young, including -- that's right -- the Virgin Mary and Loretta Lynn

I never met O'Connor, but I did testify against the ban on same-sex marriage in front of her and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Much to my surprise, she didn't say a word or utter a question during my testimony or that of other opponents of the ban.

O'Connor just sat there glaring at us like a malevolent grandmother. I had the uneasy feeling that if she'd had her way, we would have all been marched out behind the woodshed for a good spanking -- at the very least.

However, I don't think we should be laughing right now.

Don't get me wrong. I am elated that O'Connor is leaving the Statehouse. She has done more harm than most people can imagine.

The real issue, though, isn't that this malicious character is finally leaving the Kansas Legislature. The real issue is how could someone as, well, "off" as O'Connor could ever be elected. How did she keep getting re-elected?

O'Connor wasn't a charismatic speaker or a personal charmer. She didn't even come close to representing many of the people of her Johnson County district. However, she won her district over and over again because she had the well-oiled political machine of the radical right-wing churches behind her. O'Connor couldn't pull in the support for a statewide office like secretary of state, but she could win her Senate district with the help of the churches.

My message to all you who are chuckling is to enjoy the moment. Get it out of your system. O'Connor's gone, but the real question is: How do we keep from getting someone just as bad or worse?

Call Congress Now: Force the White House to tell the truth about Iraq

By Diane Silver

I agree with Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo. It's time for us all to call our senators and representatives in Washington, D.C. and tell them to pressure the White House to release the April National Intelligence Estimate.

Five months after it was written, word of the estimate finally reached the public through weekend news reports. The intelligence estimate represents a consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and declares that the War in Iraq has put us all in danger.

The New York Times broke the story and wrote about the report:

(I)t asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

The White House responded to the news reports by claiming that all of the information from the intelligence estimate had not yet been made public. If that's so, then it's time for George W. Bush to come clean and release the report.

In This Moment's coverage of the report includes:

Are We Feeling Safe Yet?

U.S. Intelligence experts: Iraq War has put us all in danger

Bush's gains in the polls are an illusion

By Diane Silver

As some (many?) in the mainstream media argue that George W. Bush has gotten a post 9/11 anniversary bounce, the respected Pew Research Center reports that the so-called "bounce" is more like the dull thud of a drenched tennis ball landing on cement than an actual up-turn in opinion.

The Pew Center reports:

The pattern in these polling results, or the lack of one, suggests there was not a major change in opinions of the president during a period when the public's focus on terrorism increased markedly.

Bush's numbers ARE looking better than they were in Spring, but then that's not hard when his approval rating has flatlined at 33 percent as it was in March. (Note that an approval rating of 33 percent is getting down into Richard Nixon's gonna-have-to-resign-soon territory.)

What will really happen when voters go to the only poll that actually counts -- the voting booth on Nov. 7? Only time will tell, but don't let anyone convince you that the people of this nation are happy about the way things are going.

More importantly for progressives and moderates: Don't let yourself be sold the line that it's impossible for us to win.

Republican's chance of becoming governor of red-state Kansas rated at near zero

By Diane Silver

Political reporter Steve Kraske headlines The Kanasas City Star today with an interesting look at the race for Kansas governor -- or should I say the non-race.

Kraske's portrait of the campaign is one of unrelieved doom and gloom for Republican state Sen. Jim Barnett, who is challenging incumbent Democrat Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Kraske writes:

Outside the Barnett camp, hardly anyone is giving him much of a shot. Asked about Barnett's chances, Kansas State University political scientist Joe Aistrup said: "You hate to say zero. That's the reason you have elections. But right now his chances are not good."

Kraske reports that not even the Republicans think Barnett has a chance.

"I'd say right now there's one statewide race, which is the attorney general's race," said state Sen. David Wysong, a Mission Hills Republican.

What's making the climb so steep for Barnett? The "ongoing tranquillity of the race," Aistrup told Kraske.

Challengers have a hard time knocking off incumbents when no one is paying attention.

The split within the Kansas Republican Party between conservatives and moderates also lead to a seven-candidate GOP primary. That left Barnett's campaign war chest drained. Sebelius did not face a Democratic challenger.

I knew Kraske when I covered the Statehouse for The Wichita Eagle and always found him to be a careful and fair reporter. I'd pay attention to what he says.

Barnett just got his first ads on the air. I haven't seen them yet, but a friend who heard the radio ad describes a fairly nasty negative commercial. Meanwhile, Sebelius' TV commercials -- at least four different ones -- have been on the air for months.

Barnett's web site looks darn near abandoned. The latest news release posted is dated June 26, 2006. Sebelius' web site home page pop's up with her latest commercial, although the most recent news release posted is dated Aug. 11, 2006.

As a public service, I'm posting a photo of Barnett so folks in Kansas will, at least, know what the GOP candidate looks like.

