The White House still wants to try Guantanamo detainees in kangaroo courts

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Washington Post says Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has confirmed a report in The New York Times that said the Bush administration is circulating a draft of legislation that would legalize unfair trials of so-called enemy combatants.

The proposed legislation would allow defendants to be excluded from their own trials, according to The Times, and would generally legalize the military tribunals that were struck down by the Supreme Court a few weeks ago. The Times says:

The draft measure describes court-martial procedure as "not practicable in trying enemy combatants" because doing so would "require the government to share classified information" and would exclude "hearsay evidence determined to be probative and reliable."

Funny, but I always thought the reason hearsay (testimony based on what witnesses have heard, rather than what they know from their own observation) was excluded precisely because it isn't reliable. At least, that's what I learned in law school.

According to the news reports, they're circulating the draft among military lawyers, though I'm sure they're doing this in an effort to get those attorneys (who have generally opposed the tribunals) to support the bill. I doubt the Bush people really want JAG lawyers' professional opinions or have any intention of incorporating any of their suggestions into the bill.

Obviously the administration paid no attention to the principles underlying the Hamden decision and is only looking for ways to get around it. We must hope that Sen. Lindsay Graham -- a Republican who has served as a military lawyer -- sticks to his guns on this issue. It is depressing to contemplate that an administration that is supposedly "promoting democracy" abroad is so devoted to completely undermining the basic principle of due process of law.

The Times got a copy of the legislation from an official at an agency that is reviewing it, so their reporters have actually seen the proposed 32-page bill. Alas, they have not made their copy available to their readers. If anyone else has posted a copy online, I can't find it as yet. If I can find it, I'll post a link.

On a related note, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus says that Alberto Gonzales is making John Ashcroft look good! She observes:

But as I watched Gonzales testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, it struck me: In terms of competence (the skill with which he handles the job) and character (willingness to stand up to the president), Gonzales is enough to make you yearn for the good old Ashcroft days.

I don't think I'd go that far -- Ashcroft showed such contempt for the Constitution that he should never have been allowed to hold the job -- but it is pretty clear that Gonzales does whatever Bush wants him to do. Either Gonzales lacks integrity and moral fiber, or else he has drunk the White House Kool-Aid and really believes that trampling on civil rights is the way to promote democracy in the world. I'm not sure which is worse.

Florida decides to micromanage the history teachers

By Nancy Jane Moore

Florida has adopted a law that details how history should be taught in the public schools. The law provides, among other things:

American history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.

As historian J.L. Bell notes in an excellent article on the new law published on George Mason University's History News Network:

This law is, of course, a construction of U.S. history. The words "shall be viewed" show that, even as lawmakers insist on one interpretation of American history, they acknowledge others.

Bell also points out that the Florida law, in explaining how to teach the Declaration of Independence, says teachers are to discuss the "inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property." The last time I read the Declaration of Independence, the words were "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I'm sure the founders considered property important, but it isn't in the Declaration. Apparently the Florida legislators don't think happiness is important -- or maybe they equate property with happiness.

A law like this one is more insidious than the ones that block the teaching of evolution or require that "creationism" be taught. The anti-evolution laws are at least obvious. With this law, you have to read the whole thing very carefully to understand that they're essentially requiring that history be taught as if there were no conflicts about how different parts of our history should be viewed. They've thrown in bits about African Americans, Hispanics, and women so that they sound politically correct. But they also want flag education. Pretty clearly they want to mandate the teaching of a certain view of history.

All this reminds me of the way history was taught in the Soviet Union -- or in virtually any dictatorship. History is not just a collection of absolute facts; interpretation of those facts matters and interpretations change as we learn more. And arguing about those interpretations refines our understanding.

Even without legislation, history has usually been taught in keeping with the local community's take on the country. When I was in high school, we were taught the Civil War as a conflict between "us" and "them." While I don't recall my teacher actually using the words "the War of Northern Aggression," the support of the Confederacy was abundantly clear. This was at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, more than a hundred years after the Civil War.

I assume that even in Alvin, Texas, they teach a more nuanced view of the Civil War these days. But this new Florida law scares me.

Patriotic movements have always focused on history class -- teachers who questioned too many cherished U.S. myths have been fired many times -- but passing laws that outline how to teach is another step closer to controlling people's opinions.

The Kansas Evolution Election: Moderates need money today to have a chance of defeating the radical right

[corrected and updated 9:45 pm]

By Diane Silver

While the religious right is taking a beating in fund raising in statewide Kansas races, some moderate candidates for the state Board of Education are hurting just seven days before the Aug. 1 primary.

Thoughts From Kansas reports (scroll down to the bottom of his report) that the only moderate incumbent on the board, Janet Waugh from Kansas City, is trailing her opponent in fund raising. The fund-raising efforts of other moderates are having varying degrees of success.

This primary is important. If moderate candidates like Waugh are knocked off in the Aug. 1 vote, then what happens in the November general election won't matter because the moderate candidates will already be off the ballot.

If you believe in teaching science and a public school system that is fair to students of all faiths, it is time to get out the check book and the credit card.

Give today to moderate candidates.

Waugh, Donna Viola and Jack Wempe are in particular need of our help.

See here for details on the candidates and web site and snail mail addresses.

Latest Headlines: Religious right gets swamped; attorneys call Bush lawless; and we understand Fred Phelps

Kansas Politics: Religious right gets swamped in fund raising for statewide offices

The American Bar Association says Bush's signing statements are unconstitutional

Abuse as theology: Fred Phelps' son tells his father to stop venting his rage

More Frightening Theology

And now for something completely scary

Inside the Beltway

Choosing a mayor in Washington, D.C.

The Census Bureau finds another 31,528 people in Washington, D.C.

And More

U.S. forgets the lessons of Vietnam & flubs Iraq

Living with a target on your back

Living with a target on your back

[bump - See below for why this blast from the past is being reposted.]

By Diane Silver

You wake up in the morning, rushed as always and get your 10-year-old son out of the door to school. He's fed, on time and even has his math homework stuffed in his backpack, all of which is a miracle of sorts. After he has gone, you pull on your winter coat and gloves and hope the car will start in this blasted cold. When you finally get to work, the phone calls and the meetings are a relief. You've been a single parent since breast cancer killed your life partner three years ago, and the challenges you face at the office are nothing compared to the challenges you see at home

Or perhaps...

You're late. You had promised you would be at the hospital a half an hour ago, and even though 30 minutes doesn't sound like much, you regret every instant you aren't with her. But the bills are piling up now that you're down to one income, and you had to work late. Your son needed attention before you took him to a play date. When you dropped him off, you had thank the mother and father of your son's friend. You had to update them on your lover's condition, pretending all the time that you don't feel the razors cutting into you heart as you speak.

Or perhaps...

You're alone. Your son is in college now. You just gave him a toolbox for his birthday so he could fix up his rented house. He comes by once a week for dinner. (Got to make certain he has those necessary fruits and vegetables). You hear about books and classes, papers and finals, new ideas, frustrations and hopes. He is funny and caring. He even saves his money. You wonder in amazement if you did something right as a parent, after all.

And you wake one morning and pick up the newspaper...

Or you turn on the radio...

Someone who has never met you says he knows you. He says the fact that you exist, that your son exists, your late life partner existed is so vile, so threatening that he is coming after you.

He has to make certain that the son you love, the partner for whom you sacrificed could never, ever be called a family. He has to guarantee that the legal and financial benefits given to other families are kept from yours.

He gets what he wants. His ideas are written into the Kansas Constitution. Your family is so horrifying, it seems, that protection from it must be burned into our most basic law.

And you tell yourself to take a deep breath. You tell yourself it's OK; you'll survive. Your people have always gotten by, living in the cracks of society, if necessary.

And then you pick up the newspaper...
Or you turn on the radio...

And this man who was not with you when you sat up all night holding your infant son when he was sick ... and you held your life partner's hand as she was dying ... this man says he's coming after you again.

It's the children he wants now, or maybe your job, or your friend's job. The problem you see is that you aren't doing exactly what he wants you to do, you're not working in the job he wants you to have.

You wonder what it will take to make this man feel whole, to make him feel safe.

