Where was Barack Obama? Where was Hillary Clinton?

By Nancy Jane Moore

There was one question that we kept asking over and over at the Janurary 27 antiwar rally and march in Washington, D.C.:

Where are the members of Congress and the presidential candidates?

According to the website for United for Peace and Justice -- the coalition that organized the march -- the only members of Congress on the speakers' list were Reps. John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, and Lynn Woolsey.

Where were Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards? For that matter, why didn't Republican Sens. John Warner or Chuck Hagel drop by? Opposing the war is fast becoming a bipartisan activity.

Given the current poll numbers, I doubt it's even risky for politicians to be seen talking to the antiwar movement these days. So why didn't more of them come out and take a stand? So far all they've done -- despite the November elections -- is introduce wimpy little non-binding resolutions against the troop surge.

And, after all, the folks who turned out for this event are voters and the kind of people who will work their hearts out for a political campaign. They came from all across the country. They ranged in age from tiny kids to great grandparents. They included military families and Iraq veterans against the war, as well as the usual array of radical groups on the left, and a lot of very ordinary people who are just tired of the war.

They -- we -- were all hungry for some kind of sign that Congress is listening -- we know Bush can't be bothered. But only a few of our elected reps bothered to show up.

One of the better events of the day was a group of well-dressed protestors wearing nametags symbolizing various senators standing on the steps of the Senate Office Building. They made the absence of the real thing obvious.

As marches go, this one was pretty sedate, though definitely large. The Washington Post and The New York Times both hedged their bets by saying "tens of thousands" of protestors, but unquestionably the number was well over a hundred thousand. (Organizers threw around figures of 400,000, but I think that's overstated.)

The original parade route was very odd. We started on the west side of the Capitol Building, and were supposed to walk halfway around the building -- over to East Capitol Street -- and then turn around and walk back the same way. However, when we got around to the other side of the Capitol, the route had been changed, and we all continued on down to Independence Avenue. In the end, the march circled the Capitol.

I don't know why the route changed, but I suspect it was because more people showed up than the police originally expected and they decided it was going to cause too much chaos for us to double back.

Probably the best group out there were the Radical Cheerleaders of DC, a group of (mostly) young women dressed in red who did chants and routines. I found them inspiring -- We need more people with their imagination and energy. Just marching and waving signs isn't enough to get people excited.

The 9/11 Truth group pressed for a real investigation of the events of Sept. 11. Even if you don't agree with some of their conspiracy theories, it's pretty obvious that all the odd circumstances from that date have not been properly investigated. We never seem to really look into crises that hit this country. Are we that afraid of finding the truth?

I was pretty disgusted by the Green Party, who seemed to be using the march to promote their own agenda. They even had a chant about there being no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Sorry, but after six years of Bush, that dog don't hunt.

And there were the usual variety of old line socialist groups and other organizations that don't seem to have changed much in the last forty years. Their rhetoric hasn't changed either. When someone throws around the word "imperialism," I quit listening -- and I actually agree with them that the US is acting like the classic 800 pound gorilla in conducting foreign policy.

A group of marching Buddhists, who beat drums and chanted, were a nice contrast to the politicos.

It would have been nice to have more people -- numbers do make a difference. It would have been nice if we'd all had the energy of the Radical Cheerleaders. It would have been nice if more of the speakers had possessed the charisma and speaking ability to get the crowded excited.

But what would really be nice would be if Congress showed that it heard what we had to say. And acted on it.

Preferably next week.

Kansas: The bell rings on Phill Kline vs. his own staff, round 437, on Monday at 3 p.m.

By Diane Silver

I'll admit that calling this "round 437" is a tad of an exaggeration, but the ongoing saga of Phill Kline's political resurrection and its aftermath sure seems to be lasting that long.

Next up is a hearing in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan. The purpose of said hearing is to determine if the employment rules apply to ole' Phill, or whether he is above, ah, the law.

In this case, the law consists of the rules and procedures for firing employees in Johnson County. Despite the fact that the county pays Kline's salary as the new DA, Kline is arguing that he is above county rules. The controversy surrounds Kline's firing of eight employees almost within minutes of taking over as county DA.

The employees are demanding that Kline actually fire them for cause and give them grievance hearings, as required by county rules

KC Buzz Blog has links to both Kline and the fired employees' filings here and here.

You know Bush is hurting when the Kansas Senate talks about opposing the push in Iraq

By Diane Silver

I never thought I'd see the day when Bush country starts talking about seriously opposing anything involving George W's War. But, friends, that day has come, and it has arrived in the Kansas Senate.

The Lawrence Journal-World reports:

State Sen. Donald Betts, D-Wichita, filed a resolution that would put Kansas lawmakers on record of being opposed to Bush’s call for 21,500 more troops in Iraq.

At a minimum, the resolution states, Bush should seek approval from Congress before sending more troops, and that Congress should prohibit the president from spending taxpayer dollars on an escalation in Iraq without his first seeking congressional approval.

“We are sending 18- and 19-year-olds, at the start of their lives, to Iraq, and they are not coming home,” Betts said. The war has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers with more than 22,000 wounded.

Yes, the resolution is coming from a Democrat, and it is possible (likely even) that the Republican-dominated state Senate won't let this resolution come up for a vote. But honestly... I've never seen a proposal like this in the Kansas Legislature before.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, though. Bush's approval rating is at a woeful 40 percent in Kansas as measured in a Jan. 12-14 poll taken by Survey USA.

Meanwhile, Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has a 69 percent approval rating in a poll taken by the same organization over the same time period.

Congress must act, because Bush is staying the course

By Nancy Jane Moore

Among the political emails I got yesterday was one asking me to write Bush and urge him to rethink his troop surge in Iraq.

Senators -- including some prominent Republicans like John Warner of Virginia -- are introducing resolutions opposing the troop build up and urging the president to reconsider.

But while these are not bad things to do -- it is a fundamental right and duty of people to let their leader know they oppose his actions -- they are also a waste of time.

Bush isn't listening.

He already knows that most of us disagree with his policies and he has made it clear every time he opens his mouth we're supposed to just shut up and let him do what he wants. He isn't going to change his mind, no matter how many times someone gives him facts that contradict his plan, no matter how many other countries hate us, no matter how many US citizens object to his policies, no matter how many Iraqis die, no matter how many US soldiers die or end up seriously disabled from their injuries.

We can't waste time pleading with Bush. We can't change his mind.

But what we can do -- or rather, what Congress can do -- is rein him in.

So focus your efforts on Congress. Demand that they do more than pass nonbinding resolutions. They have the power and they need to take it back.

Some members of Congress -- and some in the Democratic Party -- are probably content to sit back and watch Bush slowly deteriorate, setting up the 2008 election. But the country can't wait that long. We need action now.

I hope Congress is listening.

"Delusional Hedgehog" -- Three interesting takes on Bush's State of the Union

There's no point in my analyzing Bush's State of the Union speech when so many others have done such an excellent job.

Harold Meyerson in The Washington Post wins my prize for best metaphor: He calls Bush "a delusional hedgehog who knows one thing that isn't so." A hedgehog, in the classic analysis by the political philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin, is one who has a "single central vision." You can work out from that what happens if the hedgehog is delusional.

Juan Cole deftly rips apart everything Bush said about Iraq and terrorism.

And The New York Times published a blistering editorial this morning -- actually, it went up online about an hour after the speech. It ended with these choice words:

Say what you will about the flaws and shortcomings of the two-party system. After six years of the Bush presidency, at least we know it’s a lot better than the one-party system.

Too bad it took six years for enough people to recognize the problem. Now we've got to figure out how to fix it -- preferably before Jan. 20, 2009.