Sunday Review: Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius says stop using religion to "intimidate and divide"

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius told a statewide organization Saturday that it's time to take a new view of religion and politics.

Speaking to Kansans for Faithful Citizenship, a statewide nondenominational group that's just a year old, Sebelius said it's a mistake to make personal faith a political litmus test.

The Topeka Capital-Journal quoted Sebelius:

"Far too often religion is used as a way to intimidate and divide us in that if you don't believe in a certain set of credos, then somehow you are not religious," she said.

Speaking at a Johnson County hotel, Sebelius talked about her personal faith and said her work as governor is guided by a chapter of Matthew that speaks to preparing the soul for judgment. The Capital-Journal reported:

"Did we feed the hungry?" she said. "Did we clothe the naked? Did we care for the sick? Did we act out of selfishness or selflessness? Do we truly love our neighbors as people of every faith are called on to do? If not, you're not going to be very welcome in the kingdom of heaven."

Personally speaking, my only comment is amen to that.

All of her comments are well worth reading.

Sunday Review: 65 American women have died in Iraq & Afghanistan -- most in combat

The New York Times reports today on the 65 women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan and what their deaths mean to the long-standing debate about women in the military.

In short, the article notes that women are in danger in these wars because (a) there are few safe places in country and (b) the military is stretching the rules to allow them to serve in combat areas. The Times reports that women perform well and their service is desperately needed by a stretched - to - the - breaking - point U.S. military.

Let us not dishonor the memory of these brave women by continuing the absurd debate about women's right to serve in every job in the military. They're already in harms way. They're already doing what needs to be done. Let us not ignore them, nor turn our backs on them.

Nearly 2,900 American men have died in Iraq. This photo is of a memorial to the Iraq dead on a beach in Santa Barbara, CA.

Are we feeling safe yet?

By Nancy Jane Moore

Let's see now. We invaded Iraq because they had something to do with September 11. Only they didn't have anything to do with September 11 and the Bush administration knew it.

Okay, so we invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction. Only they didn't have weapons of mass destruction and any "evidence" that they maybe, possibly had them was cooked by the administration.

Then we invaded Iraq to bring them democracy, only instead we gave them a civil war.

So finally we invaded Iraq because we had to stop the terrorists there (even though they had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks on us) so we wouldn't have to fight them here at home.

Only now we know that instead of stopping the terrorists in Iraq, we created bunches of new terrorists. And that's not the point of view of a bunch of disgruntled liberals -- that's the conclusion of a National Intelligence Estimate produced in April by US intelligence agencies.

The New York Times broke this story and Diane reported on it yesterday.

Today's catch-up story in The Washington Post tells us that:

Both Bush and bin Laden now consistently describe the Iraq war as the "central front" of the global war, and both are depending on victory there to set the direction of future struggles far afield.

In other words Bush, who was more interested in invading Iraq than in catching bin Laden, played right into the man's hands.

I've only got one question: At this point, how can anyone see Bush and his bozos as the people who will do the best job of keeping us safe?

U.S. intelligence experts: The Iraq War has put us all in danger

Under the category of common sense confirmed comes word that the government's first formal appraisal of global terrorism since the Iraq War began shows that we're in more danger now than we were after 9/11.

The report allegedly refutes the positive picture painted by the White House and the Republican led House Intelligence Committee of the war on terror.

The New York Times reports:

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate was completed in April and represents a consensus view of 16 U.S. spy services.

(I)t asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

The Times called National Intelligence Estimates "the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue." They are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence.

Republican "renegades" give in to Bush on torture

By Nancy Jane Moore

[corrected on 9/24/06 at 7:45 PM]

So apparently the supposedly high-minded former military Republican senators caved to Bush and we're going to end up legalizing torture.

Or so Dan Froomkin says in a pulls-no-punches column on washingtonpost.com. Writes Froomkin:

The "compromise"? The Republican senators essentially agreed to look the other way.

Froomkin challenges the press to actually report on this issue:

Members of the traditional press were paying scant attention to the issue of state-sanctioned torture until a rift appeared within the Republican party itself. That, in Washington, qualifies as high drama.

And now that the rift has been papered over, most reporters' tendencies will be to cover the issue mostly from the angle of its effectiveness as a political cudgel in the mid-term elections.

But the American public deserves to hear a full and open debate on this important moral issue. And if Congress won't host it, then it's up to the Fourth Estate to rise to the challenge.

Froomkin goes on to list some specific avenues for reporters to follow up:

Here's a question reporters should be asking: If, as [Ron] Suskind has alleged, the administration is aware that those harsh CIA interrogation tactics don't really work -- and no one is currently in CIA detention anyway -- then why is this such an important issue for the White House? One possible answer: That this has nothing to do with the future; that it's about giving them cover for their actions in the past.