Will he have to harass your son for no other reason than the fact that he was born into your family?

Will this man have to orphan children?

Take away jobs?

Will it satisfy him if you, your mortgage, your overworked exhaustion, your skills, your talents, your love and your friends are finally run out of this state?

And you wonder what you will lose next.

And you wonder when it will end.
---------------------------------------------------

*Why repost this? Alas, it hasn't come even close to becoming out of date, even though it was first posted in December. Also, In This Moment's intrepid staff is tied up today on other projects and wanted to still provide some thoughts for you all to chew on.

Kansas Politics: Religious right gets swamped in fund raising for statewide offices

By Diane Silver

A first, very quick look at the campaign finance reports filed today in Kansas shows that the most conservative candidates appear to be falling far behind in the race to raise money for the campaigns for governor, attorney general and secretary of state.

This is VERY interesting news. The reports for the state Board of Education don't seem to be up yet, though, so stay tuned for further developments.

All of the reports are for the period of Jan. 1, 2006 to July 20, 2006.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has swamped her GOP opposition in the fund-raising derby. A moderate Democrat who lured the former state GOP chair to be her running mate, Sebelius raised $1.09 million during the reporting period. She reports having $2.05 million cash on hand.

None of the Republican candidates for governor even came close.

Jim Barnett and his ultra-ultra-conservative running mate, Susan Wagle, brought in $237,503 during the period and ended with $194,213 cash on hand.

Ken Canfield, another alleged darling of the right, brought in $196,233 and ended the period with only $6,536 cash on hand.

Robin Jennison, a former Kansas Speaker of the House, brought in $112,680 and had $156,394 cash on hand.

The other GOP candidates for governor didn't come anywhere close to these totals.

In the attorney general race, Republican Phill Kline, much beloved of the far right, raised $314,506 and had $418.491 in cash on hand.

Democrat Paul Morrison out-raised Kline easily, bringing in $659,653 during the reporting period and ending with $764,839 cash on hand.

In the race for the Republican nomination for secretary of state, state Sen. Kay O'Connor -- famed for questioning whether women should have the right to vote -- raised a whopping $32,638. She ended the reporting period with $4,465 cash on hand.

Her opponent in the Republican primary, moderate incumbent Ron Thornburgh raised $70,235 and ended with $46,834 on hand.

This is only a quick first look, and I didn't have time to take in the details. I could well have missed something rather obvious, but still... how fascinating.

As far as the governor's race goes, perhaps the GOP should just throw up its collective hands and cry uncle!

The American Bar Association says Bush's signing statements are unconstitutional

By Nancy Jane Moore

A "blue ribbon" task force of the American Bar Association said in a report issued July 24 that a president's use of signing statements to assert that he will not follow laws adopted by Congress "undermine[s] the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers."

In an ABA press release, task force Chair Neal Sonnett, a former U.S. Attorney, said:

Abuse of presidential signing statements poses a threat to the rule of law. Whenever actions threaten to weaken our system of checks and balances and the separation of powers, the American Bar Association has a profound responsibility to speak out forcefully to protect those lynchpins of democracy.

The President should use his veto power instead of signing statements, the report reccommends. The 34-page report, available as a pdf file, gives a detailed history of signing statements. It also refers to a website set up by Joyce A. Green that lists every signing statement Bush has issued.

The report also cites an article by Prof. Neil Kinkopf of the Georgia State University College of Law, published on the website of the American Constitution Society, in which he sums up the problem posed by Bush's signing statements:

If the President may dispense with application of laws by concocting a constitutional objection, we will quickly cease to live under the rule of law.

I strongly recommend looking at the list of signing statements and reading both the task force report and Prof. Kinkopf's article.

The Task Force recommended the following actions, which have not yet been approved by the ABA:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress;

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the President, if he believes that any provision of a bill pending before Congress would be unconstitutional if enacted, to communicate such concerns to Congress prior to passage;

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the President to confine any signing statements to his views regarding the meaning, purpose and significance of bills presented by Congress, and if he believes that all or part of a bill is unconstitutional, to veto the bill in accordance with Article I, § 7 of the Constitution of the United States, which directs him to approve or disapprove each bill in its entirety;

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements he issues, and in any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, to submit to Congress a report setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for the statement; and further requiring that all such submissions be available in a publicly accessible database; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges Congress to enact legislation enabling the President, Congress, or other entities or individuals, to seek judicial review, to the extent constitutionally permissible, in any instance in which the President claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or interprets such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, and urges Congress and the President to support a judicial resolution of the President's claim or interpretation.

In addition to Sonnett, the task force includes: Former FBI Director Williams Sessions; former federal circuit court Judge Patricia Wald; former Rep. Mickey Edwards; law professors Harold Hongju Koh, Charles Ogletree, Stephen A. Saltzburg, and Kathleen Sullivan; and lawyers Bruce Fein, Mark Agrast, and Tom Susman.

Choosing a mayor in Washington, D.C.

By Nancy Jane Moore

We're going to elect a new mayor in Washington, D.C., this fall. Our current mayor, Anthony Williams, isn't running for re-election.

I can guarantee you two things about our next mayor: He or she will be African American and a reasonably liberal Democrat. The only serious candidates are all African American and the winner of the September 12 Democratic primary will also win the general election in November -- winning the Democratic primary is tantamount to election.

According to The Washington Post, the race seems to be coming down to two candidates: Ward Four Council member Adrian Fenty and Council Chair Linda Cropp. The Post conducted a poll that shows Fenty at 39 percent of the vote and Cropp at 31 percent. Among likely voters, Fenty's lead is even larger. He has a slight lead among both white and black voters -- an unusual event in a city where race is often an issue, even when, as in this case, all candidates are African American.

I'm leaning to Fenty, but I have to confess that I don't see major political divisions between him and Cropp -- or even between the two of them and the other candidates.

Fenty's my council member and I've noticed improvements in our ward since he took office. I agree with his stand against the so-called emergency crime legislation, though I disagreed with his opposition to baseball. Mostly I think he brings new ideas and new energy and is the most likely person to come up with some different approaches to solving our problems.

Cropp strikes me as a representative of the old guard. I haven't been impressed by her leadership on the council, nor by her baseball flip-flops. But I won't be heartbroken if she ends up as mayor -- we could certainly do worse.

My impressions of the candidates have been formed by listening to the DC Politics Hour every Friday at noon on the Kojo Nnamdi Show on WAMU radio. Everyone who is anyone in the District appears on that show to be grilled -- sometimes mercilessly -- by the show's resident analyst Jonetta Rose Barras, various other reporters and community activists, and members of the public who call in. This show combines good political reporting with citizen involvement -- a good way to become informed if you don't have time to go ask all the questions yourself.

Every candidate for mayor has been a guest on the program. This coming Friday the guests will the candidates for Council Chair -- Kathy Patterson and Vincent Gray. I plan to listen to help me decide which one to support.

Being mayor of the District is a funny job -- in some ways it's like being a governor, because we are like a state in many respects (except for that pesky lack of votes in Congress). We have the same issues as many other large cities -- schools, crime, poverty -- but we also have special problems because the federal government is right on top of us. And while we are the central part of a large metropolitan area, we have virtually no clout in handling our suburbs -- they're part of Maryland and Virginia.

In truth, our mayor -- like our nonvoting delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton -- has to be a good negotiator, because we don't have much power in the larger world.

Local elections are generally that: local -- of interest primarily to the people who live in the jurisdiction. But I suspect that most people who follow politics do care about elections in other states and cities. I know I followed the California recall of the governor and subsequent election closely and bit my fingernails over the Washington state governor's race cliffhanger in 2004. I watch mayor's races in places like Chicago, LA, New York, San Antonio. I'm curious about how the system works in other cities, about why certain people get elected. For that reason, I'll try to keep In This Moment readers posted on the D.C. election.

And now for something completely scary

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Harper's magazine online column Washington Babylon reports that some fundamentalist Christians are thrilled over what's happening right now in Lebanon because they think the rapture is on its way. The column gives a link to the "Rapture Ready/End Times" chat. I'm not willing to check it out for you; you'll have to go follow the link yourself. I got creeped out enough reading the bits Ken Silverstein pulled out.

