Bush-style political games enter the race for D.C. mayor

By Nancy Jane Moore

Washington, D.C., mayoral candidate Linda Cropp took a leaf from Karl Rove's book this week -- she put out a campaign mailing that called fellow candidate Adrian Fenty soft on crime, the local government equivalent of weak on national security.

I haven't received one of the brochures yet, and it isn't on Cropp's website (which doesn't appear to have been updated in the last month), but The Washington Post reports that she said Fenty's opposition to the meaningless crime emergency bill the City Council passed a couple of weeks ago "puts our safety at risk."

Fenty was the only member of the Council to vote against the bill. I applauded his stance then here on In This Moment. As far as I'm concerned, the "crime emergency bill" is cosmetic legislation that makes it look like someone is doing something. As Fenty told The Post at the time the bill passed:

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.

The political column "The Nose" in August's Hill Rag makes this observation:

As the council blindly endorsed the legislation, Fenty seemed to understand that the jump in crime demanded solutions that were more comprehensive and less reactive. He was willing to stand on principle, indicating that his decisions as mayor may rely more on what works and less on what's popular. Of course, Cropp may use the vote against him, and like in many elections past, he might be the victim of well-produced attack ads that question his dedication to the safety and security of the city's residents.

Fenty is running ahead of Cropp in the polls, making this look like a desperation move on her part. Fenty's campaign certainly thinks so; The Post quotes his spokesman Alec Evans as saying "They're behind, and they're desperate."

I hope my fellow citizens in D.C. see this attack as the dirty politics it is. We're all worried about crime -- we already had too much crime in the city before people started worrying about the latest crime emergency. But we need real solutions -- long term solutions -- not cosmetic ones.

And we certainly don't need a mayor who uses scaremongering instead of crafting solutions. That's why I'm going to vote for Adrian Fenty.

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

By Diane Silver

Anti-gay minister Terry Fox's abrupt resignation from his home church still hasn't been fully explained, but Wichita Eagle columnist Mark McCormick raises some interesting questions.

In a column that is generally positive toward Fox, McCormick notes that the explanations given so far for Fox's one-day exit don't add up. I blogged about the oddities in Fox's departure here.

This column comes as Fox has begun telling the public that he planned his exit to spend more time on his political work.

The Eagle's McCormick writes:

The Rev. Terry Fox's exit from Immanuel Baptist Church on Sunday isn't the ugly scandal some people may suspect, he (Fox) said.

But I don't think it was all love and understanding, either.
...
Fox appearing so talkative, and the church seeming so reticent, reflects how far apart the two sides have grown.

No matter who is saying what, the rest of us aren't getting the whole story.

McCormick notes that the public and Fox's congregation deserve the whole story. Amen to that.

Childish Joe

By Diane Silver

I've had a few other things on my mind, so I haven't blogged on the Ned Lamont - Joe Lieberman saga before. I can't say I'm an expert on the race. I can't say I'm an expert on Connecticut politics, but I am a mother. I can spot a temper tantrum when I see one.

Toddlers are notorious for them. Refuse to give them the candy they want or force them to share a favorite toy and watch out! Voices shriek and arms and legs flail, breaking anything in their way.

Lieberman's refusal to admit defeat in yesterday's primary for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination in Connecticut and his determination to run as an independent is just that: a tantrum.

He didn't get his way and now he is determined to scream and strike out in the hope that someone will get tired enough of his antics to give him his toy back. In the process, he could break the Democratic Party, or hurt its chances to win in November.

Temper tantrums make sense for 2-year-olds. They can be part of a developmental stage. Lieberman needs to grow up, cut his losses and move on. That's what an adult would do.

The Kansas culture war isn't going away

Despite the victories of moderates and evolution in last week's primary vote, writer Thomas Frank argues in today's New York Times that the cultural crusade of Kansas conservatives and others like them around the nation isn't going away anytime soon. Unfortunately, I think Frank may well be right.

The problem is both within the conservatives and their opponents, he says. He implies that social conservatives are driven by their frustration by their own lack of power. Moderates and liberals are simply toothless because they haven't figured out how to counter the attack that they're the horrible elite who are oppressing the masses.