Here's another question reporters should be asking: Have the senators been assured that Vice President Cheney won't get Bush to attach a "signing statement" to this bill, asserting his inherent powers, as he did the last time he signed torture legislation?

Finally, as the White House gears up to use detainee policy as a political issue, it is incumbent on the press to remind the public that there are not only two choices: Doing it Bush's way and letting terrorists go free. Even if the Democrats aren't coherent about other alternatives, the press should be.

The generally more moderate Washington Post editorial board agrees with Froomkin about the actual meaning of the compromise. In an editorial subtitled "Senators won't authorize torture, but they won't prevent it, either" The Post writes:

In effect, the agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent.

Law Professor Marty Lederman has read the proposed legislation and the compromise and posted what he considers to be the most significant problems. After explaining the details of how the language of the compromise allows actions prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, he writes:

The ink was hardly dry on the draft when numerous Administration spokespersons were gleefully informing the press that the bill is a green light to the CIA to reinstitute the "alternative" techniques that Hamdan [the recent Supreme Court ruling] had effectively interdicted.

On the same blog (Balkinization, an excellent blog by legal experts), Professor Sandy Levinson (of my own alma mater, the University of Texas Law School) explains that rights are useless if you have no remedies. He also has John McCain's number:

So now we have a disgusting capitulation by the almost-tragic figure of John McCain, whose near-nobility has been thoroughly corrupted by his desire to be President (though there's no real doubt he'd be a far superior President to the incumbent) that removes any real prospect of a remedy for those tortured by the United States.

Levinson makes another depressing point:

What is even more dispiriting is that there is no reason to believe that the Democrats will defeat this disgrace, as they could through a filibuster that would simply delay its passage beyond the November elections, the whole point of this charade, because they are fearful of being tarred as "friends of the terrorists."

I hope he's wrong. I hope the Democrats will mount a filibuster and help us get our country back on track. Earlier on In This Moment, Diane quoted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's conclusions about Bush's stand on torture:

Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice.
And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect.

I'd like to think that someone in Congress would find the courage to say that these actions violate our basic principles and we're not going to allow them. Perhaps I'm too idealistic: There are those who say we've always tortured people, that people did nasty things behind closed doors, and we just never knew about it. I suspect that's true.

But then those same people go on to say that it's necessary for someone to do all those dirty things to allow the rest of us our freedom and democracy. And you know, I'm beginning to think that's one of the biggest myths of all time.

It's people taking principled stands against human rights abuses and for due process of law that protect us, not those using sharp knives in the back room.

My fictional ideal is Atticus Finch, not Jack Bauer.

I wish the members of Congress would take the time to read the US Constitution. It they did, they'd find out something very important:

Congress has the right to tell the President no. It's way past time they did so.

Fortress America

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Department of "Homeland Security" has given Boeing a $2.5 billion contract to build 6,000 miles of "virtual fence" along the US borders with Mexico and Canada.

According to The Washington Post, this will be a "smart" fence: Boeing will build 1,800 towers with cameras, sensors and links to sophisticated computers.

But people are already skeptical about the value of this program. According to The Post, Gervasio Prado, whose company SenTech Inc. participated in one of the losing bids for the contract, described the project as great for his industry but not likely to be all that useful. Prado said:

I'd love to say that if you put thousands of sensors in that you could really solve the problem. But I think the help is going to be minimal.

Meanwhile, the Senate is considering a bill already approved by the House that would create 700 miles of actual fence along the Mexican border. For details, see The Post immigration reform wrap-up story here.

Even if the real fence is approved, it's likely to have a huge hole in it: The New York Times reports that the Tohono O'odham Nation, whose land crosses the Arizona/Mexico border, objects to the fence. The Times says the federal government could build the fence without the tribe's permission -- part of that "benevolent" oversight of Indian lands -- but that they would rather not do that because they want Tohono O'odham support on smuggling and other activities.

The land in question is sparsely populated desert and takes up an area about the size of Connecticut. Many people cross illegally along the 75 mile stretch of border, but the Tohono O'odham cross back and forth legally -- another one of those complex areas of Indian law dealing with nations whose boundaries cross national borders.

Odds are this fence won't do much more to stop people who want work and better lives from crossing the border than the virtual wall will.

And the hell of it is, we need those workers. The Times reports that growers in California lost a lot of crop this year because they couldn't hire enough pickers. According to the story, the United Farmworkers Union estimates that 90 percent of farmworkers are illegal.

We want them and we don't want them -- a classic story of immigration.

Maybe it's just that I remember the Berlin Wall, but all these fences make me nervous. Next thing you know, we're going to build an actual fence along the Canadian border -- not to keep them out, but to keep us in.

It probably won't work either.