All of these ideas about the rapture -- when "true" Christians go to Heaven and everyone else is left to suffer -- come from a distorted reading of the Bible, one rejected by most theologians. Awhile back I figured I'd better find out more about this subject, so I read one of the Left Behind books. You can read these books as fantasy novels, of course, but unfortunately many of the readers take them literally -- something that doesn't happen with the vast majority of those who read other fantasy like the Harry Potter books or the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

A lot of people seem to buy into this bad theology. The First Amendment guarantees their right to believe this stuff, but I get really scared when I think we might have a foreign policy built around it. I really hope the US isn't sitting around doing nothing about the Lebanon situation because the President thinks the rapture is coming.

Abuse as theology: Fred Phelps' son tells his father to stop venting his rage

By Diane Silver

The estranged son of anti-gay minister Fred Phelps is publicly calling on his father to stop his hate-filled picketing of funerals.

Nate Phelps also provides perspective on his childhood and his controversial father. That insight helps explain Fred Phelps theology, which may well conceive of God as an abusive parent. More on that below, but first the news about Nate Phelps.

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports today:

Nate Phelps said he left home for good in 1980 after a terror-filled childhood in which Fred Phelps beat him and his siblings during outbursts of violence.

"When I watch what he's doing now, I see shadows and visions of who he was when we were growing up," he said. "When we were kids, he could vent his rage and anger on us. Now, I'm seeing the same kind of vicious rhetoric and cruelty, it's just that he can't beat these people up."

Nate told the newspaper that he hasn't spoken to his father or any of the family members who remain with the Westboro Baptist church in 15 years.

Fred Phelps and his minions have picketed just about everything in Kansas and the U.S. that might have the remotest gay connection. He was well known for picketing the funeral of gay-bashing victim Matthew Shepard and of the victims of AIDS.

Now the Westboro Church pickets the funerals of soldiers. He claims that U.S. deaths in Iraq are a sign that God is angry with this country for allegedly accepting homosexuality.

Leaving aside the fact that gay and lesbian Americans don't have anything close to equal rights, Fred Phelps' actions have united many Americans around the idea that it's abusive to picket funerals.

The Capital-Journal reports:

"The dominant feeling I have is anger," (Nate Phelps) said. "It's the idea that they can take something so private and personal and painful and be so hurtful about it. I categorically dismiss what he's doing and am appalled by everything he says and does."

Nate Phelps said he was speaking out about his family to provide another perspective about their protests.

"There's a perception that the family is unified on this, and that's not the case," he said.

Abuse allegations have swirled around Fred Phelps for a long time.

In a 1994 story in The Topeka Capital-Journal, he and his brother Mark Phelps said they and their siblings grew up in a violent household in which they were frequently beaten by their father. Mark Phelps, who also cut ties with Fred Phelps, said he used to beat his own siblings under orders from his father.

Nate Phelps said the story was accurate.

"It wasn't fantasy, it wasn't hyperbole," he said. "He was cruelly, viciously violent -- physically, verbally and psychologically."

First, if this is true, then my deepest sympathies go out to all of the Phelps children. My prayers even go out to those who stay with Fred Phelps. Out of their own pain, they are attacking me and other gays and lesbians, and seeking to inflict pain on the parents and spouses of soldiers who sacrificed in Iraq.

What I find most fascinating -- and sad -- about the accounts of Fred Phelps as an abusive father is the fact that he seems to conceive of God as being like himself.

In an earlier run-in on this blog with one of the members of the Westboro Church, that individual did a good job of summarizing the Phelps theology. In a sentence, it is:

You can't understand the love of God until you understand his hate.

The subtext of this "theology" is as follows.

If you conceive of God as a violently abusive parent, then understanding his hate is all important. If you don't know what God hates, you can't, well, not do that. If you don't avoid doing the forbidden thing, God will (1) hurt you (2) refuse to love you.

As all children of abusive parents know, such parent's love is conditional. That seems to be the God Fred Phelps describes, although that's not the God I believe exists.

One of the most horrible things about abuse is that the child can never please the parent.That's because the parent's problem isn't the child or child's actions, but the parent's own pain. Thus, the parent keeps raging and beating and verbally trashing the child.

If this is Fred Phelps' conception of God, then how horrible for him and his children and followers. Even in their own theology, they can never win because this kind of God can never be satisfied.

U.S. forgets the lessons of Vietnam & flubs Iraq

By Diane Silver

The Washington Post has already posted a piece from its Sunday newspaper on how we undermined our own effort in Iraq. This fascinating article details how civilian and military leaders either forgot or refused to follow the lessons learned from fighting a guerilla war in Vietnam.

Thomas E. Ricks of the Post writes:

(T)here is also strong evidence, based on a review of thousands of military documents and hundreds of interviews with military personnel, that the U.S. approach to pacifying Iraq in the months after the collapse of Hussein helped spur the insurgency and made it bigger and stronger than it might have been.

The very setup of the U.S. presence in Iraq undercut the mission. The chain of command was hazy, with no one individual in charge of the overall American effort in Iraq, a structure that led to frequent clashes between military and civilian officials.

Apparently, military leaders had little education on fighting insurgencies and literally hadn't read what is considered the best book on the subject. Today, we're playing catch up, and it may well be too late.

I cannot say that I have even the smallest understanding of how hard it must be to fight in Iraq. Sometimes, though, the Post's revelations point to a failure to apply common sense, at least among some officers.

I'm just a foolish, middle-aged woman from Kansas, but long ago I learned that if you want someone to like you, you don't harass them. To win the trust of the Iraqi population and to prompt them to tell us about insurgents, wouldn't it have been wise to be decent to folks?

In an effort to gain intelligence, the U.S. military would often arrest every able-bodied male of combat age in a neighborhood. Guess what happened. The Post reports:

Senior U.S. intelligence officers in Iraq later estimated that about 85 percent of the tens of thousands rounded up were of no intelligence value. But as they were delivered to Abu Ghraib prison, they overwhelmed the system and often waited for weeks to be interrogated, during which time they could be recruited by hard-core insurgents, who weren't isolated from the general prison population.

This fascinating piece looks is the first in a series of articles on the topic.

Gays finally get same respect animals receive & earn blessings from the Arkansas Episcopal church

By Diane Silver

The retiring Episcopal bishop of Arkansas has OK'd blessing ceremonies for "faithful, monogamous same-sex relationships," AP reports. (registration required.)

The Right Rev. Larry Maze, bishop of the 14,000-member diocese, wrote to clergy that "seeking ways of recognizing and blessing" the relationships "falls within the parameters of providing pastoral concern and care for our gay and lesbian members."

AP says:

(Maze) said the ceremonies will be local observances in each church, not approved formal rites. Arkansas has banned gay marriage, so same-sex couples will have no legal standing in the state.

Two churches - St. Michael's Episcopal Church in Little Rock and St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Fayetteville - plan to offer the ceremonies.

The Rev. Lowell Grisham of the Fayetteville church, notes:

"My gay friends are very sensitive about the notion that we've been blessing animals for years and find it so difficult to bless their relationships."

What's sad about the current fight over same-sex marriage is the hypocrisy of it.

Many gay and lesbian couples have had some form of informal blessing or ceremonies for their relationships for years from many different churches.

I know of Lutheran, Episcopal and Baptist churches, for example, where clergy have performed ceremonies. Many of them have occurred in Kansas. But of course, this can't be admitted in public in case someone gets upset.

I applaud the bishop of Arkansas for his brave move. May more churches realize that human beings and their relationships are at least as important as animals.

The Census Bureau finds another 31,528 people in Washington, D.C.

By Nancy Jane Moore

Responding to a challenge filed by city officials, the U.S. Census Bureau changed its 2005 estimate of Washington, D.C.'s population from 550,521 to 582,049 -- a jump of 31,528. The new figure also means that the city's population grew over by almost 2 percent over the last five years, instead of falling by about 4 percent.

Given the booming area economy and the fact that every street you walk on seems to be a construction zone -- not to mention the high-flying real estate market -- the revised figures make much more sense than the earlier estimate. In fact, I can't quite figure out how they missed them the first time. Misplacing 5 percent of the population seems like a pretty big error to me.