Frank writes:

The culture war will remain with us, both in Kansas and in the nation, because it is larger than any of its leaders, larger than its legions of citizen activists, larger even than the particular causes in which these forces are enlisted. Seen from the streets of Wichita, the rightist rebellion of Kansas seems to fulfill that most romantic of American political traditions: the uprising of the little guy.
...
When I caught up with the various Republican personalities, at a candidate forum in Independence, what struck me was the feebleness of the moderate response to this kind of onslaught. Again and again I saw Cons play the populist card -- railing against the National Education Association, suggesting their opponents belonged in the wealthy suburbs of Kansas City, alleging epic voter fraud right here in Kansas -- and then heard the Mods, dressed in neat professional attire, simply dismiss the criticism out of hand. C'mon, you know me. Now, let' get out there and put up some yard signs.

I think there is much truth in what Frank is saying. This piece is worth reading. Unfortunately, this column is behind the Times infuriating Times Select pay wall and is only available to those willing to fork over $50 a year for a subscription.

Small-town Kansans celebrate ouster of anti-evolution Board

By Diane Silver

Lately, I've been focusing on the saga of the rainbow flag in tiny Meade, Kan., highlighting bigotry on the Plains. However, I think it's worth noting that the folks who populate the small towns, ranches and farms of the Prairie are a varied lot.

Many folks in rural Kansas aren't bigots, many aren't fundamentalists and many aren't lock-step followers of the religious right.

That fact was highlighted by the Garden City Telegram's recent story about the reaction of some Western Kansas school superintendents to the results of the recent primary election. The conservative anti-evolution majority on the state Board of Education was overturned by in the vote.

The superintendents reaction? In a word: "elated."

Noting their glee were the leaders of school districts in Holcomb (pop: 1,888), Ulysses (pop: 5,960), Sublette (pop: 1,592) and Leoti (pop: 1,440).

Oppressive laws are driving gays out of Virginia -- and into the welcoming arms of other jurisdictions

Gays and lesbians are leaving Virginia for jurisdictions that are more gay-friendly, The Washington Post reports. While there are no hard and fast statistics, one realtor in Virginia said half of his gay clients are opting to move from Virginia to Maryland and Washington, D.C.

According to The Post, Virginia law prohibits "civil unions, partnership contracts or other arrangements between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage." A constitutional amendment on the November ballot will exclude any unmarried persons from "union, partnership or other legal status similar to marriage." One assumes this will apply to unmarried straight couples as well as to gays. It could affect employer benefits for domestic partners, which are common in the Washington metropolitan area.

The Post reports that:

Many gay people in Virginia and some family-law attorneys say they worry that the state law and proposed amendment are more far-reaching than simple bans on gay marriage -- that the measures could threaten the legal viability of the contracts used by gay couples to share ownership of property and businesses.
The exact effects are unclear, and the 2004 law remains untested, but some gays say they fear the laws could affect their ability to own homes together; to draft powers of attorney, adoption papers or wills; or to arrange for hospital visitation or health surrogacy.

That is, one reason gays are leaving is that they fear the new law won't just prohibit marriage, but will also invalidate all the legal structures gays use to protect their relationships.

Court decisions in Virginia over child custody involving gays have been markedly unfriendly as well. By contrast, the District of Columbia prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, as do some local jurisdictions in Maryland. The Maryland Court of Appeals is currently reviewing a trial court decision holding that laws prohibitng gay marriage are unconstitutional.

I suspect most of my neighbors in the District would agree with me that Virginia's loss is our gain.

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

By Diane Silver

I've been around churches a bit, and I must say that I was startled -- along with the members of his congregation -- to hear that the Rev. Terry Fox resigned yesterday from his church post. It wasn't that he left his position that was so startling, though. It was the way he did it.

The senior pastor at Wichita's Immanuel Baptist Church, Fox lead his congregation for 10 years. Yesterday, he stood up at the church's 10:30 a.m. service and said he was resigning -- not in two months, a month, a week or even a day, but at the very instant he was speaking.

Ministers customarily warn their congregations when they are resigning to give a church time to find a good replacement. It's considered courteous. It's considered professional. Ministers, particularly senior pastors, don't just quit.

But Fox did.

The Wichita Eagle reports:

Fox, whose resignation took effect immediately, said he and church leaders agreed he should resign after 10 years as senior pastor. Neither Fox nor church officials would say what led Fox to resign.

The story then goes on to imply that Fox is leaving to spend more time working to push his anti-gay, moralistic and discriminatory policies through government. That may well be true.

If so then why didn't Fox announce his intention months ago and give his congregation the time to go through an orderly transition? You would think that would be simple courtesy after all this time at the helm of the church he claims to love so much.