Kansas anti-gay crusader Terry Fox accused of misusing funds by his former church

By Diane Silver

Out here in the wilds of Kansas, many of us have been waiting for a full explanation of why the Rev. Terry Fox walked away so abruptly in August from the church he led for almost a decade. Today, we finally know at least part of the story.

Fox' old church, Wichita's Immanuel Baptist Church, is accusing him of improperly using the church's missionary money to prop up his own radio program.

Fox confirmed to The Wichita Eagle that he had used a "sizeable amount" for the radio show he co-hosts with the Rev. Joe Wright, another anti-gay pastor, on KNSS and Sirius satellite radio.

However, Fox says that he had the authority to do that as Immanuel's senior pastor. His church doesn't agree. The radio program is not affiliated with the church. No word, yet, on whether the church will pursue legal action.

Fox and Wright, along with the Rev. Jerry Johnston, were the main movers behind Kansas' 2005 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, civil unions and any other fair right for same-sex couples.

Yahoo reports that word of the monetary problems comes from Immanuel's Chairman of the Deacons Don James, who issued the church's first official comment about Fox' resignation this week. Yahoo also reports:

The prepared statement said witnesses testified that Fox had threatened to sue "individuals who might say anything negatively" about him and that his behavior
"reflected negatively on the Scriptural qualifications expected of a pastor."

Fox, of course, says he never threatened anyone. The Eagle reports:

The Immanuel statement says that a "careful examination of the church's financial records revealed reallocation of cooperate [sic] program funds. A portion of the reallocation was used for a radio program -- not affiliated with the church."

Cooperative program funds typically are donations used to support missions and ministries in the congregation and elsewhere.

Fox has started a new church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convenion, Summit Church, which meets in a wild west theme park in Park City, Kan., just a few miles from his old church. The new church is already taking members from Immanuel.

So ... here we have Terry Fox, who made his reputation by attacking other people for being immoral. Now, gold old Terry Fox is being attacked for lacking a grasp of some of the most basic bits of the 10 Commandments. Note that the accusations against Fox aren't coming from his political enemies, but from those who have been his friends.

I can't judge Fox, but then I don't think he has a right to judge me, and he does that over and over and over again, seeking to destroy my family for no other reason than the fact that I'm gay.

My advice to Fox is simple: Before you seek to lead others, look to yourself.

In This Moment's coverage of Terry Fox includes:

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

Integrity failures and arrogrance may have forced departure of Kansas minister Terry Fox

Anti-gay minister Terry Fox to lead new church after abruptly resigning from his old post

Kansas anti-gay pastor's exit probably wasn't "all love and understanding"

Anti-Gay Pastor Terry Fox abruptly walks away from his Kansas church

Stupid Congress Tricks: Prove you're a citizen

By Nancy Jane Moore

I woke up this morning to a news report that the Republican-controlled US House passed a bill requiring citizens to present photo IDs to vote in 2008 and proof of citizenship in 2010. The Kansas City Star reports on it here.

Proof of citizenship? Can a national ID card be next? After all, most US citizens don't have passports -- an article in the Canadian foreign policy newsweekly Embassy puts the number of US passports at 20 percent.

And how good is a birth certificate for ID really -- they don't come with pictures. It would be so much easier just to make everyone have a national ID card, with photo, social security number, RFID chip, GPS locator . . .

All my life I've heard Americans -- particularly very conservative Americans -- gasp in horror at the very idea of a national ID card. We require immigrants to carry a card showing they're allowed to be here, but if you're a citizen, you don't need to show no stinkin' ID. It's part of our heritage.

And yet here's the right wing Congress, looking to change all that, and blaming it on "voter fraud." Clearly it will disenfranchise the poor. Look at the problem with the new Medicaid rules, where they are requiring birth certificates and other proof of citizenship of people who are poor and often uneducated. There are still some people in this country who never had a birth certificate -- particularly older African Americans who were born at home in the Jim Crow South. But now an elderly woman with Alzheimer's living in a nursing home must show she's a citizen or get kicked out on the street.

Funny that they should take this vote a week or so after the Maryland primary showed up all the technical glitch problems with fancy new electronic voting machines -- the problems in wealthy, sophisticated Montgomery County, Maryland, were legion. And, of course, we all know the story of the vote counting problems in Florida in 2000 and the problems at the polls in Ohio in 2004. Even if you don't think those problems were caused by partisan officials trying to not count some votes or keep their opponents from voting, the lack of quality vote counting was a disgrace.

As computer security experts keep pointing out, many of the new electronic voting machines are not only subject to bugs and glitches, they're hackable. Here's an essay by Bruce Schneier pointing out how electronic voting should be done if it's going to fix our voting problems instead of making them worse.

No one knows how many non-citizens sneak in and vote every year, but I bet the number is minuscule. After all, look at how few citizens vote: 60 percent in the 2004 presidential election -- and that was considered a good turnout.