From Kansas: The real state of the union, or why I won't watch George W. Bush tonight

By Diane Silver

I have had enough of being preached to by a man who:

* Believes that "reality" and "facts" are swear words;

* Never had to live paycheck to paycheck;

* Never faced a bill he couldn't pay;

* Never had to spend a second outside of the warm embrace of his father's money and the "gold-plated" health insurance that is only available to the rich;

* Never went to war, yet doesn't seem to hesitate to send other people off to kill, be wounded or die; (Please don't point out Bush's "service" in the Texas National Guard. Bush was never even close to being in the line of fire, and he knew he wouldn't be when he joined the National Guard, since the Guard generally didn't go off to fight at that time.)

* Thinks that being stubborn is more important than being right;

* Believes the American people and our wishes are mere jokes to be ignored.

Oh, I'll read the newspaper accounts and the analyses of Bush's speech. I'll go through Bush's proposals in detail, and I might even comment on them later.

After his plan to escalate in Iraq and the way he turned his back on the results of the election, though, I believe there is only one proper response to Bush tonight. It's time -- it's more than time -- for us to turn our collective backs on him.

What am I going to do tonight? Read a book, maybe watch a little non-Bush TV. What about you?
-----------

Thanks so much, Nancy, for the great post on Bush's alleged health-care proposal.

Note that the above photo is of Bush giving a State of the Union address in 2003. May the current Democrat-dominated Congress do a better job of standing up to our bully-in-chief than that GOP-run Congress did.

Bush demonstrates that he doesn't understand the health care problem

By Nancy Jane Moore

According to various news reports (here's The Washington Post summary), Bush wants to "solve" the health care problem in this country by allowing people who pay for their own insurance to deduct that cost on their taxes.

Now I don't particularly object to such a tax break -- it seems reasonable to me to allow folks to deduct the cost of expensive, but necessary, services on their taxes -- but I'll leave it to the tax policy wonks to debate whether this is a good idea from a tax and public policy point of view.

The trouble with this proposal is that it doesn't even begin to solve the health care problem. Tax breaks can't help you save enough money to pay for health insurance if you're in a low tax bracket. And most of the people who need health insurance don't pay a lot of taxes (except for social security taxes, which won't be affected by this).

And then Bush wants to tax employees who get employer-provided health coverage that costs more than a certain minimum -- $7,500/year for singles. Speaking as someone who has decent employer-provided health insurance (though it certainly isn't "gold-plated"), let me point out that good policies are the result of trade-offs. They keep people from leaving for other jobs, which is a boon for employers. And employees are generally willing to forego some increases in pay to keep good benefits. Once again, Bush wants to shift taxes to the middle class to help the poor -- he'll do anything to keep giving tax cuts to his wealthy friends.

Here's another little glitch in the Bush plan. The New York Times reports that he wants to take federal money away from hospitals -- especially public hospitals -- and give it to the states to help them provide insurance for their citizens. That is, no net increase in money. I'm not sure what he expects the hospitals to do: Raise rates? Get more tax dollars from the state (leading to a tax increase, but not a federal tax increase)? Go out of business? Now there's a good solution to the health care problem: Put hospitals out of business.

I know Bush isn't listening -- he prides himself on not listening -- but for those who are paying attention, here are the health care issues that we need to address:

• Health insurance is expensive -- even if you're young and healthy and covered by a group plan, it's hard to pay for it unless you make a good salary. There's no way to pay for it if you're earning minimum wage -- or even double the minimum wage.
• Health insurance plans are over-complicated -- it's hard to figure out what services are covered and plans often refuse to pay for covered services unless you put up a fight.
• The cost of medical care for serious illness or injury is so high that most people cannot afford it without a decent health insurance policy.
• Individuals with any kind of health problems cannot get affordable coverage -- and sometimes cannot get any coverage at all -- unless they happen to qualify for a group plan.

There are other issues -- as Paul Krugman frequently points out on the op-ed pages of The New York Times, the administrative cost of our health insurance mish-mash is considerably more expensive than government-provided systems in other countries. (We may criticize them for being bureaucratic, but apparently they aren't as bureaucratic as the private health insurers in this country.) Many insurers don't cover the kind of preventative care services that keep people from getting really sick -- such as nutrition counseling for diabetics.

And for those of you who like to look at things from a business point of view: Toyota ended up putting a new car plant in Canada, rather than in the US, because it doesn't have to provide health insurance in Canada, which has a decent system. I suspect other businesses are making similar calls.

The core problem is that health insurance -- and therefore health care -- is expensive, complicated, and difficult to get unless you're young and healthy or come under a group plan.

Tinkering with the tax code isn't going to solve any of that.

Kansas Equality Coalition state meeting is set for this Saturday; Lawrence annual meeting is coming soon

The Kansas Equality Coalition's annual statewide meeting is set for this Saturday in Wichita beginning at 11 a.m. More details are available at the coalition's web site.

The Lawrence Chapter's annual meeting will be held Feb. 18 at the Lawrence Public Library. With the City Comission heading toward passage of a domestic partner registry, this should be a good meeting to attend. More details are here.

Kansans: Save February 22 to lobby the Legislature for fair laws for all

By Diane Silver

The Kansas Equality Coalition will be holding its first lobby day at the Statehouse in Topeka on Feb. 22.

All fair minded Kansans are welcome to join the event. The coalition has reserved the south steps and first floor of the Statehouse for a rally, lobby day, and table exhibit.

"All KEC chapters and several of our allies will have tables, and will be available to talk to legislators about the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination, and why passage of these protections is about fairness for all Kansans," said Tom Witt, chair of the coalition.

I'll be there. Will you?

Senate committee introduces bill to protect Kansans against discrimination based on sexual orientation

By Diane Silver

I'm catching up on a few news items that have slipped through the cracks while I was busy elsewhere.

First up is the good news that the Kansas Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee has voted to introduce a bill banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in Kansas. The committee vote was by voice and unanimous.

"This is a proud day for all of you who have worked hard to build the Kansas Equality Coalition from the disaster of the marriage amendment," Tom Witt, chair of the Equality Coalition, said in an e-mail to coalition members and supporters. "Not quite two years ago, we were dispirited and angry, seemingly unable to come together for our common good. With your efforts, we have all found our way to unity and purpose, and to a positive struggle for equal rights.

"The work is not done. In fact, we have barely started. While getting our bill introduced is a great accomplishment, our ultimate goal is to get it all the way through the legislative process to the Governor's desk, where our hope is it will be signed into law. To make this a reality, it will take the work of all of us pulling together to press for passage. Every Kansas Equality Coalition member can do her or his part."

Tom suggests that the best way to help are to donate to the coalition's lobby fund and to talk to your state senator or representative. Jim Yonally, former 14th District representative, is working as the coalition's full-time lobbyist at the Statehouse.

If you don't know who your state representatives and senators are, contact Tom with your address by writing to him at Chair@KansasEqualityCoalition.org. You can also search the Kansas Legislature's web site.

The bill defines "sexual orientation as 'male or female heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality by inclination, practice or expression; or having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s gender.'"

Next up for the measure is a trip to the Legislative Revisor's office where it will be drafted into formal language. After that committee hearings are expected. Approval by the committee would send the bill to the full Senate and then, if approved, over to the state House of Representatives.

Taking care of yourself and acting in the world

I had a massage and it made me think about the balance between taking care of yourself and acting in the world. Continue reading on Becoming the Change.

This weekend is for family & celebrating an incredible woman

By Diane Silver

I'm posting just to let you all know that I'm taking the weekend off for family and to participate in the official celebration of my mother's 80th birthday. Great fun is being had by all, and we are all thrilled to have been lucky enough to have the wonderful Joan Silver be part of our lives.

Kansas: Gary wins for the most outrageous and relevant comment of the month!