The Eagle also reports that "Fox said he is unsure whether he will serve as a pastor again."

I have no answers here. Only questions.

Fox was one of the main movers and shakers behind last year's vote that blocked same-sex couples from marriage, civil unions and just about every other legal right any couple might get in Kansas. I was one of the folks who fought then and continue to fight now to bring fair laws to this state.

I agree with my old friend Thomas Witt, chair of the Kansas Equality Coalition. Witt told The Eagle:

"Instead of focusing on anti-gay marriage, we wish Terry Fox would spend more time campaigning against the real threats to marriage, such as infidelity, abuse, poverty and divorce," Witt said.

I am not a friend of Terry Fox. I never will be, but I do wish him the best. I hope he finds whatever peace he needs right now.

Kansas Bigotry: Fighting back

[updated 7:16 p.m.]

By Diane Silver

The attempt by some people in tiny Meade, Kan., to harass a local hotel for flying a rainbow flag is backfiring. Today, there is news that the state's gay-rights group is supporting the hotel and using the Meade incident as a way to bolster its own work.

The Southwest Kansas Chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition is holding its Aug. 13 meeting at the the hotel and is raffling off a chance to stay in the hotel. The chapter notes:

The southwest Kansas chapter of Kansas Equality Coalition has been working to let the innkeepers, and neighboring citizens of Meade, how much we appreciate the inn for not backing down.

The Chapter's web site also says:

We'd like to encourage all our chapter members to buy a raffle ticket and support the southwest chapter. You don't have to be present at their meeting on the 13th to win.

To enter the raffle, send $5 by August 13th to:
KEC Southwest
PO Box 1432
Dodge City, Kansas 67801

For more information on the issue and a statement from the hotel owners see Laura's Playground site here.

For background on the ongoing story, see here.

Republican judges on the Eighth Circuit ignore the best interests of children

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the only federal court opinion that rejected a state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.

Basing its decision on the ludicrous procreation argument that Diane dissected earlier today, the court rejected a decision by Federal District Judge John F. Bataillon that concluded:

[T]he deprivation occasioned by the passage of Section 29 [the Nebraska constitutional amendment] is the deprivation of the right to associational freedom protected by the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, which encompasses the right to participate in the political process, also protected by the First Amendment.

Bataillon was appointed by President Clinton. His ruling did not require Nebraska to allow gay marriage, but only said it could not arbitrarily prohibit it in this way. Bataillon based his decision on Romer v. Evans, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a Colorado constitutional amendment that would have prohibited state and local governments from passing any laws that protected gays against discrimination.

The Eighth Circuit said that Romer only found there was no rational basis for a law as discriminatory as the Colorado one. Applying the rational basis test to the Nebraska amendment, it allowed the state to rely on its argument that:

[D]efining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in "steering procreation into marriage."

In agreeing to this reasoning, the Eighth Circuit said:

This argument is based in part on the traditional notion that two committed heterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children, which modern-day homosexual parents understandably decry. But it is also based on a "responsible procreation" theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples who cannot. . . . Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State's justification "lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."

But of course we can. Nebraska's justification ignores the best interests of children who are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. It ignores many other issues that Diane has raised in numerous previous posts on In This Moment, but let's focus on the interest of the children, because protecting children is considered so important under our law. In assigning custody in a divorce case, for example, the court is supposed to consider the best interest of the child -- not the parent, but the child.

Nebraska's constitutional amendment flies in the face of that legitimate state interest. It is not in the best interest of the children of gays and lesbians for their parents' relationship to be legally undefined. It can screw up their rights to inheritance, in the event one partner dies. It can screw up who gets custody in the event that parties split up. It can affect who can sign school reports or take a child to the hospital.

Most jurisdictions in this country now recognize that gays and lesbians are raising children. Gays are allowed to adopt children and to become foster parents. Gay parenting may still be controversial, but there is no large movement trying to stop it. Instead, we have a movement against gay marriage, which has the effect of denying those children the benefits -- so extolled in these opinions -- of having married parents.

This is an actual issue, and one much more serious than the vaunted "procreation" argument cited in the Eighth Circuit's decision and other rulings. The state's interest is in stable homes for its children, not in procreation. That argues in favor of gay marriage, not against it.