The Washington Post quotes Brookings Institution demographer William H. Frey as calling this increase "a big deal." It makes up for losses in the 1990s, he noted.

Mayor Anthony Williams -- who wants to see the city's population jump by 100,000 -- was also happy about the new figure, according to the Post. The population has grown by about 10,000 since 2000.

The Census Bureau didn't do much to let people know about the change -- no press release, just an email to city officials and a tiny, hard-to-find chart on its webpage showing the cities whose challenges to 2005 estimates were approved. The main population charts haven't been corrected yet.

By the way, the District has quite a few more people than Wyoming and we're not that much smaller than North Dakota, Alaska and Vermont. All of these states have three things we don't have: two senators and a voting member in the House of Representatives.

And unlike the people of Puerto Rico and other territories, who also have no vote in Congress, we pay federal taxes. If you were paying attention in history class, you probably remember that one of the causes of the American Revolution was taxation without representation. Unfortunately, unfair voting plans in the U.S. didn't end with the American Revolution.

If you'd like to help in our ongoing fight for representation in Congress, check out DC Vote.

Headlines: Washington murders, ignored Iraqi dead, gays & children, voting on evolution

Washington, DC
Fenty gets it right: D.C.'s emergency legislation is not going to solve the crime problem

Iraq
The civilian death toll keeps rising in Iraq. Is anyone paying attention?

Gay Marriage & Children
The American Academy of Pediatrics: Same-sex marriage is good for kids and society

The Kansas Evolution Election & More
The Kansas Evolution Election: What the heck is going on?

The Kansas Evolution Election: Who's Who & how you can help

The Kansas Evolution Election: If you think the Board of Education hasn't mucked things up, take a look here

The Kansas Primary: Moderates running for the state House need your help

And More...

The New York Times gets angry: Bush overreached & Congress wimped out

The military fights to protect our Constitution. Shouldn't they be entitled to freedom of religion?

Ohio joins movement to take back Christianity

The Kansas Evolution Election: Who's Who & how you can help

[updated 7/24/06]

By Diane Silver

To see the first part in this background briefing on the election, look here.

When last we met, we discussed how Kansas is holding what amounts to a referendum on evolution and the religious right's education agenda. For those of us who find the idea of a religiously based public school system frightening, the issue has become: Who should we support and what can we do to help? The tasks are easy.

If you live in Kansas, educate yourself, vote, give money and work for the right candidate.

If you are outside of Kansas, learn about the candidates and provide financial support.

The contribution limit is $500 each for the primary and the general elections

Perhaps this FAQ can be of some help.


1. Who are the moderate candidates?

MAIN*PAC, which is affiliated with the moderate MAINstream Coalition, the Kansas Alliance for Education and the Kansas City Star have all endorsed the following candidates in contested primaries.

District 1 * Incumbent Democrat Janet Waugh of Kansas City
District 3 * Republican challenger Harry McDonald of Olathe
District 5 * Republican challenger Sally Cauble of Liberal
District 7 * Republican challenger Donna Viola of Hutchinson
District 9 * Republican challenger Jana Shaver of Independence

The Wichita Eagle has endorsed Viola for District 7. The Eagle did not print endorsements for any of the other primary races.

2. Who are the anti-evolution candidates?

District 3 * Incumbent John Bacon of Olathe
District 5 * Incumbent Connie Morris of St. Francis
District 7 * Incumbent Ken Willard of Hutchinson
District 9 * Incumbent Iris Van Meter decided not to run again. Her son-in-law Brad Patzer of Neodesha supports her agenda and is running in her place.


3. Detail, detail! Tell us about the moderates and where we can go to donate to their cause.

-->District 1 * Leavenworth, Wyandotte and parts of Douglas counties.

Incumbent Democrat Janet Waugh
http://www.janetwaugh.com/
JWaugh1052@aol.com
916 So. 57th Terrace
Kansas City, Kansas 66106

Waugh has been involved with schools and children for more than 30 years. Prior to joining the State Board of Education in 1999, Janet served for more than 15 years on the Turner Board of Education including eight years as president.

She also held state and regional offices for the PTA and served on various committees with the Kansas Association of School Boards. She has coached and managed ball teams, served as Sunday School Superintendent and for the past six years has served as a Youth Friend.

Waugh manages a family business, Sav-On Auto Sales, and is a member of the Kansas Independent Automobile Dealers Association.

MAIN*PAC says that the religious right is collecting money and organizing for Waugh's opponent.


-->District 3 * southern Johnson County, Miami and Linn counties

Republican challenger Harry McDonald
http://www.electharrymcdonald.org/
biologycctrack@hotmail.com
Committee to Elect Harry McDonald
P.O. Box 4017
Olathe, KS 66063

A science teacher and educator for his entire professional career, McDonald taught for 30 years at Blue Valley High School in suburban Kansas City. Among other subjects, he taught biology, zoology, botany and chemistry and coached high school track and cross country.


-->District 5 * Includes almost the entire western half of Kansas

Republican Sally Cauble
http://www.caubleforcommonsense.com/
info@caubleforcommonsense.com
P.O. Box 1085
Liberal, KS 67905

A native of western Kansas, Cauble earned a BA in elementary education from Southwestern College in Winfield. She taught elementary school for 10 years. She served on the Liberal School Board for eight years and on the Southwestern College Board of Trustees for nine years.

Among other activities, Cauble has also served on the Seward County United Way Board of Trustees and as Christian Education Director at the First United Methodist Church.

Because of the overwhelming Republican presence in western Kansas, this race will probably be won or lost in the primary.


-->District 7 * Central Kansas, including Harvey, Reno & McPherson counties & extending south to Kingman, Pratt and Harper counties.

Donna Viola
PO Box 292
McPherson, KS 67460
dviola1@cox.net

Viola is a member of the McPherson School Board, a small business owner and a lifelong Kansan.


-->District 9 * Runs from the Salina area to north Wichita

Jana Shaver
http://www.janashaver.com/
PO Box 304
Independence, KS 67301
janashaver@cableone.net.

Shaver grew up in Fredonia and earned BS, MS and specialist in education degrees from Pittsburg State University. She taught second grade for eight years and worked as a reading specialist for five years before working as curriculum director for Independence schools for 14 years.

She is president of the Kansas Association of Community College Trustees, past chair of the Independence Community College Board of Trustees and has served on numerous other boards. She is a member of the First United Methodist Church.


4. What can I do?

Give money to the moderate candidates. If you're in Kansas, volunteer to walk, stuff envelopes or join a phone bank. Even a few hours will help.

To volunteer or donate, contact the candidates directly or work with MAIN*PAC or the Kansas Alliance for Education.


5. Where can I get the best information?

The best source? In This Moment, of course!

Actually, I have to admit that the best blogger coverage is coming from Red State Rabble. Also check out Thoughts From Kansas. Other, slightly slower, sources are such mainstream media as the Lawrence Journal-World, Topeka Capital Journal, Wichita Eagle and Kansas City Star.

Fenty gets it right: D.C.'s emergency legislation is not going to solve the crime problem

By Nancy Jane Moore

Adrian Fenty moved way ahead of the competition for my vote for Mayor of the District of Columbia on Wednesday when he voted against a so-called "crime emergency" bill that sets a 10 PM curfew for juveniles and adds surveillance cameras to the streets.

According to The Washington Post, Fenty, who represents Ward Four on the City Council and is one of the candidates for the Democratic nomination for mayor in the upcoming September 12 primary, was the only member to oppose the actual legislation, though two other council members disagreed with the declaration of emergency.

It wasn't just that he opposed the bill, but why he opposed it that got my attention. As quoted in the Post, Fenty said:

I think people know that these are not ways to solve crime. At best, we're tinkering around the edges. At worst, we are putting forth that we are doing something about a crime emergency when everyone in this room knows that we are not.

That's dead on. This is cosmetic. It's not going to fix anything.

And it's unfair to kids. Here's the curfew rule, as listed in the Post:

Youths younger than 18 will not be allowed on District streets after 10 p.m. unless they are with a parent, on the way home from work, or attending a civic or church outing.