By Diane Silver

I don't usually feature comments on the front page of this blog, but this is too wonderful to ignore. In response to my post about how the Kansas Governmental Commission cleared former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline by declaring that all citizen information is public record, Gary Bachman suggested:

If you don't like the Kansas Government Ethics Commission's decision allowing a political campaign to download e-mail addresses from a computer in the State Attorney Generals Office, try the following:

Hold your legislators accountable. Drive to Topeka. Bring along your own personal portable usb memory stick. And perhaps a written copy of the commissions determination. Then drop in on your state legislator. (They are all your public officials regardless of where you live and the district they represent.)

Maybe start with the folks from the ethics committee. Politely but firmly announce that you wish to download all of the e-mail addresses recorded in their (state owned / public property) computer e-mail program. Be sure to be on the look out for multiple computers too!

Ask for access to all the computers not just the representatives or their clerks. (what about blackberrys & palms?) Offer to wait.

And do. Consider bringing a thermos and a sack lunch. And smile a lot. If you have to wait long, maybe chat on the cell phone with your friends. Or talk radio. Or the newspaper. (bring your charger) Is the capital set up for wireless internet? BLOG! Share your story as you wait. And oh what the hell, offer to share your lunch too!

And remember in the name of energy conservation - CAR POOL! Bring your friends and spread out through the building. Hit the legislature first. Then the governors office, The Attorney General office, cross the street to the justice building and the Docking complex, hit the department of motor vehicle, the state income tax office, SRS, the KBI, and Corrections.

Hey, have fun with this, knock on random doors and always be polite. When people deny you, nod agreeably, ask their name, confirm the spelling, jot it down in a little black book, say thank you and walk on. If the police ask you to leave, smile politely,write down their name and badge number and comply. (If they want to take you into the police station, politely ask if you can download the information from thir computers. I think they have computers in their cars now, don't forget them.) Stay on message. There is no such thing as privacy anymore.

Well done, Gary!

Now, if anyone tries this, please let me know.

What amazes me is that the mainstream media appear to have either buried this angle or ignored it. Either I've got this wrong -- and yes, I admit that I'm not infallible -- or the infamous MSM are missing the story.

Oh yeah, Phill Kline getting cleared of breaking Kansas' flimsy ethics law is news. More newsworthy, though, is the issue of privacy, which the commission claims Kansans don't have once they have contacted a state agency.

If I'm wrong, I will happily correct this post. Have I goofed, or are reporters missing something a tad significant?

Good news for all of Kansas: Lawrence domestic partner registry may be open to couples from anywhere

By Diane Silver

Lawrence city staff are using a Cleveland Heights, Ohio, ordinance as a model for the Kansas town's proposed domestic partner registry.

If City Commissioners adopt all of the Cleveland Heights plan, then same-sex couples from any town in Kansas, or the rest of the nation, will be able to register as domestic partners in Lawrence. This is good news for couples outside of Lawrence who want access to their employer's domestic partner benefits or proof of their relationship for other purposes.

Word on the plan's details came yesterday from Maggie Childs, president of the Lawrence Chapter of The Kansas Equality Coalition.

The Cleveland Heights plan has survived a court challenge, which claimed the city exceeded its home rule authority. The plan also remains in effect despite Ohio's passage of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions.

To register as a domestic partner under this plan, a couple -- whether same-sex or heterosexual -- must pay a fee and:

• share a common residence, agree to be in a relationship of mutual interdependence,
• not be married to a third individual or a member of a civil union or domestic partnership with a third individual,
• be 18 years of age or older,
• not be related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to one another in this state, and
• both sign the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form to be filed with the City.

Lawrence also plans to exempt registered domestic partners from the city's limit on the number of unrelated people who can live together in a rental unit.

More details on how Cleveland Heights runs its registry and examples of their forms are available on the city's web site.

Once the Lawrence proposal is drafted, it will be sent to Attorney General Paul Morrison for his review.

Stay tuned to In This Moment for updates. More of my coverage on the registry can be found here and here.

The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission gives Phill Kline a win & sets an awful precedent

By Diane Silver

The state's ethics commission ruled yesterday that then Attorney General Phill Kline didn't violate the law when his staff copied a list of emails and used them for a campaign mailing.

The unanimous ruling dealt only with whether or not Kline's staff used a state computer to do the copying. On the real issue - of whether this should be public information -- the commission declared that anytime people give their names and addresses to the state, anyone else can get access to that information.

What a truly horrible idea. Is this true of those who report child abuse or of people blowing the whistle on a problem in state government?

The state ethics commission has now taken this issue beyond Kline and made it a concern for everyone. In essence, what the commission seems to be saying is that I or anyone else can get access to your personal information if you contact state government. How can that be a good idea?

The Lawrence Journal-World reported:

"I'm disappointed, but it's up to the commission to interpret the law," said commission attorney Donna Voth.

However, Rep. Tom Sawyer, D-Wichita, said the law should be rewritten in response to the commission's decision.

"Clearly, when people are e-mailing state agencies, they're not expecting that person to turn their names into campaign lists," said Sawyer, the ranking Democrat on the House Elections and Governmental Organization Committee. "It's just wrong, if it technically violates the law or not. If it doesn't technically violate the law, we need to change the law."

We must do more than talk; we must act

By Pamela K. Taylor

Last year I wrote an essay for the NPR Program, This I Believe, about the challenges of acting on deeply held, but very controversial beliefs. In my case, it was giving the sermon and leading the prayers for a mixed-gender congregation in a mosque.

Read more at Becoming The Change.

Could Barack Obama be the real thing, or is he just another disappointment?

By Diane Silver

I am starving for politics that go beyond conservative or liberal, left or right. I am starving for politicians who care more about good government than power. I am desperate for leaders who have dealt with enough of their own hang-ups to act authentically and courageously.

Yesterday, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama announced that he is forming a committee to explore running for president. Is he as good as he seems at first glance, or is he just another fraud?

Read more at Becoming The Change.

Enough is enough! March on Washington Jan. 27 for an end to the war in Iraq

By Diane Silver

Here's an important story that both the mainstream media and blogosphere appear to be ignoring: United for Peace and Justice is organizing a march on Washington for Jan. 27.

It's time to call an end to the Iraq War and to George Bush's escalation. It's time to stop waiting for Congress, and it's long past time to stop waiting for Bush to come to his senses.

More information on the march is here.

Founded in 2002, United for Peace and Justice is a coalition of more than 1,300 local and national groups throughout the United States who have joined together to protest the Iraq War and to "oppose our government's policy of permanent warfare and empire-building."

Kansas: As district attorney, Phill Kline says he's above the law -- or at least the rules

[updated 7:30 a.m. 1/17/07]

By Diane Silver

The dispute between new Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline and the eight employees he fired on his first day on the job is going to court.

The KC Star reports that the seven prosecutors and chief investigator filed by Kline filed suit against the new DA today in Johnson County District Court.

What's really curious about this situation is that Kline claims that he is above the rules of the county, which declare that employees can only be fired for cause. Unlike his predecesser, Paul Morrison, Kline believes he can ignore rules and guidelines. All of which leads me to wonder if one of the county's chief law enforcement officers also believes he is above the law.

The Star explains:

In a letter to (county) commissioners Friday, Kline said state statute designates him as an executive officer of the 10th judicial district. Under the statute, the letter states, his office is considered “a separate entity within said district for administrative purposes.” In addition, the letter said, a district attorney is not bound by a county’s personnel policies or rules.

As always with this darling of the religious right, the story never seems to end. Stay tuned.

[Update]

This news doesn't deserve an entire post to itself because it's a kinda yes-kinda no, ah, kinda thing. A Johnson County district judge has ordered Kline to participate in the county's normal grievance procedure and to actually go to grievance hearings with his fired employees. (That's the good new.) However, that order is on hold until a hearing can be held by another judge on Tuesday. (Not so good.)