And by the way, state laws governing marriage weren't adopted to push procreation into marriage. They were adopted because marriage had existed as an institution for many centuries and the states found it necessary to deal with such things as inheritance and child custody. Procreation is an after-the-fact argument -- a made-up justification for limiting marriage to those of opposite sexes.

The Eighth Circuit also pointed out that the Romer decision did not make sexual orientation a suspect category for purposes of discrimination, as race is. I don't think any court decision has yet made sexual orientation a suspect category. For that matter, gender is not a suspect category -- if a state can show a rational basis for certain types of sex discrimination, it is permitted.

Had the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution been approved, sex would be a suspect classification. That might have opened the door to greater protection for sexual orientation. Right now, though, the only protection in both cases is the rational basis argument.

So long as courts keep applying the rational basis test irrationally by adopting made-up justifications such as procreation, we're going to continue to have significant discrimination against gays and lesbians. And, more importantly, against their children.

Kansas Bigotry: Hotel owners in tiny Meade vow to fly gay flag

By Diane Silver

The rainbow flag flying outside the Lakeway Hotel in 1,600-strong Meade, Kan., wasn't meant to be a statement about gay rights. When prejudice, though, led someone to cut the flag off the hotel flagpole, the rainbow banner turned into just that.

The Hutchinson News reports:

J.R. and Robin Knight said they knew the rainbow flag was a symbol of gay rights when they decided last month to fly it on a pole in front of their business, the Lakeway Hotel. But that isn't why they flew the banner.

"We just put it up. We didn't think about it," Robin said. "It has pretty colors, it's bright, it's summery."

And, J.R. Knight said, it was a symbolic way to have their son (who was away) nearby.

Their son, who is 12, bought the flag for the hotel.

Since the battle over the flag made the news, the Knights have received support from all over the world. Locally, we've heard reports that people are paying for hotel rooms they don't even plan to use, just to support the Knights.

The couple have vowed to keep the flag flying. They have ordered two more flags and vow to order more if these are destroyed. The newspaper reports:

The Knights say the anger displayed by some residents has strengthened their resolve to keep the rainbow flag flying.

Flying the flag not only protests discrimination, they say, but they also believe giving into the pressure would send the wrong message to their son, Anthony.

"It's our business. It shouldn't be dictated by other people," Robin Knight said.

Last year when Kansas voters approved a ban on same-sex marriages, a new bumper sticker became popular in Lawrence, Kan. Playing off the state tourist slogan of "Kansas as big as you think," the bumper sticker declared: "Kansas, as BIGOTED as you think." Not everyone in Meade is reacting angrily to the rainbow flat, but some are, and these are the folks who are proving the truth of that bumper sticker.

Haven't we all had enough of this kind of attitude? Aren't we tired of bigotry and backwardness being the hallmarks of our state? It's time for all of us in Kansas to stand up and declare that such bullying is wrong.

We can't stop people from acting out of their prejuce, but we can show our support. Isn't it time for a little drive out to Meade? Spend the night at the Lakeway and enjoy a meal there. It's certainly on my list of things to do.

"Strong passions & weak arguments" mark recent court decisions on gay marriage

Applause for Ellen Goodman for pointing out the absurdity of the recent Washington state and New York high court rulings upholding same-sex marriage bans.

Goodman writes:

The backlash against gay marriage has produced strong passions and weak arguments.

In writing about the Washington decision, Goodman notes that it redefined marriage as nothing than a "procreationist" institution.

This is the heart of the opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen: "Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents." In short, the state's wedding bells are ringing for procreators.

If that's true, isn't it time for the legislatures in Washington and in New York, which issued a similar ruling against same-sex marriage this summer, to follow their own logic? If marriage is for procreation, shouldn't they refuse to wed anyone past menopause? Shouldn't they withhold a license from anyone who is infertile? As for those who choose to be childless? Indeed, the state could offer young couples licenses with sunset clauses. After five years they have to put up (kids) or split up.

Of course the states' other interest is in families "headed by the children's biological parents." Why then give licenses to the couples who are raising 1.5 million adopted children? We can ban those blended families. And surely we should release partners from their vows upon delivery of their offspring to the nearest college campus.

This column is well worth reading. However, Goodman fails to note the very real harm that children in lesbian and gay families are suffering. These kids are forced to live in families without any legal protections. They can be torn away from loving parents by the whims of fate: an accident that kills the biological parent but leaves the co-parent alive, for example. Some estimates put the number of children in lesbian and gay families at 1 million. The prejudice of others should not be allowed to damage their lives.