But the potential for real fraud from hackable voting machines is very real. And the problem of disenfranchisement by partisan election officials has already been documented.

As usual, Congress is ignoring the real problem and fixing something that doesn't need fixing. Can it be that their real goal is to keep people from voting?

National group says Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline is breaking the law

This story got lost in the shuffle, but is still worth noting. The head of a national watchdog group says Attorney General Phill Kline did break the law when he used email addresses collected by his state office to ask for campaign donations.

People submitted their email addresses in order to be kept up to date on changes in the law and programs that are part of the Attorney General's official duties. Kline used the addresses to send an email asking for donations to his re-election campaign. Harris News Service reports:

Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen in Washington, D.C., said the practice gives an unfair advantage to incumbents over their challengers, who wouldn't have access to such lists of e-mail addresses.

She also said her group was "shocked" that the state's Governmental Ethics Commission considers such e-mails permissible under state law.

Kansas revolts against George W. Bush & torture

By Diane Silver

Out here in the Heartland of America where Republicans rule and the military is worshipped, George W. Bush might be forgiven for thinking we'd happily support his push to legalize the torture of terror suspects. Bush, though, would be wrong.

As the days go by and the Congressional debate continues over Bush's torture proposals -- or as Bush calls them, his "alternative interrogation technique" proposals -- there are more and more signs that the Heartland isn't pleased with the president it elected.

Something sticks in the craw about the idea of giving up every value we've ever had, turning aside from our ideas about morality and using torture. It doesn't make us proud to be Americans. Even talking about torture eats at our souls.

More evidence of this growing revolt pops up every day.

Richard Crowson's fine cartoon in The Wichita Eagle shows one view of the Heartland revolt. I don't usually borrow such material, but it shows the mind set of many Kansans clearly. I urge you all to visit The Eagle and to check out more of Crowson's cartoons.

Meanwhile, The Eagle editorialized today wondering why Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback appears to be missing in action from the current torture debate. A deeply conservative Republican who wears his religion on his sleeve as he runs for president, Brownback has remained oddly silent. The Eagle writes:

Several leading GOP senators are taking a brave stand against the Bush administration's creeping moral relativism on torture, which threatens not only this nation's authority on human rights but also its success in the war on terror.

The outcome of this debate touches on the nation's soul, on our very identity and ideals as Americans.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., backs the president's position -- no surprise. But Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., has been mostly silent so far. Why?

Over at Rereason, blogger Mike is worrying a bit about his soul and the soul of the Republican Party. Mike bills himself as a "Kansas Sunday School teacher" and lists The Holy Bible as his first and most favorite book in his profile. Mike writes:

Many of my very best friends are Republicans. For some reason, they don't talk politics much these days.

My friends, sensible, reliable, people you would be glad to have in your home, grew up on a Republican party that stood for high moral values. The party they supported stood for fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility, small government, and maximum personal freedom.

They were from the proud tradition of Abraham Lincoln.

Theirs was not the pro-torture, pro-secret prisons party the Republicans have become. Their party would never have openly advocated the general suspension of civil liberties. Their party, somewhat isolationist, would never have supported a "pre-emptive" war.

Making the current torture debate even more tragic is the fact that many intelligence experts do not believe that torture provides accurate information. Instead, tortured people tent to say whatever they think their torturers want to hear. A discussion about the effectiveness of torture is a debate for another time, though.

Something has gone terribly wrong with this country.

Saying that does not mean I want to appease terrorists or open our borders to them. However, if we sell our souls, what will we have left to protect? We must do everything we can to keep our people and our country safe. That doesn't mean giving up our values of freedom and fairness, giving up our humanity to do it.

Torture is torture even if you call it by another name, says former President Jimmy Carter

Once again former President Jimmy Carter is engaging is some very important truth telling. Carter told Reuters this week that it's time for the Bush Administration to stop engaging in doublespeak and admit that its torturing prisoners. Reuters reports:

"They have redefined torture to make it convenient for them," Carter said of the Bush administration in an interview with Reuters.

"Things that are unanimously almost or globally assumed to be torture, they claim that this is not torture. I don't think there is any doubt that is what they are doing," said Carter, a Democrat who was president from 1977 to 1981.
...
"We've lost the support and trust and confidence and admiration that we've had for generations," Carter said, adding the administration "has stonewalled so they can continue to perpetrate this illegal punishment."

"They have obviously subverted facts, that has been proven, and subversion of the law is now becoming more and more apparent," he said, referring to the administration's repeated appeals of court rulings concerning the treatment and legal rights of prisoners at the Guantanamo prison in Cuba.

Taking Back Kansas: Newspaper says Phill Kline's church strategy calls his character into question

The Hutchinson News slammed Attorney General Phill Kline today for taking his re-election campaign into conservative churches.