Once again, stay tuned for further developments.

If we are going to change the world, we have to throw out our old ideas about news

By Diane Silver

In my first post at Becoming The Change, I talked about how one of the routine chores of this blog will be to look at the news from a changemaker's perspective.

The next thought that popped into my head, of course, was: So, what the heck IS a changemaker's perspective?

Read more...

The problem with water & why "Becoming The Change" exists

By Diane Silver

We are all fish, swimming in the water of our culture, and frankly, that is a huge problem. For more, check out the inaugural post of Becoming The Change.

A New Venture: The Hope & Politics Group

By Diane Silver

I'm pleased to announce that we're starting a new venture in this corner of the Internet where hope and politics collide.

Today we're launching the first in what I hope will soon become a larger group of blogs. Together these blogs will be known, not surprisingly, as The Hope & Politics Group.

For those of you who are fans of In This Moment, don't worry. Nothing will change, except that you should soon be seeing more posts.

In This Moment will continue to feature original commentary and news from myself, Nancy Jane Moore and Pamela K. Taylor. However, In This Moment will also feature short descriptions and links to posts on the other blogs in the group. We plan to work this a bit like Josh Marshall does Talking Points Memo, which serves as a central home for several other blogs in his group. To put it another way, In This Moment will act as a clearinghouse for all the blogs in the Hope & Politics group.

The first blog to join the group is called Becoming The Change.

This is my baby because it explores an idea dear to my heart -- the idea that we can create a world based on authenticity, fairness, kindness, respect for others and peace. Becoming The Change is a political blog and community for people who refuse to bow to "realism." This is a home for dreamers, a place to get news, resources and create connections for those who can both envision this world and take action to create it.

Becoming The Change has been heavily influenced by Michael Lerner's The Left Hand of God and Paul Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson's Cultural Creatives.

As I see how this new blog goes, I hope to eventually add a blog called The Equality Post, which will focus on the struggle for fair laws for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people, and The Truth About Kansas, which will focus on heartland politics and happenings.

At some point, I expect that we will be adding advertising. I know that some people hate this, but the hard truth is that the more money we all make off blogging, the more time we can spend doing it.

Nancy Jane is on the radio today

By Nancy Jane Moore

I'm going to be on the radio today, reading a short essay called "I Believe in Fiction." It will air during the 11 AM ET hour on WETA-FM (90.9 FM) in metropolitan Washington, D.C., on the local program "The Intersection."

WETA is streamed online. The Intersection website also provides a podcast of the show and the opportunity to listen to individual segments after the show airs.

My essay is also on The Intersection website as a pdf file.

The gist of my essay is that fiction is important in helping us make sense of our lives and the world we live in. If you get a chance to listen or to read the essay, please feel free to comment here.

Thinking about Dr. King

By Nancy Jane Moore

My freshman year college roommate had a 7:30 class Thursday mornings. She also had a bad habit of waking up before her clock radio went off and heading out to the bathroom, so that I was frequently awakened by the news.

Which is how I learned, on April 5, 1968, that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated.

I can still remember how stunned I felt. I got up -- no thought of going back to sleep -- and went up the hall to the bathroom to tell my roommate. It had all happened the night before, but we weren't news junkies back in those days.

My biology professor canceled class, leaving us a message that we should think seriously about what had happened. I recall taking the bus to Houston that afternoon -- it was the beginning of spring break -- still in a state of shock.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that someone would kill Dr. King. In fact, it is probably more amazing that he wasn't murdered earlier. But even though I knew about lynchings and the violent attacks against Civil Rights marchers and even though I had been profoundly affected by the assassination of President Kennedy some four and half years earlier, Dr. King's death caught me completely off guard.

I didn't grow up in the deep South, in the part of the country where the worst battles of the Civil Rights Movement were fought. But in my hometown outside of Houston, Jim Crow still held sway despite Supreme Court rulings: I went to segregated schools until I was a senior in high school.

Yet today we have a federal holiday in honor of Dr. King. And -- as is often the case with people who are honored after their deaths -- we seem to pretend as a society that he was never a controversial figure. Every Jan. 15, radio stations will play his "I Have a Dream" speech and most of us will nod in agreement while listening to his stunning oratory.

But while bigotry might have been on its way out at the time of his death, it had by no means disappeared. Further, he had begun to speak out against the Vietnam War, which did not endear him to a president who had pushed through the Civil Rights Act. He was in Memphis, where he was shot, to help garbage workers who were on strike. Many thought he should not be trying to organize poor people; perhaps some feared that he might have some success at bringing together the poor across racial lines.

He was, in short, a thorn in the side of those in power to the end of his days. If he were still with us today, I suspect he would still be making trouble.

There were riots in 1968 after Dr. King was killed. Here in Washington, people who go back that far speak of the 1968 riots as a major changing point in the city. Many blighted neighborhoods date from that time -- most are just now being rebuilt. A lot of white people left the city.

I didn't move to Washington until 1980, and like most newcomers to a city, I have tended to assume it was always the way it seemed when I first moved to town. Riots and white flight seemed like a thing of the distant past -- even when they occurred at the time I was reeling from the shock of Dr. King's death. It's hard to keep all that in perspective.

But I think it about it now, because I live in a primarily black neighborhood that was mostly white before the 1968 riots. My next door neighbors were the first black family in the neighborhood -- they moved here in 1961. I know white people in nearby suburbs who grew up in this part of town. And, knowing the history, I know when they left.

I've lived here for 15 years. In the last couple of years, I've noticed a few more white people living in the area and Hispanic families are also moving in. Today's Washington Post speculates that Georgia Avenue (a couple of blocks away) may finally experience a long-awaited renaissance.

I know some Washingtonians worry that neighborhoods like mine will become all-white again, but I hope they won't. I hope this neighborhood and the others like it will gradually become more mixed. And even though I -- like most Americans -- would like to make a bundle off my house when it comes time to sell, I hope the neighborhood stays affordable. Ideally, children of all races and backgrounds would grow up around here, play together, go to school together, date and marry and raise more children in similar circumstances.

And while I'd also like to hope that our country will eventually live up to the ideals set out in our Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, current events lead me to believe that we will always need outspoken leaders who challenge injustice in our society the way Dr. King did.

It would be a nice legacy for him if some of the children in our neighborhood grow up to become thorns in the side of the powerful.

Kansas: Phill Kline neglects the rulebook & gets in hot water during his 1st week as DA

By Diane Silver

While I was busy with the dentist, freshly anointed Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline was stirring up trouble in his new job.

Apparently, when Kline cleaned house this week and booted out a bunch of experienced prosecutors and investigative staff, he neglected to read the county employee's manual, or perhaps he read it and ignored it. Either way, when Kline fired eight staffers, he may well have violated county rules, which state that such staff can only be fired for cause.

Being told they only had hours to clean out their desks made these staff a tad testy, and they proceeded to file a grievance against Kline. The County Commission proceeded to then say that Kline had until noon today to say if he would participate in grievance hearings, which apparently is the normal procedure in the county. At noon, Kline's reply was: No.

What happens next appears uncertain. One newspaper report says that the whole case could go to the Kansas attorney general, who is of course, Paul Morrison, who whopped Kline in the November election. One report says that the next move is up to the angry ex-employees.

Stay tuned.

Here are the latest news reports.

Kline says no

Kline ignored county rules, and fired employees say that criminals will profit

A Kansas City Star columnist says there's too much hysteria over Kline's firings

Personally, I sort of, but don't quite agree with columnist Mike Hendricks. Yes, it is normal for a new administration to bring in its own people, but shouldn't a DA have some respect for rules?

Friends in Johnson County claim that some of those fired were in the middle of trials, or that at the very least, trials were suspended for a day because no one knew who was going to get fired. Does anyone know if any of that is true? If it is, that is also cause for concern.