10 PM? Kids could get in trouble because they went to an 8 PM movie. Or went to a baseball game -- it's pretty rare when a 7:30 baseball game is over in time for people to get home by 10 PM. Plus that exception for church outings galls me -- surely there are other wholesome activities for kids besides religious ones.

I'm not real happy about surveillance cameras either. I think we should all be entitled to a little privacy as we go about our daily lives.

Frankly, I'm not even convinced there's a new crime emergency. What we've actually had is several high-profile crimes in "good" parts of town. There was a nasty murder in Georgetown. Tourists have been robbed on the National Mall. It seems that the thugs aren't confining themselves to attacking poor people in bad neighborhoods anymore. We've had plenty of nasty murders in poor neighborhoods this year without any special action. In fact, far too many of them remain unsolved.

I'm sure we could use more police on the street. And more streetlights, which are probably more effective than cameras at actually preventing crime. But if the problem is really an increase in juvenile crime -- which is what the police chief says -- what we need is something more substantial than a curfew or even more cops. We need vastly better schools, early childhood programs, parenting programs, after school activities of all kinds (arts, sports, homework help), summer jobs, and any number of other programs designed to reach every -- and I do mean every -- child in our community.

Thugs aren't born; they're made. And if we provide all our children -- not just the cute ones, the bright ones, the ambitious ones, and the ones whose parents are savvy enough to get them into the right schools -- with better alternatives, we're going to make fewer thugs.

Yes, all that costs money. But until we're willing to invest long-term in our children, we're going to have a serious juvenile crime program in D.C.

The Kansas Primary: Moderates running for the state House need your help

We're 10 days out from the Kansas primary, and there is much more going on then a vote on the state Board of Education. Among other important races, voters have a chance to keep moderate members of the Kansas House of Representatives in office and to boot out those pushing the agenda of the religious right.

This Saturday folks from a variety of groups in Kansas will be walking door-to-door for moderates in Johnson County.

-->From 9 am to 12 pm on Saturday, July 22, folks will be walking for 16th District State Representative Jim Yonally. Rep Yonally has been a strong and consistent advocate for fairness. He is facing tough challenge in the Republican primary challenge from a social conservative. For anyone who is travelling to the KC area to canvass, he has offered to let a few volunteers borrow his guest rooms Friday evening.

MAIN*PAC reports that volunteers are meeting at 10039 Mastin Dr. Overland Park at 8:45 am. Yonally is also collecting names of those who will appear in an Endorsement ad. You can send your name to jly.jcs@sbcglobal.net

-->From 2pm to 5pm on Saturday, July 22, folks will be helping Milack Talia in the 23rd district. He's facing a far-right candidate in the Democratic primary, and if he is victorious on August 1 and moves on to the general election, he'll be facing a right-wing Republican incumbent. If Talia wins, he add a vote of moderation to the Statehouse.

MAIN*PAC reports that volunteers are meeting at Antioch Park at 1:45 p.m. Look for the Shelter on your left as you drive in.

For more details, you can also contact Tom Witt at thomaswitt@mulliganvalley.com.

The Kansas Evolution Election: If you think the Board of Education hasn't mucked things up, take a look here

Jack Kreb, president of Kansas Citizens For Science and member of the Science Standards Writing Committee, is explaining all in a series of free talks next week.

Here's the schedule.

• Monday, July 24, 7-9 PM, at Johnson County Community Center, Carlsen Center, Room 211, College Blvd. & Quivira, Overland Park, Kansas
• Thursday, July 27, 7-9 PM,, at Hutchinson Community College & Area Vocational School, Shears Technology Center, 1300 N. Plum, Hutchinson, Kansas
• Monday, July 31, 7-9 PM at Kansas City Kansas Community College - Performing Arts Center, 7250 State Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas.

Kreb's presentations are particularly important as we head towards the Aug. 1 primary. That is the first opportunity Kansans have to kick the anti-evolution members of the state board out of office.

As Thoughts From Kansas explains Kreb's presentations are important for another reason.

The Discovery Institute and Kansas' Intelligent Design Network are rolling out their misinformation campaign to try to explain how the standards that these IDC advocates back aren't IDC backing standards.

Hat tips to Thoughts From Kansas and Red State Rabble.

The civilian death toll keeps rising in Iraq. Is anyone paying attention?

By Nancy Jane Moore

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued a report this week saying that 5,818 civilians were killed during May and June. About the same number were injured.

There were over 3,000 deaths in June alone and there have been 14,338 killed since January. These are the official figures from the Ministry of Health and the Medico-Legal Institute, which is apparently the morgue.

The official guess is that over 50,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invaded. Most everyone thinks that number is low.

My first thought, on seeing the June numbers, was that more Iraqi civilians died in June than US soldiers have died during the entire war. And I've found the deaths of our soldiers very depressing.

You may have missed this report -- Iraqi news is being pushed off the front pages by the situation in Lebanon. More death and destruction, more suffering, more people learning to hate. The thing that is weighing on my mind is the fact that everyone involved -- Israelis, Palestinians, Hizbullah, and even ordinary Lebanese -- talk about the other side as if they weren't human. That leaves very little ground for constructive dialogue.

The worst thing about the UN report on Iraqi deaths is not the numbers, bad as they are. No, the worst thing is that the UN Report presents no real suggestions on how to solve this problem. They talk about consultations, meetings, the establishment of a "thematic working group on human rights, a few grants to non-governmental organizations. But no big plans to fix the problem.

I don't really fault them for that -- I don't have any solutions myself. My best idea requires the use of a time machine: Go back to 2003 and have the US not invade Iraq. I don't suppose that's practical.

If you care about what's going in Iraq, read the report. It's a pdf, but it doesn't take long to load, even on dial-up. Not only does it give the horrible death count, but it discusses the widespread kidnappings, the repression of women, the ill-treatment of minorities and gays, the horrible risks to those who are trying to take care of everyone else -- police, soldiers, doctors, judges.

People are suffering. The least we can do is pay attention.

Thank you Washington Post for linking to both sides in gay marriage debate

Sometime this afternoon while I was engaged in other pursuits, the Washington Post put up a longer AP story about today's House of Representatives vote on the same-sex marriage ban and corrected an error in their "On the Net" feature that I pointed out earlier.

The pro-gay Human Rights Campaign web site is now posted along with the anti-gay Family Research Council. Before only anti-gay organizations were listed.

My faith in journalism is restored, well at least, some of my faith.

I have no idea if my post made a difference and that, honestly, doesn't matter. It may seem like a small thing, but many small bits of information add up to truth. Many thanks to the Washington Post.

See my earlier post here.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says same-sex marriage is good for kids and good for society

By Nancy Jane Moore

A special article in the July 2006 issue of the journal Pediatrics -- the official publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics -- provides a wealth of statistical and analytical support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

The article, "The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children," not only points out that children raised by same-sex parents do as well as those raised by heterosexual couples, but also enumerates the risks to children posed by the lack of legal relationships. Here are just three of the problems they list:

• children's right to maintain a relationship with a nonbiological/not-jointly-adopting parent in the event of the death of the other parent
• surviving parent's right to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children
• Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children after the death of one partner

And here are some percentages they list that show the importance of the issue:

• 33.4 percent of lesbian couples are raising children.
• 22.3 percent of gay male couples are raising children.
• 45.6 percent of married heterosexual couples are raising children.
• 43.1 percent of unmarried heterosexual couples raising children.
• And same gender couples live in 99.3 percent of all U.S. counties and are raising children in at least 96 percent of those counties.

That is, the lack of same-sex marriage is an issue that affects children everywhere.

There's much more detail in the article -- reading it will give you a thorough understanding of the importance of recognizing same-sex marriage. And among other things, it suggests that the US will get more tax income if gay couples are legally married and file taxes jointly.

Further, it moves the argument away from the silly demagogic appeal of "marriage is between a man and a woman" by providing clear evidence that children of gay and lesbian couples are getting the short end of the legal stick.

Yoohoo, Washington Post! It's time to link to BOTH sides of the same-sex marriage debate.

[updated 5:30 p.m. to note that the Post corrected its error. See here.]

By Diane Silver

I fondly remember the good old days in journalism school when our professors told us about those silly traditional journalism values like fairness and covering both sides of an issue.