Kline's church-based fund-raising strategy became known recently when a memo leaked from his campaign.

Writing from the GOP-dominated town of 40,000, The Hutchinson News notes:

The strategy clearly is church-focused, and that makes it dangerous and calls into question Kline's character as well.

Kline might be a dynamic preacher. In fact, maybe he should change professions.

But during an active campaign season is not the time to be making guest appearances at churches. And church clergy are foolish for inviting him, let alone for
organizing fundraisers and committees of volunteers.

Beyond the tax law, actually stemming from, is the bigger issue of separation of church and state. Conceptually this separation does not mean that God and faith should be purged from public life. Rather, it means that organized religion should not overn public life.

Americans respect the separation in our Constitution for good reason. It is for the good of churches, not just for a secular government. We don't want government to control the church, so we can't have the church controlling government.

Kline obviously cares more about getting re-elected than he does about respecting important constitutional principles. Even the people in the pews should recognize that Kline is not in their pulpit to inspire them spiritually - at least not foremost. He is there to raise money and get votes.

The Hutchinson News editorial comes just a few days after an organization of ministers called on fellow pastors to condemn Kline's church fundraising and said his campaign is hurting both Christianity and secular society.

Corporate America finally treats lesbians & gays fairly, but Kansas & Kansas City lag behind

[updated & corrected]

By Diane Silver

A record number of corporations are treating their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered employees fairly, the Human Rights Campaign reported today. However, HRC's 2006 Corporate Equality Index only rates three Kansas and Kansas City area companies highly.

Sprint Nextel, which has its operational headquartesr in Overland Park, Kan., received a perfect 100 percent rating from HRC. Applebee's, a restaurant chain headquartered in Overland Park, received an 80 percent rating and Hallmark Cards of Kansas City earned a 75 percent rating.

Two other Kansas City, Mo., corporations were also rated. Aquila received a 35 percent rating, while Cerner Corp. earned a 45 percent rating.

HRC's fifth annual Corporate Equality index reported that a record 138 major corporations earned their top rating of 100 percent. That is up from 101 companies earning 100 percent a year ago. That number "has grown tenfold in four years," HRC says.

HRC notes:

Indeed, this year's report found fierce competition within industries for the top rating, triggering quick actions to improve company policies and benefits at many companies. Using the CEI, companies can examine their scores in absolute terms, but also relative to their competitors. For example, last year Raytheon Co. was the only member of the aerospace industry to get a perfect score. This year, however, three of its competitors also earned 100 percent. Four other industries saw rapid growth in companies achieving the top score. A total of eight law firms, five pharmaceutical companies and five consulting houses all reached 100 percent for the first time in 2006. And, while in 2005 two major auto companies achieved the top rating, this year, that number doubled to four.

"CEOs are very much aware of their score and its impact on their business. They know that a top score means a healthier work environment, greater productivity and the ability to recruit top talent. They also know that a bad score will hurt their bottom line," (HRC President Joe) Solmonese added.

The HRC surveyed companies listed in the Fortune 1000, Standard and Poor's 500, Forbes 200 largest privately held firms, the American Lawyer 100 and any other company with 500 or more employees that requested a rating or for whom HRC had sufficient information to do a rating.

Religious Right takes aim at Kansas judges

By Diane Silver

A new Kansas political action committee is pressing judges to take stands on abortion, school funding and Christianity.

The Associated Press reports that The Kansas Judicial Review of Johnson County will use the results of questionnaires to recommend which judges it wants retained and which ones it wants booted from office.

While questionnaires are commonly used with candidates for political offices, pressing judges for their political opinions is simply wrong. It is based on a misunderstanding of a judge's role. The AP notes:

Ron Keefover, spokesman for the Kansas court system, said judges take an oath to follow the law, so their personal opinions on certain issues are essentially irrelevant. And judges who do state opinions might later have to recuse themselves from cases if a related matter comes before them, he said.

AP reports:

The questionnaire sent to eight judges include such questions as whether the abortion case Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and "Do you agree with rulings that have restricted communities from commemorating their Christian heritage?"

AP reports that The Kansas Judicial Review of Johnson County was formed in the spring and is affiliated with Kansas Judicial Watch.

Both groups want all Kansas judges to be elected. Currently, judges are elected in many counties, but in 52 counties, they are appointed by the governor and then face retention votes.

One of the hardest things about being a voter is being able to find enough accurate information about candidates. That's even harder to do with such low-profile offices as judgeships.

I can understand people's wish for information, but pressing to elect judges on the basis of political litmus tests perverts our system of justice and perverts the constitutional basis of our society.

Such judicial litmus tests also put everyone in danger. Personally, if I am ever standing before a judge, I would much prefer that she follow the law instead of her own political leanings.