And finally, Kline's huge DA salary is again under fire.

This week in Kansas: The Lawrence GLBT community has high hopes for domestic partner registry

By Diane Silver

Information about the proposed domestic partner registry is in danger of getting crowded out by our Iraq commentaries. I'm posting links to the two most recent posts, which include information from Tuesday's City Commission meeting. I plan to have more this weekend.

As far as I know right now, we're still in a holding pattern, waiting for the city to draft the ordinance and to send it to the attorney general for review. I'll let you know as soon as I learn of a change.

Here are the most recent posts on the subject.

A brief outline of how a domestic partner registry could work in Lawrence

Lawrence poised to approve domestic partner registry

Ouch! Ugh. Yuck.

By Diane Silver

Many apologies for our silence over the last couple of days. My blogging partners have been tied up, and as for myself, well... When I went into the dentist on Thursday to see about a sore tooth, 10 minutes turned a root canal and almost two hours in the dentist's chair. Ugh. Seriously, ugh. It's the second time I've had a root canal, and that is not something that gets better with age.

Meanwhile, I'm going to catch up on some of what we missed by posting a few headlines.

From Kansans who lost a son in Iraq: Bring our troops home

By Diane Silver

Today as we waited for President Bush's speech about Iraq, I received a copy of the following letter in my hopeandpolitics email. The letter touched me with its honesty, its grief and its truth, and I want to share it with you. It seems fitting to do that in the hours right after Bush's speech.

The writer had just faxed the letter to the office of Rep. Nancy Boyda, a freshman Kansas Democrat who won her seat in large part because of her opposition to the war in Iraq. Boyda recently said in an interview, though, that she would vote to fund Bush's troop "surge." The writer of the letter asked that I not use her name or her partner's name because of their family's connections to the federal government. Here is the letter:

Dear Rep. Boyda,

I am writing to ask that you reconsider your position on the surge in troops that President Bush will outline in his speech to the country this evening. I am not a military strategist or an expert in warfare or an historian. But this war has touched me personally and I am an expert in some of the suffering caused by war.

My partner _______ lost her only child on a road in Taji, Iraq in July 2004. He was driving the Humvee when the IED detonated. The explosion left a 30 foot crater in the earth. The damage was so extensive and complete that not much of his body was recovered for burial.

Since that death two and one-half years ago, our lives have been completely overshadowed by the grief that descends upon a parent whose child has been killed. Despite the best efforts of (her) health care professionals, she still suffers with migraine headaches at least 3 days per week. If only the migraines were the worst of her pain.

We were opposed to this war from the start and will always believe this country was deceived and misled into this war. America has squandered the support shown to us in the aftermath of September 11

We were once a nation with a reputation for protecting and defending human rights. Now we are a nation that sanctions indefinite detention and torture. In my view, the only thing more overwhelming than the shame of our actions is the relentless grief we have inflicted on all of the soldiers, families and citizens of both countries.

You asked us before the election in 2006 if we'd had enough. We responded with a collective and resounding YES. We have had enough of this war and the lives it has destroyed. We have had enough of the deception and the corruption and profiteering. We have had enough of the intense pain and suffering and cannot imagine inflicting it on any other living being on this planet.

Please reconsider your support for the surge option. Bring our troops home.

President Bush's Iraq Plan

From Pamela:

Listening to President Bush speak tonight, I couldn't help but wonder where he is living... Pleasantville? The Truman Show? La-La Land?

He (or his speechwriter and advisors) seem to have missed the most salient point. The sectarian violence in Iraq isn't about Sunni and Shii. Iraqi Sunnis and Shiis have historically gotten along well. It's about politics. It's about who supported America's strong man, Saddam Hussein back when he was still our buddy. It's about who supports the current American sponsored government, and who doesn't. It's about who cooperated with American troops and who didn't. That is the fundamental, root source of the conflict -- not concerns about sectarian theological differences.

As long as the US is involved, the conflict will escalate. The reprisals against collaborators will grow ever more intense. The stakes for those who are in power (more or less) will become higher and higher, as the guarantee of disruption and wholesale rebellion grows with each passing day they are seen as sell outs to the US occupation.

And, yes, that's what most of the world perceives it as. Not a war. Not a humanitarian effort to bring freedom to Iraq. But an occupation aimed as ensuring the US and Israel have access to Iraq's oil.

The resistence (otherwise known as terrorists in Bush's lingo) perceives themselves as trying to oust an invading and occupying army. Stepping up the number of troops on police duty isn't going to solve that problem.

The longer we are there, the more intense the resistence will become.

President Bush did have one thing right. If we leave now, Iraq will descend into chaos. I'm pretty sure that is accurrate. What he didn't say, was that when we leave in a year, or two or ten, that chaos will no doubt be even worse, the attrocities even more horrific.

I don't see any hope of the US and the new Iraqi government transforming Iraq into some fairy tale democracy like Bush spoke of. That has to be done by the Iraqis, not imposed by the army of another country. The longer we are there, the longer it will take for Iraqi to achieve those dreams after we leave.

The view from Washington: "Stay the course plus 20,000"

By Nancy Jane Moore

Speaking on NPR after Bush's speech, Jessica Tuchman Mathews of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace summed his proposed new plan up nicely:

Stay the course plus 20,000.

As she pointed out -- and as Dan Froomkin said earlier on washingtonpost.com -- Bush didn't provide the promised change in strategy. He simply set out a few changes in tactics and increased the number of troops on the ground.

It's not enough of a change to do anything, except cost a lot more lives.

Bush reiterated over and over that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the U.S." The problem is, we already failed in Iraq. And minor efforts to pick up the pieces aren't going to fix that.

And in yet another insult to our intelligence, he even managed to mention September 11 -- he's still trying to use that excuse to justify his actions.

He claimed his military advisors think his plans will work -- which contradicts the article in this morning's Washington Post, which said that most of the military advised against the troop increase. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to believe The Post on this one.

Bush said a couple of things that convinced me he still lives in a fantasy world. He kept talking about the freedom-loving people of Iraq and how we were going to leave a democracy there, when what we have really given the Iraqis is chaos and civil war.

And then he said if Iraqis don't step up and take charge, this effort will lose the support of the American people.

Mr. Bush, apparently you haven't been paying attention. You've already lost the support of the American people.

He did make one truthful comment: "The responsibility belongs to me." Yes, it does. But the suffering belongs to us all.

The view from Kansas: Thumbs down on Bush's Iraq plan

Diane:

Watching Shields and Brooks on PBS... isn't it amazing that they're both emphasizing that the tone of the speech is sober, as if this is something new for this president, and of course, it is.

This is too serious to be flippant.

So we send more forces, and we stay and hold neighborhoods? How long do we stay? When will these places be stable? Victory won't look like the victory of WWII, Bush says, so what does victory look like? Is there such a thing as victory?

VA Sen. Webb just raised an interesting point... will there ever be peace in Iraq if there are American troops on the streets of that nation?

From Joan with 80 years of experience:

Bush talked about the Iraqi government doing this and this and this, but will they do it? They haven't done it before. What makes this time different?

The Iraqi government doesn't have any power over there at all. The Iraqi leader comes over and tell Bush what he wants to hear. He doesn't tell the truth.

Bush's mention of Afghanistan is ridiculous. Isn't he aware that that is a mess again and it never did get cleaned out right before?

Everything from Bush is just words, words words. He says we have to have patience and wait for results, but for four years we had patience.

It's almost as if it's Vietnam. You keep throwing men and materials into that country to fight a war and stabilize it and then it doesn't work.

The view from Kansas, from Joan and Diane, is thumbs down.

Joan says: You want to know something else? I think if we got out of there, the other countries in the Middle East would say we have to do something, and they would take action.