Coverage of today's vote by the U.S. House on a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage provides a case in point. To no one's surprise, the House failed to get the required 2/3 majority needed to send the ban to the voters.

While today's AP story posted at the The Washington Post web site does quote people on both sides of the issue, the "On The Net" feature at the bottom of the story only provides links to the organizations that want to ban marriage.

As of 1:58 p.m. Central, the only links posted are for Alliance for Marriage and Traditional Values Coalition.

The problem is that failing to link to pro-marriage groups gives the casual reader the idea that there are no organizations that support same-sex marriage. (Wrong.) Where do the folks on our side of the issue go for more information?

Memo to the Post's online editors: Ever hear of the Human Rights Campaign? What about Marriage Equality USA?

I'm a former newspaper reporter, and I know what it's like to prepare things on deadline. The Washington Post is a fine newspaper, but someone definitely dropped the ball here.

The Kansas Evolution Election: What the heck is going on?

By Diane Silver

For those of you who have been on vacation or are visiting from the far corners of the Earth, here is the first part of a background briefing on our rather interesting election.

1. What is the Kansas Evolution Election?

This year the voters of Kansas are holding what amounts to a referendum on evolution.

The election will determine the fate of four of the six members of the Kansas Board of Education who voted to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution in the state's K-12 schools. These are the same board members who have pushed the religious right's agenda into schools in a variety of other ways.

The fate of one moderate board member who has fought the majority's anti-science agenda is also being decided.

A turnaround on the board may well happen. The last time the religious right took control of the Kansas Board and undermined the teaching of evolution and science, they were booted out of office in the next election in 2000.

2. Why should I care?

If you live in Kansas, the future of your children's education rests on the results of this election. The state's reputation and, possibly, its economic future are also at stake. Businesses report difficulty in luring out-of-state employees to what people consider to be a backward state. High School students say they are worrying that colleges might consider their diplomas to be second class.

If you live outside of our wonderful scarlet state, the election is still important. Think of it this way: If the anti-evolution social conservatives can be defeated here, they can be beaten anywhere. Also, if you're facing this kind of attack in your own state, you might want to check out the tactics and arguments being used in Kansas.

3. What are the key dates?

August 1
Primary

November 7
General Election

4. When must I register to vote? When can I advance vote?

For the Aug. 1 Primary Advanced Voting by mail and in-person at County Election Offices has already begun.

Alas, it's now too late to register for the primary, but you can still register for the general election.

For the Nov. 7 General Election
October 18 - Advanced Voting begins by mail and in- person at County Election Offices.
October 23 - Last day to register to vote in general election
November 6 -- Advanced voting closes for the general election

For other details on voting see http://www.voteks.org/.

5. Why should I vote in the primary?

Two reasons.

(1) Each candidate faces a primary opponent. If the religious radicals get knocked off in the primary, then the balance of power automatically shifts on the state board.

(2) It is no surprise that Kansas is an overwhelmingly Republican state. Often the candidate who wins the GOP primary, automatically wins the vote in November. For example, MAIN*Pac brings word that the race between moderate Sally Cauble and incumbent radical Connie Morris in western Kansas may well be decided in the primary.

Up next: Who's Who in this election.

Spam attack forces comments change

Well, isn't this delightful. I woke up this morning to discover that overnight about 130 bits of spam were posted as comments on In This Moment.

Since I refuse to provide free advertising to anyone and despise spam, I am in the process of deleting all of it.

I've also turned on the Word Verification feature. This means that when you make a comment, you have to type the squiggly word in the appropriate box to prove that you're a human being.

Apologies for the hassle.

U.S. House vote set for tomorrow on banning gay marriage: Call your representative NOW

By Diane Silver

Yet again the Republican Congressional leadership is attempting to win political points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans.

Last month the Senate voted on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Tomorrow it's the House of Representatives' turn. This vote is particularly vile because the proposal's defeat in the Senate means that it has no chance of getting out of Congress.

Now is the time to call and email your representative. Let him or her know that discrimination and prejudice are NOT the American way.

Check out the Human Rights Campaign's Vote No web site. Take a look at what it feels like to be a lesbian -- otherwise known as life as a political football.

The New York Times editorial page gets angry: Bush has overreached and Congress has wimped out

By Nancy Jane Moore

In an editorial that pulls no punches, The New York Times on Sunday said:

[T]he Bush administration's response to the terror attacks . . . had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.

The Times found two results of this policy:

One result has been a frayed democratic fabric in a country founded on a constitutional system of checks and balances. Another has been a less effective war on terror.

The editorial concludes that:

Americans' civil liberties have been trampled. The nation's image as a champion of human rights has been gravely harmed. Prisoners have been abused, tortured and even killed at the prisons we know about, while other prisons operate in secret. American agents "disappear" people, some entirely innocent, and send them off to torture chambers in distant lands. Hundreds of innocent men have been jailed at Guantanamo Bay without charges or rudimentary rights. And Congress has shirked its duty to correct this out of fear of being painted as pro-terrorist at election time.

The Times hopes that Congress will take a stand, as "the president has made it clear that he is not giving an inch of ground."

I only take issue with one comment in the editorial, which I urge everyone to read. The Times says "no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism." But I do question it. It appears to me that, rather than fighting terrorism, the White House has used it as an excuse to implement the neocon foreign policy and to expand executive power. While there are many dedicated government workers -- mostly, though not exclusively, career employees rather than presidential appointees -- who have given their all to actually do something about the actions of Osama bin Laden and others like him, their actions have been undermined by an out-of-control administration.

And I've got one more question for The Times: What took you so long?

The military fights to protect our Constitution. Shouldn't they be entitled to freedom of religion?

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation was recently established to fight the ongoing efforts of the religious right to make the military an evangelical Christian stronghold. The group is suing the U.S. Air Force for violations of the First Amendment. According to a website description of the litigation:

The suit seeks to counter attempts, which have persisted for more than a decade, to impose Evangelical Christian beliefs and practices on [Air Force] Academy Cadets. The violations include pressuring non-Evangelical Christian Cadets to listen to proselytizing efforts to forcing them to participate against their will in Evangelical Christian prayers.

Mikey Weinstein, the founder, is a graduate of the Air Force Academy, a former Air Force JAG officer, and a lawyer who once worked in the Reagan Administration. He's also something of a character, at least according to The Washington Post profile on him Sunday.

Weinstein's family is military. His father graduated from the Naval Academy, his brother-in-law, eldest son, and daughter-in-law all graduated from the Air Force Academy, and his youngest son is at the Air Force Academy. That is, this is a family that takes the military seriously.

Weinstein is also Jewish. According to the Post article, he decided to start this organization and litigation after his son came up against repeated and nasty anti-Semitism -- of the "you killed Jesus" type -- at the Academy.

The Post provides a couple of good quotes from Weinstein:

[T]he Christian right wants people to think that separation of church and state is a myth, like Bigfoot.

I will not accept my government telling me who are the children of the greater God and who are the children of the lesser God.

It's good to see more people fighting the influence of the religious right. I'm sure the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State -- who have been fighting this battle for years -- welcome the help.

Ohio joins movement to take back Christianity

[revised 4:30 pm]

By Diane Silver

Moderate and progressive clergy in Ohio are the latest to join a growing national movement of people of faith who are standing up to the religious right.

The new organization is called We Believe Ohio, and it has drawn 300 religious leaders.

Rev. Timothy Ahrens, senior minister at The First Congregational Church in Columbus, told Reuters:

"At our opening meeting, pastor after pastor said they have members ... who won't even tell people they are Christian any more, because Christian is such a dirty word."

The group's goal is to get voters to the polls and to "convince mainstream voters that Christians care about more than banning gay marriage and abortion and restoring school prayer."

We Believe Ohio is just the latest group of clergy and lay people to be formed. In Kansas, Mainstream Voices of Faith was launched this year with a similar mission.

So far the news media have downplayed the birth of these groups. Take a close look at the Reuters story for a complete display of the arguments about how this new movment is and will always be toothless.

However, I believe the mainstream media is missing the story. It's true that no new political organization can have the impact of a longterm group. Organizing takes time and the religious right's twenty-some year lead is substantial.