The "overblown" culture war sure feels real out here

By Diane Silver

A study released this week by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is fueling speculation that the culture war is "overblown" and not, well, as warlike as some of us think.

I found the study's results to be simultaneously hopeful and depressing. It should be read by everyone interested in cultural issues. However, I don't see that it means that cultural bombs aren't being hurled and that people and their rights aren't suffering wounds or even worse. At the very least, that doesn't match my experience out here in the Heartland.

Reuters reports:

On five prominent social issues -- abortion rights, stem cell research, gay marriage, adoption of children by gay couples, and availability of the "morning-after" pill -- most Americans did not take consistent stances.

Just 12 percent took the conservative position on all five issues, while 22 percent took the opposite stance on all five. The bulk of Americans had mixed opinions.

On the subject of gay unions, 56 percent opposed giving gays the right to marry, but 53 percent favored allowing gays to enter into legal agreements that provide many of the same rights as married couples

The Pew Forum notes of its findings:

Americans cannot be easily characterized as conservative or liberal on today's most pressing social questions. The public's point of view varies from issue to issue. They are conservative in opposing gay marriage and gay adoption, liberal in favoring embryonic stem cell research and a little of both on abortion. Along with favoring no clear ideological approach to most social issues, the public expresses a desire for a middle ground on the most divisive social concern of the day: abortion.

Together, the results of the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life suggest that the public remains reluctant to move too far from current policies and practices on many key social policy questions. Despite talk of "culture wars" and the high visibility of activist groups on both sides of the cultural divide, there has been no polarization of the public into liberal and conservative camps.

What does seem clear is that the armies on both sides of the cultural divide aren't as large as previously thought. Most people appear to be standing on the sidelines and to be unwilling to sign up to seve with either side.

To imply that there isn't a battle, though, is to ignore the very real suffering of lesbians and gays and many other Americans. Every time the cultural warriors on the right curtail and block our ability to be treated fairly under the law, our children are hurt, and we are hurt.

Also, to argue that this study shows there isn't a culture war is to pull people's attention in the wrong direction. This is a fascinating study. It has much to say about how people really think. Let's take a look at what the numbers really say and ignore those who might argue that despite the blood and despair, there really isn't a battle going on.

The Kansas Evolution Election: What it means for the future of the religious right

By Diane Silver

Tuesday's vote in Kansas was momentous, or was it? Voters in the nation's most iconic red state declared their support for Darwin and science, or did they? The religious right suffered a major blow, or did it? From my perspective out here in Kansas, I don't believe the answers to those questions are as obvious as folks might think.

This very long post will recap what happened in the primary, show how conventional wisdom took a hit, talk about the realities of red state politics and discuss what this means for Kansas and the future of the religious right.

A Primary Recap

(Feel free to skip this if you're already up-to-date on Tuesday's results, although the information on turnout might be new to you.)

Tuesday moderates won on both the Kansas Board of Education and in two closely watched statewide races.

In the races for the state Board of Education, the balance of power once again shifted from the religious right to the pro-science forces.

Moderate incumbent Democrat Janet Waugh held onto her seat in Kansas City. Republican Jana Shaver of Independence ousted the Republican, anti-evolution standard bearer to take an open seat away from the religious right. Republican Sally Cauble of Liberal pulled off a shocker by defeating incumbent Connie Morris, once the darling of the religious right. Morris is known for, among other things, declaring that evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale.

Meanwhile, the religious right scored victories by nominating John Bacon of Olathe and Ken Willard of Hutchinson to run as Republicans in November and possibly keep their current seats on the board.

No matter what happens in the November general election, pro-evolution forces have already taken over the board. This is because Waugh has no general election opposition and the Democrats running against Shaver and Cauble all support evolution.

Meanwhile, incumbent Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger beat the religious right's candidate, Rep. Eric Carter of Overland Park, by winning 60 percent of the vote in the Republican primary. Incumbent Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh beat ultra-conservative state Sen. Kay O'Connor of Olathe with 73 percent of the vote.

Turnout in the primary was a record low 18 percent of the state's registered voters. The Lawrence Journal-World reports that only about 296,000 people statewide voted, out of 1.6 million registered. The Secretary of State's office says the previous record low for a turnout was 26 percent in 2002.


Conventional Wisdom Takes a Hit

The conventional wisdom so beloved of pundits often includes three parts.

1. Low turnout favors the religious right because they are more organized and passionate about their issues than other voters.