Diane:

As I sit listening to my mother what strikes me is the anger in her voice.

Joan:

It makes me mad to have this happening all over again. My generation fought WWII, my father's generation fought WWI and here we are doing the same damn thing again. When will we learn?

From Kansas: Sinking stomachs & fear of more war & more blood

From Diane:

What role does Al Qaeda have in Anbar Province? Bush makes it sound like they are the only reason there are problems in Anbar. Actually, the real question is does Al Qaeda have any power there, or is this an illusion? The fact that I even ask this question shows how little credibility Bush has.

I'm sitting her listening to Bush and my heart is sinking. Bush says he's sending in more troops, U.S. Navy ships, and I remember the escalation in Vietnam. It was small at first, then steady, then huge. More and more young men died. Boys -- and yes, they were boys -- died and for what? Listening to Bush is like listening to LBJ then: Throw more bodies at the problem and more bodies and more.

Bush is still confusing 9/11 and the fight against terrorism with the war on Iraq. I am so sick of that.

Even more frightening, especially to the mother of a 21-year-old son is Bush's call to expand the military. What exactly is he talking about?

Here we go: Mom & I contemplate Bush & Iraq

by Diane Silver

First thoughts: For once Bush isn't smirking. It's about time.

George W Bush, Iraq & In This Moment

By Diane Silver

We're going to try a little experiment tonight and live blog President Bush's speech on the Iraq War. If all goes well -- and we haven't tried this before -- there will be four of us chatty folk commenting, ruminating and contemplating Bush's plan.

Our commentators will include our usual suspects, In This Moment bloggers Nancy Jane Moore and Pamela K. Taylor, along with myself. I am also going to bring along my mother -- yes friends, my Mom -- to help me blog this event.

This afternoon I realized that it would be fascinating to hear what Mom, aka Joan Silver, has to say about the speech. Mom turns 80 in two days. She was 15 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and 19 when WW II ended. She was in her 40s during Vietnam. Tonight we intend to watch the speech together and discuss it. Thus, some of the ideas will be hers. The typos and misspellings will be all mine.

Stay tuned...

Sen. Kennedy has the right approach to stop the surge

By Nancy Jane Moore

Sen. Edward Kennedy has introduced a bill (pdf) that would require a vote of Congress authorizing funding before additional troops could be sent to Iraq.

The findings section of the bill contains the following language:

The mission of the Armed Forces of the United States today in Iraq no longer bears any resemblance to the mission of the Armed Forces authorized by Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

This section implies that the previous authorization is no longer sufficient to authorize Bush to commit additional funds without Congress -- a position I heartily endorse. It's about time someone pointed that out. And, obviously, refusing to authorize funds for more troops is the most practical way to stop Bush's pathetic effort to shore up his tattered legacy by throwing more lives away.

Unfortunately, the rest of the Democratic leadership is holding back. The New York Times reports this morning that both the Senate and the House are planning "symbolic" votes against the increase in troops. These votes would, as The Times points out, "do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush's intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq."

Don't the Democrats understand that they were elected to do something about the Iraq disaster? Don't they understand that they've got some real power now, and that many Republicans are edging away from Bush's crazy plans?

According to The Times, the Democrats do say that the symbolic vote is the "minimum" that they're going to do, and they haven't ruled out a cap on troops or a limit on funds. And if they've got a strategic plan to suck the sane Republicans into supporting these limits, I'm all for it.

But Bush is going to go on television tonight and announce his "surge" in troops. The Democrats need to counter that with something much more forceful than letters to the White House and "symbolic" votes.

Speaking of Bush's plans, The Washington Post reports this morning that Bush's decision to increase forces was made over the objections of his top military advisors. Apparently most of the military brass knows a lost cause when they see one.

Getting the US out of Iraq without making things even worse is a tricky proposition -- as I've said before, the only good solution to the Iraq War would be to go back in time and not invade, and unfortunately that option doesn't exist.

But how many more US soldiers have to die or suffer life-altering injuries while the Democrats fiddle around with "symbolic" votes instead of stopping Bush?

Thanks to Balkinization for the link to the Kennedy bill.

Kansas: A brief outline of how a domestic partner registry could work in Lawrence

By Diane Silver

Details of Lawrence's proposed domestic partner registry are still being determined, but a general outline of how it might work emerged from Tuesday night's City Commission meeting.

The registry would not automatically grant any of the legal rights married couples enjoy to same-sex couples and their children.

However, registration would probably exempt families headed by same-sex couples from Lawrence's ordinance limiting the number of unrelated people who can live in one household. That ordinance currently makes it illegal for a family that includes a same-sex couple, a child and an elderly parent to live together within city limits.

Registration could also be used as proof to employers, insurance companies and others that a family headed by a same-sex couple actually is a family and, thus, eligible for benefits. However, city commissioners seemed clear that they did not want to require local employers to offer benefits such as health insurance to registered partners.

Other possible details of the registry, which would be run by the city clerk, include:

• Opening the registry to heterosexual as well as same-sex couples.
• Requiring a fee to register, although that size of the fee wasn't discussed.
• Requiring a couple to provide certain kinds of proof that the couple is actually a domestic partnership. Such proof could take the form of documents showing financial transactions carried out by the couple as a couple.
  

The City Commission did not discuss whether residents of other cities in Kansas could come to Lawrence and register. However, such an option could be offered.

As I wrote last night, we do appear to have the votes for the registry to become law. The next step is for city staff to draft an ordinance and then to submit it to Attorney General Paul Morrison's office for a review. Mayor Mike Amyx asked for the review in light of the 2005 passage of the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions.

I'll post a copy of the draft ordinance as soon as it becomes available. I hope to post more details on Tuesday night's discussion and testimony within the next few days, but now I'm off to pay the mortgage on my day job.

By the way, the Lawrence Journal-World's coverage of the meeting was generally accurate, but the newspaper certainly underplayed the significance of Maggie Childs and her "local group."

Maggie leads the Lawrence Chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition. The Equality Coalition is a unified statewide organization that works for fair laws for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Kansans. The Equality Coalition has chapters stretching from Johnson County to Salina, Wichita and Southwest Kansas, and it is a direct outgrowth of the group formed to fight the marriage ban in 2005.

In the name of full disclosure, I helped organize the Equality Coalition and have been a member of the Lawrence Chapter board, although I'm not currently serving.

Kansas: Rep. Nancy Boyda apologizes for remarks, but she still seems unaware of her options

By Diane Silver

Calling her remarks to ABC's Charles Gibson "first-week jitters," Rep. Nancy Boyda held a teleconference call with reporters yesterday where she apologized for her statements about Iraq.

However, Boyda said she would still vote to fund a troop escalation in Iraq. She also failed to mention that legal experts say Congress has a series of options they can use to stop President George W. Bush.

In This Moment's earlier coverage of Boyda's statements can be found here and here and here.

Kansas: Lawrence poised to approve domestic partner registry

By Diane Silver

As the cliches note, don't count your chickens before they're hatched and most decidedly don't consider the game over until the fat lady sings. While neither of those things has happened yet, it was clear tonight that a proposal creating a domestic partner registry in Lawrence has the three votes needed to pass.

City commissioners Mike Rundle, Boog Highberger and David Schauner all expressed support for the measure. The City Commission has five members and one member, Sue Hack, was not present tonight. If passed, this proposal would make the home of the University of Kansas the only city in the state with any form of legal recognition for same-sex couples. The domestic partner registry, by the way, would probably be open to both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

A vote wasn't taken tonight. Instead, the commissioners told city staff to draft an ordinance and to send it on to the office of newly elected Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison. The commissioners want Morrison's opinion on whether the ordinance is constitutional, given that the state amended the constitution last year to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Toni Ramirez Wheeler, interim director of the city's legal services division, said she believed a registry would be constitutional, but Mayor Mike Amyx wanted the opinion of the AG. There was no immediate word on when the ordinance would be drafted and sent to Morrison's office.