I remember the birth pains of the religious right, though. I was a member of the Statehouse press corps in Kansas for some of that period. I vividly remember how reporters and the moderate Republican leadership laughed at the social conservatives. They were nutcases, we thought. They'd never have any power.

Today, they control the state GOP and much of state government, not to mention the White House, all of Congress and an increasing proportion of the judiciary.

My advice to the pundits and the reporters: Don't judge too soon.

The true test of any new movement is not what happens today, but what will happen tomorrow, at the November election and in the next five, 10 and 20 years.

The simple fact that these kinds of groups are popping up all over the country, often in the most religious areas of the nation, is more than just noteworthy.

Living out here in Kansas, I sense that many people -- particularly people of faith -- are mad as h*ll at the religious right, and they're not going to take it anymore.

That kind of emotion can fuel miracles.

Hat tip to Red State Rabble for pointing me toward the story.

More o f my blogging on Mainstream Voices of Faith can be found here and here.

Another reason to oppose the Haynes nomination

By Nancy Jane Moore

It turns out that William J. Haynes, the pro-torture Defense Department general counsel who Bush wants to put on the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, is a protege of David S. Addington.

And David Addington, according to The New Yorker, is "[t]he legal mind behind the White House's war on terror."

Jane Mayer's comprehensive report (a brilliant piece of reporting that everyone needs to read) in the magazine's July 3 issue concludes that Addington, who is Dick Cheney's chief of staff and has served as his top legal adviser for years, is the lawyer behind the Bush Administration's "New Paradigm." According the Mayer, this doctrine provides that:

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it.

Even a Republican who worked in the Reagan Justice Department thinks Addington goes too far. As quoted by Mayer, Bruce Fein says Addington and other White House lawyers

staked out powers that are a universe beyond any other Administration. This President has made claims that are really quite alarming. He's said that there are no restraints on his ability, as he sees it, to collect intelligence, to open mail, to commit torture, and to use electronic surveillance. If you used the President's reasoning, you could shut down Congress for leaking too much. His war powers allow him to declare anyone an illegal combatant. All the world's a battlefield -- according to his view he could kill someone in Lafayette Park if he wants! It's got the sense of Louis XIV: "I am the State."

And this is the reaction of a Republican who voted for Bush! Twice!

Virtually no legal scholars share Addington's opinion on executive power, Mayer says. Actually, I don't think you need to be a legal scholar to reject his ideas; all you need to have done was to pay attention in high school civics when they talked about the three branches of government and the concept of checks and balances. Or in history class, when they mentioned that George Washington declined to become king.

But Addington's opinion prevailed in the White House, which is a little short on great legal minds. Or even people who paid attention in civics or history class, apparently.

And Haynes, Mayer says, was his protege. Addington helped him get the Defense Department general counsel job. From Mayer's article, it looks like they are two peas in a pod when it comes to executive power and ignoring those in the know, like military lawyers.

In Haynes we have a potential judge who is pro-torture and wants to eviscerate the Constitution by putting all the power in the White House. He has done great damage in his current job -- just ask the military lawyers who've been testifying on Capitol Hill this week. Giving him a lifetime role as a judge would do even more harm to the country.

But Addington is probably the bigger problem. He's given Cheney and his crew a bogus legal rationale for executive power that they've tried to cram down our throats. Right now the only thing protecting us -- not just the detainees at Guantanamo, but all of us -- from a dictatorship is the 5-3 Supreme Court opinion in Hamden v. Rumsfeld.

Democracy is hard to protect. Sometimes we salvage it by the skin of our teeth. We're teetering on that edge right now.

Retired military officers oppose torture lawyer's appointment to court

[updated]

Even military officers now appear to be arguing against confirming Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes for a seat on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The American Constitution Society blog provides background and links.

Haynes signed off on using "harsh interrogation" (aka torture) on prisoners.

Look here to see In This Moment's discussion on why this makes Haynes a lousy candidate for the federal court.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times brings word that the nomination might be in serious trouble. Hat tip to Think Progress.

Presbyterian pastor: Gay rights opponents "use the Christian religion as a camouflage for bullying."

The Rev. Jim Rigby, pastor of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin, Tex., has a terrific column on Alernet this morning. He describes the religious right as bullies and "vicious predators" who hide their hatred behind a veneer Christianity.

Rigby writes:

I want to suggest that the day has come when Christians must declare that gay bashing is an attack on the gospel and that real Christians do not participate in any form of discrimination....

I believe the time has come to say that genuine followers of Jesus Christ do not participate in discrimination against gay and lesbian persons...

Gay bashing is not just an opinion, it is an assault.

Headlines: Gay marriage, divorce, Ken Lay, Kansas, evolution, boys, torture and more

Featured Posts

*Latest divorce data undermines claim that gay marriage hurts families by Diane Silver

*The Houston elite turns out to remember the great Christian and convicted criminal Ken Lay by Nancy Jane Moore


Other Recent Posts

Diane Silver

*The Kansas Evolution Election: Candidate Rally set for this Sunday in Johnson County

*The Kansas Evolution Election: Advance voting begins today for the primary

*The rule of law prevails: Protections of Geneva Conventions extended to Guantanamo Bay

*Furious evangelical leader accuses religious right of idolatry & other tales of religious progressives


Nancy Jane Moore

*Don't let the lawyer who wrote memos approving torture become a federal judge

*Women are excelling in college. This is a crisis?

The Houston elite turns out to remember the great Christian and convicted criminal Ken Lay

By Nancy Jane Moore

They memorialized Ken Lay of Enron in Houston on Wednesday. The social "A" list was there: George Bush the senior and former Secretary of State James Baker were the best known, but other politicians and corporate types turned out.

Interesting that so many prominent types were there. Perhaps it was just human decency -- showing respect to the dead and those left behind -- but I tend to think that it has more to do with the fact that Lay, even though convicted, was still considered part of the power structure.

Those who spoke from the pulpit all seemed to think he'd been mistreated. According to the Houston Chronicle, one pastor who spoke even said Lay had been "lynched."

And everybody talked about what a great Christian he was. Every news report I've read mentions that.

Funny, but I always thought you needed to follow the Ten Commandments to be a good Christian -- or at least to repent when you broke them. As I recall from Sunday school, one of those commandments is "Thou shalt not steal."

I'm sure people are convincing themselves that Lay wasn't a crook because it's difficult to figure out how Enron stole so much money from people -- fancy accounting tricks aren't as obvious as the work of a pickpocket. And after all, he was such a nice guy and gave money to the church.

But as Woody Guthrie observed in "Pretty Boy Floyd":

Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.

Ken Lay used computers and accounting wizards, not a fountain pen, but the principle remains the same.

If Lay was really a believing Christian, I expect it's getting pretty toasty where he is now.

Latest divorce data undermines claim that gay marriage hurts families

By Diane Silver

Hat tip to Bruce Wilson at Talk To Action for pointing out that Massachusetts -- the only state with legalized same-sex marriage -- is also the state with the lowest heterosexual divorce rate in the nation.

Even more interesting is the data showing that many states hostile to same-sex marriage have high, or even the highest, divorce rates for heterosexuals. Wilson writes:

The preliminary data from 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005 -- from the 17 US states which have provided data on divorce for 2004 and 2005 and whose voters also passed state constitutional amendents prohibiting same sex marriage -- presents a striking picture : the group of US states arguably most hostile to divorce, those which have passed both state laws and also state constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage, lag dramatically in terms of divorce rate improvement when compared to same sex marriage friendly states.
...
Among those US states that are most opposed to same sex marriage which have also provided divorce data for the time period -- ( alaska ? ) AR, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, ND, OH, OK, OR, UT, TX -- the average divorce rate ( unadjusted for population changes ) for 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005 increased 1.75%. This group contains 4 of the 5 states with the highest divorce rate increases in the US during 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005.
...
If leaders of the religious right are correct that there is a connection between same sex marriage and the health of the institution of marriage, then they will certainly want to become advocates of marriage equality. The continued lead of Massachusetts as the lowest divorce rate leader in the US would indicate that same sex marriage helps to preserve rather than destroy traditional heterosexual marriages.