Yet one more example of how banning gay marriage hurts people

Pam's House Blend brings us news of how one Wisconsin family was by laws that keep same-sex couples from marrying.

The story of Lynn and Jean and their adopted daugher Katy is told in an ad by Fair Wisconsin, which is fighting a proposed amendment banning marriage.

Pam also notes:

Democratic candidates for office and Beltway know-and-do-nothings -- you are going to have to take a position on what basic rights you feel LGBT citizens are entitled to in this country, period. Specifically what rights as an elected official, are you willing to fight for at the local, state and federal levels. We're tired of being ATMs, or having you whisper in our ears "we're with you, just be patient while I stroke this fundie over here to try and get their vote."

My comment? Here, here! Thousands of children and their parents are suffering every day because of the refusal of this country to see them as full human beings. Enough IS enough.

New toolkit helps parents & students fight back against religious attacks on schools

Hat tip to Red State Rabble for pointing us to a new online tool kit designed to help parents and students battle religious attacks on curriculum.

The toolkit is published by People for the American Way.

National Academies: Women are capable of being fine scientists and engineers, but discrimination is holding them back

By Nancy Jane Moore

The reason that there aren't more women at the top levels of science and engineering isn't lack of brainpower. It's discrimination.

So says a thorough and strong report from the National Academies -- the nonprofit associations of experts in science, engineering, and medicine -- issued Sept. 18.

Not only is this discrimination unfair and wrong, the report says, but it is also harmful to the country:

To maintain its scientific and engineering leadership amid increasing economic and educational globalization, the United States must aggressively pursue the innovative capacity of all of its people -- women and men.

And their solution isn't just to encourage young women to pursue scientific careers. In its conclusions, the report says the leadership at colleges and universities -- the presidents, the deans, the department chairs, the senior faculty -- along with the professional organizations, the honorary societies, and the federal government, must take positive action to ensure that women can develop productive careers in science and engineering.

A pulls-no-punches report like this is heady news at a time when all too many people would like to believe that all the discrimination problems in our society have been solved and that any career problems are the result of individual failure.

Here's what the report has to say to Larry Summers and all the others who have contended that women just aren't equipped with the necessary brains and drive to be good scientists:

Studies of brain structure and function, of hormonal modulation of performance, of human cognitive development, and of human evolution have not found any significant biological differences between men and women in performing science and mathematics that can account for the lower representation of women in academic faculty and scientific leadership positions in these fields. The drive and motivation of women scientists and engineers is demonstrated by those women who persist in academic careers despite barriers that disproportionately disadvantage them.

This report was put together by scientists, and it uses scientific methodology to make its case. According to the summary, the various chapters address such things as whether women are less skilled in mathematics (female performance in high school math now matches male performance, the study says) and whether women are less professionally competitive than men (the study says no).

Discrimination occurs in every field. Part of the problem is implicit bias -- most people will give men the benefit of the doubt, but not women. Another factor is that it is assumed -- without substantial evidence -- that scientists must be assertive and strong-minded, but women who display these characteristics are often cast in negative light and other factors -- such as flexibility or dedication -- are given short shrift. But it's not only these attitudes that affect women's careers -- policies that don't account for family life are also part of the problem.

I'm thrilled to see such prominent people in the sciences taking a such a strong stand for women. I hope the university leaders and others challenged by the report will take it seriously and begin to follow its suggestions.

The full report -- Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering -- is quite lengthy. I've only read the summary and the press release. But the whole work is available for your perusal.

You can purchase a copy of the full report or browse through sections for free in open book format here.

The press release summarizing the report is here.

Both The Washington Post and The New York Times ran online stories on this report on Monday.

Lesbians & gays in Rural Kansas: "We just want equal footing."

By Diane Silver

We are everywhere; I mean everywhere in Kansas. In fact, there are lesbians and gays in every one of the 105 counties in this state.

That's the word from the U.S. Census and a Hutchinson News story detailing the lives of lesbians and gays in rural, southwestern Kansas.

Noting that compromises sometimes have to be made, the average Kansans interviewed in this article do a good job of talking about life as a lesbian or gay person living in Garden City, on a ranch and in small towns in the area.

One person interviewed was Anne Mitchell, chair of the Southwestern Kansas chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition. Anne ranches with her life partner.

For her part, Mitchell notes that gay people have the same concerns as anyone else - taxes, bad roads, jobs - and just wishes the public at large could look beyond their sexuality.

"We're not to be feared," she said. "We just want equal footing."

The torture debate may signal the death of the American Dream

By Diane Silver

I don't know about you, but I feel like it's getting increasingly difficult to figure out whether we still have the right to call ourselves Americans.

After all, Congress is currently tied up in a debate over torture. We have a president who believes that torture is the only way we can defeat terrorists. Oh, and President George W. Bush has a fondness for engaging in doublespeak tactics right out of Big Brother and the novel 1984 when he politely calls torture nothing more than an "alternative" interrogation method.