Most of the meeting was taken up by Wheeler's report and a hearing where six people spoke in favor of the registry. No one appeared in opposition. In fact, the packed room appeared to be half to two-thirds full of supporters of the proposal. The rest of the audience seemed to be attending to discuss such issues as traffic circles and neighborhood planning.

Wheeler's report is available online.

I just got back from the meeting, to which I stupidly forgot to take my laptop. Instead of live blogging, here's your report about an hour after the end of the event. It galls me to admit that the local newspaper did what this blogger forgot to do, but let me note that the Journal-World's live blogged report is here.

Note that there are a few errors in that blogged report and some fragmentary information.

"Bill N." is actually Bruce Ney, senior counsel for AT&T. He served as chair of Kansans For Fairness, which fought the constitutional ban on marriage in 2005. Bruce lives in Lawrence.

Forrest Swall is a former legislator who represented Lawrence in the Kansas House. Forrest appear for PFLAG.

Lori Messinger is an assistant professor of social welfare at KU.

I'll have more on what everyone said as soon as I can.

Kansas: Phill Kline cleans house & Johnson County braces for the aftermath

As expected, newly appointed Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline fired seven attorneys on his new staff, including his opponent in the race for DA, Steve Howe.

Also given just a few hours to clean out their offices were longtime juvenile division chief John Fritz and Bryan Denton, the chief investigator for 15 years.

It is sad and a little frightening to see so much experience leaving the DA's office. We can only hope that the incoming staff members not only know what they're doing, but actually intend to prosecute criminals instead of pushing the Religious Right's political agenda.

The KC Star has the story and details on new Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison's house cleaning.

Dear Congressional Democrats: You DO have the power to stop the Iraq escalation.

By Diane Silver

This post by my blogging partner Nancy Jane Moore is so important that instead of replying to her via the comments field, I'm going to make a separate post. I want to make certain people read what she wrote.

My esteemed and learned colleague, who likes to call herself a "recovering attorney," has uncovered some key insights from several law professors. Their point? The Constitution does indeed give Congress the power to stop George W. Bush from escalating the war in Iraq.

Read Nancy's post and follow the links. I stand by much of what I said about Rep. Nancy Boyda's recent interview on Iraq, but I do retract my support of Boyda's belief that Congress is powerless to stop Bush.

If what these professors are saying is really true, then it is time for the Democratic Congress to stand up to the bully-in-chief who is occupying the White House. It's time for the Boydas, Pelosis and Reids of this nation to act.

Kansas: Lawrence considers the death defying feat of being fair to same-sex couples

By Diane Silver

Today is the day the Lawrence City Commission will begin its deliberations on a proposed domestic partner registry.

If approved, this would be the first registry of its kind in Kansas, but Lawrence would actually be playing catch-up to other Midwestern cities. Domestic partner registries are already in place in Kansas City, Mo.; Iowa City, Iowa; Boulder, Colo.; and Madison, Wis.

The proposal is being championed by the Lawrence Chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition.

The Lawrence Journal-World makes it sound like the City Commission will make the decision at today's meeting. I was under the impression that the proposal would only be up for a little discussion and then would be sent off for more study. However, anything is possible when a governmental body meets.

The newspaper reports that only four of the five commissioners will be attending tonight's meeting. Two of the four have said they support a registry. The proposal needs three votes to pass.

The meeting starts at 6:35 tonight. Be there.

A note on my headline: A domestic partner registry would provide no rights, and thus it wouldn't come even close to bringing legal fairness to the lives of same-sex couples. However, it is a start. I decided to use my rather strongly worded headline because a start is better than nothing, and a registry could have a tangible effect on the lives of our families.

Kansas Moments: Phill Kline prepares to oust rival; Paul Morrison worries & Kathleen Sebelius talks of hope

By Diane Silver

Inauguration day saw the start of the second administration of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius along with the great job swap between Phill Kline and Paul Morrison. Here's a roundup of what happened and bits and pieces of what may come.

Phill Kline -- the darling of the Religious Right -- is rumored to be ready to fire seven lawyers in the Johnson County District Attorney's office. Among them is Steve Howe, who ran against Kline for the DA job. The DA's office in the state's most populous county isn't small, but the loss of even seven experienced attorneys will hurt. One can only hope that Kline actually tries to do the job of DA, instead of pursuing his continuing efforts to push the political agenda of the Religious Right. The KC Star covered Kline's swearing in.

Paul Morrison took over as Kansas attorney general and immediately said he would fire Kline's special prosecutor Don McKinney, an anti-abortion activist hired to prosecute the the most well-known abortion provider in the state. Morrison also said he was concerned about the security of medical records, given that they may be in McKinney's hands. Morrison has good reason to be worried, given McKinney's past and present activities.

Meanwhile, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was inaugurated for her second term. Here's a story about the event and here's a transcript of her speech.

Congress has the power to stop Bush's troop escalation

By Nancy Jane Moore

New Kansas Rep. Nancy Boyda and a number of other members of Congress are mistaken: The Constitution does give Congress the power to stop Bush from increasing the number of troops in Iraq.

Constitutional law scholar Marty Lederman points out on Balkinization that Congress can pass a law prohibiting the surge in troops and requiring a phased pullout. They can also refuse to pay for more than a certain number of troops. He says:

If Congress does nothing to instantiate its strongly stated views about this most important matter of public policy, but resorts to mere pleading to the President to do the right thing, I fear that the Democratic Leadership letter will be viewed as implying that this is a decision for the President alone to make, and that Congress has no legal say in the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In a second post on this subject, Lederman adds:

Even if there were a prohibition in the Constitution against so-called congressional "micromanagement" of a war -- and there's not -- this [a law limiting the number of troops] wouldn't be that. There would be no congressional officials here overseeing the President's discretionary responsibilities; no requirement that the President get approval of one or both Houses before taking certain actions. There would, instead, simply be limitations on a war imposed by statutes passed with the President's signature or by supermajorities of both Houses of Congress over the President's veto.

Another law professor, Neil Kinkopf of Georgia State University, makes similar arguments on the American Constitution Society blog. Kinkopf says the Constitution gives Congress the right to make Bush submit his troop plan to them for approval. He writes:

The Constitution grants Congress extensive war powers – so extensive, in fact, that Chief Justice John Marshall once wrote that “The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the Acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides ….” (Talbot v. Seeman (1801).

Like Lederman, Kinkopf says Congress can either limit the scope of the war or limit the use of money:

Congress may limit the scope of the present Iraq War by either of two mechanisms. First, it may directly define limits on the scope of that war -- and forbid the President from exceeding these limits -- such as by imposing a ceiling on the number of troops assigned to that conflict. Second, it may achieve the same objective by enacting appropriations riders that limit the use of appropriated funds.

Kinkopf also brings up an interesting argument in relation to Congress's original actions approving the Iraq War: Bush got that vote by doing what is called in consumer law a "bait and switch." In other words, he deceived Congress and kept them from having all the information they should have had when they voted. He considers that grounds for them to revisit the authorization.

Congress has apparently grown so accustomed to acting as Bush's lapdog that even those who oppose him have forgotten what kind of power they're supposed to have. I suggest we all forward the information on Balkinization and the American Constitution Society blog to Rep. Boyda and other Congress members who are making this mistake. Perhaps a few of them will wake up.

Kansas: Nancy Boyda's big day, or are we betrayed yet again?

By Diane Silver

As I rolled over this morning with the radio blasting in my ear and contemplated getting out of bed, I heard a report about newly minted Congresswoman Nancy Boyda.