Wilson's article has charts, data and the usual gay-bashing quotes from the religious right. My favorite piece is the bit from the Daily Show putting an opponent of gay marriage in the hot seat.

If I were truly snarky, I'd argue that the best way to save the institution of marriage is to legalize it for same-sex couples, but I won't go there.

More seriously, I wonder if the hysteria over same-sex marriage doesn't come, in part, from people who are foundering in their own marriages and desperate for a solution. This must be particularly difficult when folks are told all their lives that there can only be one model for a family.

A wife may be trapped in a loveless marriage or an abusive relationship. Perhaps the father-rules-all model of a family is destroying her, and she feels like the only way to be an obedient wife is to ignore her own needs. Perhaps a husband is facing the normal psychological conflicts that occur in any relationship, but his church says there is only one solution and, so far, that solution hasn't worked.

If good people feel their own lives are crumbling, or if they are surrounded by the debris of their friend's marriages, then they may search for scapegoats out of desperation. Lesbians and gays are easy targets. Stereotypes and misinformation about our lives continue to overwhelm reality.

The sad truth is that until heterosexuals stop focusing on lesbians and gays and start looking at their own relationships, they will never solve the problems within their own families.

The more energy heterosexuals put into attacking their neighbors, the more they will neglect their own problems, and the more their own families will suffer. It is a self-fulfilling, downward spiral for the heterosexual family.

If you are a gay-marriage opponent and reading this post, may I give you some advice?

The only way to solve your problems is to deal with them directly.

Working to destroy me won't help you.

Don't let the lawyer who wrote memos approving torture become a federal judge

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Senate Judiciary Committee is currently debating the nomination of William J. Haynes II to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Haynes was general counsel to the Defense Department and signed off on the legality of some forms of "harsh interrogation" -- i.e., torture.

Clearly this man should not be made a federal appeals court judge. The Democrats are making noises about opposing him -- Senator Edward Kennedy has made strong statements and even Minority Leader Harry Reid is criticizing Haynes.

Given the way the Democrats have caved in when they should have filibustered on judicial nominees, I'm not holding out a lot of hope for them. Fortunately, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is a lawyer in the Air Force reserves, is also raising objections to the nominee, according to a report in today's Washington Post.

We've already got one pro-torture judge on the federal appeals bench -- Judge Jay S. Bybee, now on the Ninth Circuit, was the Justice Department lawyer who signed off on the infamous torture memo that came up during Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's confirmation hearings. John Dean -- a man who knows quite a lot about misconduct in the executive branch of government -- summarizes that memo in an article on Findlaw:

The memo defines torture so narrowly that only activities resulting in "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function" qualify.

Bybee should never have been confirmed, but unfortunately the memo didn't surface until after he was approved.

It's absurd that the Senate is even debating whether or not someone who approved torture is qualified to serve as a judge. Of course he isn't. Yes, I know that lawyers are supposed to do what their clients request -- I'm a lawyer -- but lawyers are also officers of the court and supposed to uphold the Constitution. That duty trumps all others. Any lawyer who can find approval for torture under our legal system is tearing the Constitution to shreds.

For the sake of the soul of our country we can't put any more pro-torture Bush appointees on the federal bench.

The Kansas Evolution Election: Candidate Rally set for this Sunday in Johnson County

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' running mate, Republican - turned - Democrat Mark Parkinson, is one of several candidates appearing Sunday at the MAIN*PAC Rally in Prairie Village.

Also attending will be Kansas School Board candidates Janet Waugh, Harry McDonald and Kent Runyan. A representative from Sally Cauble's campaign will also attend. Also expected are candidates up for election to the House. Details:

• 3-5 pm (Parkinson will attend from 3-4 pm)
• at Harmon Park (77th & Delmar) (Between 75th & 79th, behind the Prairie Village City Hall)
• Hot Dogs, drinks, cookies, ice cream will be provided
  
• Candidates will mingle
  
• Happening Rain or Shine
• Candidates will be introduced, but all except Parkinson will not make speeches
• Candidates and their workers will hand out literature and answer questions

The Kansas Evolution Election: Advance voting begins today for the primary

Heads up, folks: Advance voting begins today by mail and in-person at County Election Offices for the Aug. 1 primary. The primary is the first chance Kansas voters have to defeat the anti-evolution, right-wing majority on the state Board of Education.

Because of the strong Republican majority in Kansas and because the right wing candidates are all Republicans, the primary may also represent the best chance of defeating them.

Voter Registration closes on July 17th for the Kansas primary.

The deadline for getting advance ballots in is Aug. 1.

The anti-evolution radicals on the state Board are:
District 3 - Incumbent John Bacon
District 5 - Incumbent Connie Morris
District 7 - Incumbent Ken Willard
District 9 - Incumbent Iris Van Meter decided not to run again. In her place is her son-in-law, Brad Patzer, who is expected to carry on her agenda.

Moderate Republican Janet Waugh of District 1 in Kansas City is also up for election. She has opposed the efforts of the radical majority.

The rule of law prevails: Protections of Geneva Conventions to be extended to Guantanamo Bay

By Diane Silver

It may have taken a Supreme Court ruling to force George W. Bush to follow the rule of law, but the White House has finally given in. I am heartened to learn that the Pentagon today says that the Geneva Conventions will now apply to detainees in the war on terror, including those at Guantanamo Bay. Torture and inhumane treatment will no longer be condoned.

It turns my stomach, though, to realize that it is news -- big news -- for my country to announce that it is finally following a treaty we signed. Worse is the fact that any American administration has to be forced into turning its back on torture.

Bush and company claim they are not mistreating prisoners, but a multitude of reports say otherwise. Check out this article from Sunday's Washington Post, for example, about how doctors are both "passive and active partners" in the abuse of detainees.

The Washington Post reports:

Since 2001, the administration has argued that the Geneva Conventions would be respected as a matter of policy but that they did not apply by law. The Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, rejected that view.

The Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties and protocols, formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, setting standards for humane treatment of combatants and
civilians during time of war. The United States, Afghanistan and Iraq are among the signatories.

The relevant provisions of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits violence to prisoners, cruel treatment, torture and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

It also provides for sentences only as "pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

The kangaroo court military tribunals set up by Bush and company did not meet this guideline.

Furious evangelical leader accuses religious right of idolatry & other tales of religious progressives

By Diane Silver

The Rev. Tony Campolo has an interesting take on the religious right. While many progressives and secular folk attack theocrats for their political policies, Campolo skewers them where it has to really hurt -- in their theology. CBS News quotes Campolo about how he and and other evangelicals feel about the religious right.

"We are furious that the religious right has made Jesus into a Republican. That's idolatry," Campolo said. "To recreate Jesus in your own image rather than allowing yourself to be created in Jesus' image is what's wrong with politics."

Campolo's comment is part of a CBS story on the emerging political voice of the religious left. As a fiercely spiritual person, I'm excited about the emergence of a politically progressive religious movement. I agree with much of what I hear.

Take a look at what Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches tells CBS News.

"Jesus called us to love our neighbor, love our enemy, care for the poor, care for the outcast, and that's really the moral core of where we think the nation ought to go." Dr. Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches

..."Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, never said one word about civil marriage or abortion," Edgar said.

He calls this movement the "center" -- and it's seeking the same political muscle as the conservative Christians, a group with a strong power base in the huge Evangelical churches of the South.

As I said I am excited about the new leftist movement among religious folk, but I am also a tad concerned. As a lesbian and a feminist, I keep getting the uneasy feeling that a few of the good people I want to make into my allies don't always have my best interests at heart.

Today Talk To Action takes Sojourners editor and author Jim Wallis to task for his stand on abortion. I'll have to do a little more digging to see where folks like Campolo and Wallis stand on the issue of fair laws for lesbian and gay Americans. I worry that many would gladly fight alongside me if we were marching for the environment or against poverty, but turn their back on me when I want their help in working for equality for my family.

However, as uneasy as I may feel, I still think an energized religious left, particularly an energized Christian left, can only help this country. We may not stand together on all issues, but we can at least work together on some.

For more on Tony Campolo, go here.

Information about Jim Wallis, can be found here.

One of the best ways to get involved and to learn about the movement is to check out the Network of Spiritual Progressives here.