Even Colin Powell, Bush's former secretary of state, says Bush's rush to redefine Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions and thus legalize torture is a horrible idea. However, there is a real chance that Congress might go along with the president. Even if Congress doesn't, the mere idea that an American president would push torture is appalling.

Who are we becoming?

What kind of monster is the United States turning into?

What happens to the American Dream if Bush succeeds?

Is the American Dream merely the "dream" that everybody and anybody can make money and be materially secure?

Silly me. I always thought the American Dream was about far more than a fat paycheck. I thought the American Dream was about respect for the individual and human rights for all.

I'm not even going to talk about how there is a serious question about whether torture even works to produce accurate information. I'm not going to talk about how we've lost the moral high ground and hurt our effort to fight terrorism by engaging in torture.

I'm just going to ask: What kind of country do you want to live in?

I'm a Baby Boomer and came of age during the Vietnam War. I protested the war and always thought of myself as a pacifist. When my son was born, though, I realized that if anyone ever threatened to hurt him, I'd fight to the death to defend him.

Love and kisses isn't always the answer to an attack on our country, but then again, neither is turning ourselves into the enemy. If we lose what makes us, well, us, then Osama bin Laden has won.

Both The Washington Post and The New York Times published columns today that do a good job of discussing the issue.

The Washington Post published an op-ed column by Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, that outlines the real, human costs of these alternative interrogations.

The New York Times has a great column from Paul Krugman. I'm going to quote extensively from the column because it is behind the newspaper's, maddening paywall.

So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?

To show that it can.

The central drive of the Bush administration -- more fundamental than any particular policy -- has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president's power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it's a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they're asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary.

And many of our politicians are willing to go along. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is poised to vote in favor of the administration's plan to, in effect, declare torture legal. Most Republican senators are equally willing to go along, although a few, to their credit, have stood with the Democrats in opposing the administration.

Mr. Bush would have us believe that the difference between him and those opposing him on this issue is that he's willing to do what's necessary to protect America, and they aren't. But the record says otherwise.

The fact is that for all his talk of being a "war president," Mr. Bush has been conspicuously unwilling to ask Americans to make sacrifices on behalf of the cause -- even when, in the days after 9/11, the nation longed to be called to a higher purpose. His admirers looked at him and thought they saw Winston Churchill. But instead of offering us blood, toil, tears and sweat, he told us to go shopping and promised tax cuts.

Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice.

And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect.

Taking Back Kansas: Ministers condemn Phill Kline's church-based fundraising as idolatry

By Diane Silver

Saying that Attorney General Phill Kline should be ashamed, an organization of Kansas clergy has declared that his plan to press congregations for political donations breaks both secular and religious law.

In a statement issued this weekend, Mainstream Voices of Faith reacted to a memo that detailed Kline's plan to appear in church pulpits and then press congregations for cash for his re-election campaign. The statement said (with added emphasis from me):

We, the undersigned clergy persons and religious leaders, are incensed by the recent memorandum that was leaked from Attorney General Phill Kline's office...

It is evident that in his quest to garner contributions and votes from conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist congregations, Kline has asked churches to walk dangerously close to the line drawn by the Internal Revenue Service that prohibits nonprofit organizations from supporting political candidates. In fact, Kline has asked them to cross that line...

Does not asking pastors to identify the five members of their congregations with the deepest pockets and assembling groups of lay people to be campaign workers constitute a blatant violation of IRS Code Section 501(c)3? The Attorney General of the State of Kansas, of all people, should know better.

The ministers said they were also furious that the in-church political activities of Kline and others on the Religious Right make "a mockery of our churches."

The statement noted:

Shame on Phill Kline for exploiting communities of faith for political gains. His modus operandi is apparent when one compares the image of the incumbent who altruistically seeks to convey his faith story (albeit with congregations comprised of parishioners more likely to agree with his political stances) with the image of the candidate who cautions his staff that, once he shares the Good News, to "Get me out . . .I am spending too long at these events."

Regardless of which side of the aisle one worships God from, dressing a political campaign in the wool of Christian witness makes a mockery of our churches and a charade of our political system. It may mask the identity of the wolf beneath, but its howl is quite distinguishable.

The ministers called on Christians to "not be deceived by those who seek your endorsement under the guise of spiritual righteousness, but lull you into idolatry."

Their hands may be on The Bible when they stand in your pulpits, but their eyes are focused solely on the polls.

Among those signing the statement is the Rev.John Tamilio, minister of Colonial Church in Prairie Village and co-chair of the Mainstream Voices of Faith steering committee.

Other ministers and religious leaders can sign the statement by visiting the organization's web site.

Mainstream Voices of Faith is a program of the MAINstream Coalition.