ABC's Charles Gibson asked: Would she oppose the president's plan to escalate the war in Iraq?

Heck no, she said.

When I heard her words my stomach flopped, and I had two immediate thoughts:

1. Boyda's crazy.

2. We are in deep trouble.

Given my work schedule, this is the first minute I've had to blog about the issue. My in box certainly hasn't been silent on it, though.

As you have probably already seen on the blogosphere, a lot of people have been angered by Boyda's comments. Crooks and Liars has the clip. Here's the transcript of the interview.

Gibson: Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?

Boyda: I think we're going to vote to support what the commander in chief and head of military asks to do. At least, I am certainly going to vote to support it.

Gibson: If he wants the surge, he'll get it.

Boyda: Yes.… He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don't get that choice. Congress doesn't make that decision.

Gibson: But the polls would indicate, and indeed, so many voters when they came out of the ballot box, said, "We're voting because we want something done about the war and we want the troops home."

Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.

While I was busy working to pay the mortgage, angry emails were bouncing into my Hope & Politics inbox. One writer noted that he felt the same way now that he did when Boyda first declared her support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Frankly, her support of an amendment is one reason why I have been lukewarm on her in the past.) My correspondent wrote:

Are we betrayed again?

After thinking about it for the last day, my feeling is that it is too early to tell.

There are a couple of things about the interview that strike me. One is that the quotes are politically naive and incredibly unsophisticated. At the very least they insult the voters in her district (Hey you dolts, you voted for Bush twice!). I suspect her wording either came from, well, stupidity (jury is still out on that) or simple inexperience.

The second thing that strikes me about Boyda's quotes is that she is actually telling the truth about the power of Congress. That institution does not have the power to stop George W. Bush. It can't pass a law or a resolution that would tie his hands. All Congress can do is cut funding. A great idea, but would it put the troops in Iraq in greater danger?

I honestly don't know if Congress could tie the dollars up enough. Would any budget cut come out of the money destined to pay for a troop "surge," or would it come from spending needed to protect our troops who are already in Iraq?

The Lawrence Journal-World reported that Boyda's staff says that was exactly the point she was trying to make.

Her top staffer on Friday said Boyda’s remarks were “a sound byte that sounded out of place.”

“She was really referring to the options Congress has,” said Shanan Guinn, Boyda’s chief of staff, about the comments regarding voters. “Nancy has the utmost respect for all of her constituents whether they voted for her or not.”

Guinn also denied that the comments to support sending more troops represented a change in Boyda’s position on the war.

“Nancy has been very clear stressing to vote to support the troops on the ground,” she said. “I don’t think anybody expects her to pull support from the troops while they are in harm’s way.”

Boyda is in a difficult position because her district includes, not only conservative voters, but Fort Riley. Personally, I don't think it would be right for her to pull the budget rug out from under the troops already in country. It's not right politically and it's not right morally.

KC Buzz Blog calls this a "teapot tempest." While I believe that some in the blogosphere may be treating Boyda a little harshly, I also don't believe that this is a storm in a teapot.

Nothing will change until the people of this nation, Congress and members like Boyda stand up to President Bush. I would much rather have heard Boyda say that she is frustrated by what appears to be Congress' lack of power in this situation. I would much rather have heard her say that she will do everything she can to end the war as soon as possible.

Was Boyda tripped up by a twist of the tongue, a lack of experience or did she lie all through her campaign? I don't know, but I know that we will find out in the next two years, and her future depends on the answer.

The danger of American fascism & what really needs to be done about the religious right

By Diane Silver

A fascinating and frightening interview with Chris Hedges has been posted at Salon. A former New York Times bureau chief in the Middle East and the Balkans, Hedges has a new book out called American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

After a career spent covering fascism overseas, Hedges started examining the Religious Right in the United States and discovered amazing similarities between the American right and totalitarian movements.

I think there are enough generic qualities that the group within the religious right, known as Christian Reconstructionists or dominionists, warrants the word. Does this mean that this is Nazi Germany? No. Does this mean that this is Mussolini's Italy? No. Does this mean that this is a deeply anti-democratic movement that would like to impose a totalitarian system? Yes.

Two things stand out in the interview, which was conducted by Michelle Goldberg, who also wrote about the religious right in Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism.

One is Hedges' assessment that this country is only one crisis away from seeing the dominionists come to power. Such a crisis could take the form of worsening economic problems or a terrorist attack, and the resulting upheaval and fear would drive the push for fascism.

The other thing that struck me was Hedges diagnosis of the problem that is driving people to the religious fight. The problem is despair, both economic and personal. Others have done a great job of describing the economic despair, but few have tackled the issue of the psychological despair. (Michael Lerner in The Left Hand of God is one of the few who has tried.)

For me, the engine of the movement is deep economic and personal despair. A terrible distortion and deformation of American society, where tens of millions of people in this country feel completely disenfranchised, where their physical communities have been obliterated, whether that's in the Rust Belt in Ohio or these monstrous exurbs like Orange County, where there is no community. There are no community rituals, no community centers, often there are no sidewalks. People live in empty soulless houses and drive big empty cars on freeways to Los Angeles and sit in vast offices and then come home again. You can't deform your society to that extent, and you can't shunt people aside and rip away any kind of safety net, any kind of program that gives them hope, and not expect political consequences.

Like Hedges (and Lerner), I believe these problems are at the heart of the desperation in so many people's lives.

Books like Hedges are important. We all need to be aware and be politically involved in the fight against the religious right.

However, political action, no matter how strong and organized, will never stop such an anti-democratic movement. Fascism can't be stopped until we heal our society and create a culture that provides hope, community and meaning to people's lives.

Scientists say ExxonMobil is using junk science to muddy the waters on global warming

By Nancy Jane Moore

ExxonMobil is funding front organizations that use junk science to argue that global warming is not a problem, the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a report issued Jan. 3.

In fact, the UCS said, Exxon's campaign strongly resembles Big Tobacco's major disinformation campaign that contradicted overwhelming evidence about the risks associated with cigarettes. Exxon is even using some of the same people, the report says.

In their press release for the report, the UCS says Exxon:

• raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
• funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
• attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
• used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

Campaigns that manipulate information to protect a company's business interests are a modern fact of life. I suspect most companies do it, in one way or another. And, unfortunately, most of us go along with this: It appears to be a sad truth of modern corporate life that people who are generally quite moral in their personal lives don't raise strong objections when their company does something that they know is wrong. (If you have ever worked for a large company, you are probably uncomfortably aware of just how easy it is to convince yourself that you can't stop bad decisions anyway, so why should you put your job at risk.)

But Exxon's efforts are particularly heinous, because we must make some serious immediate changes to prevent long term disaster from human-caused climate change.

It's difficult enough for human beings to wrap their brains around the idea that we are affecting the climate. As Daniel Gilbert points out in his witty book about how the human mind works, Stumbling on Happiness, we are very good at appreciating the danger of immediate attack -- like a charging tiger -- but lousy at understanding risks where the potential disaster is years down the road.

Global warming is just that kind of problem: By the time we see unmistakable signs, it's going to be way too late to stop it. We have to use our intellectual skills to understand the problem, because our instincts aren't so finely tuned that they react to long term dangers. That's why we need good science -- and we also need to educate ourselves and our children so that we can understand good science.

Funding junk science and using corporate power to encourage journalists and policymakers to treat crackpots with the same respect as the real experts undermines our efforts to truly understand what is happening to our planet. The process is difficult enough when we don't have to wade through distortions. ExxonMobil and the others who are cynically creating uncertainty must be stopped.

You can link to a pdf copy of the full report, "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to 'Manufacture Uncertainty' on Climate Change," from the UCS press release.

The Union of Concerned Scientists also has a nice FAQ section on global warming.