2. As described in Thomas Frank's What's The Matter With Kansas, the state's Republican Party is torn between the rabidly anti-evolution, anti-gay religious right and the socially progressive, fiscally conservative moderates.

3. Tuesday's vote was a referendum on evolution itself and the election's results show that intelligence design is such a weak idea with so few supporters that it can't even win in Kansas.

All of this so-called wisdom took a hit on Tuesday.

Low turnout didn't seem to favor the religious right in either the state board races or the statewide races. Cherokee County, for example, had the lowest turnout in the state with only 9 percent of the voters participating. Cherokee is part of District 9 where Jana Shaver beat an anti-evolution candidate.

This could mean that the rank and file of the religious right really doesn't care that much about evolution, or it could mean that the pro-science forces were more energized by their recent defeats.

Some liberals and moderates angered by the anti-science, anti-public education state board were furiously organizing. A new organization created by a farmer called The Kansas Alliance for Education spent more than $100,000 to fight for pro-science candidates. The MAINstream Coalition and its MAIN*PAC in Johnson County also worked hard for the pro-science forces.

However, Washburn University Political Scientist Bob Beatty told The Wichita Eagle that neither a letdown by the religious right nor the energy of liberalism or moderation may have been a factor. The true issue may have been that the incumbents weren't perceived as doing their jobs. Call it the making-the-trains-run-on-time factor. The Eagle reports:

Conservative state school board members might not have been vulnerable because they're anti-evolution but because of the amount of time, effort and energy they put into that subject, he said.

(Secretary of State Ron) Thornburgh and (Insurance Commissioner Sandy) Prager may have benefited from being seen as competent stewards of their offices, Beatty said.

"Thornburgh is right where a large majority of Kansans want him to be, doing his job and not picking fights on issues that don't have much to do with his job," Beatty said.

Beatty is also quoted as saying that the moderate-conservative split in the Republican Party "might have been a little overblown."

I disagree with Beatty. I think the split is deep. To say that the two sides hate each other with a blood passion is an understatement given what I've personally witnesses. However, I wonder if the split is more passionate for politicos and reporters than for the average voter.

The one thing the low turnout does say is that the vast majority of Kansans just didn't give a hoot one way or the other about the primary. To them, it wasn't the "Evolution Election" as I've been touting it on this blog. It was merely a big waste of time. This attitude apparently extends to the religious right as well as liberal and moderate voters.

Of course, there were other factors that could have driven down turnout. The race to pick what may well be a Republican sacrificial lamb to face Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in the fall was a real snoozer.

It was also HORRIBLY HOT on Tuesday. The temperature was at the official Blast Furnace level and just stepping outside was a trial. This is particularly true for older voters who may be counted to support the old-fashioned values of the religious right. However, it has always been hot in Kansas during its primaries.

The Salina Journal, a pro-science newspaper, counts other reasons for the losses of state board incumbent Connie Morris and anti-evolution candidate Brad Patzer. The Journal wrote:

For her part, Morris showed a lack of respect for state taxpayers when she spent lavishly on a state-paid trip to a magnet school conference in Florida. She stayed in a luxury hotel suite and turned in questionable receipts for payment. Later Morris reimbursed the state $2,900 for the trip, but only after details of her travels became public.

Voters in southeast Kansas apparently associate Patzer with retiring board member (Iris) Van Meter, his mother in law, who contributes little to the board other than votes. She steadfastly follows the conservative block instead of representing her constituents. Voters must have assumed -- rightly so -- that Patzer would follow that pattern.

What's It All Mean?

In one sense, it's impossible to tell right now what this will mean, but here are a few of first impressions.

Red-state voters -- even the religious right -- may well care about making things work as much as anyone else does. The secretary of state should make the elections work right and fulfill his or her duties to regulate corporations. The insurance commissioner should make certain insurance companies play fair. The state Board of Education should help schools educate our kids. Perhaps even red-state voters don't want religion to be inserted into any of those positions.

It is clear that low turnout doesn't always favor the religious right. Moderates and liberals can be energized and get their own folks to the polls, even in a place like Kansas.

Intelligent Design and its backers really did take a hit on Tuesday, despite the strength of the religious right in Kansas and the fact that one out-of-state group ran radio ads promoting the anti-evolution viewpoint. How much of a hit probably won't be determined for a few years.

First, we need to see how the two anti-evolution incumbents who survived do in the November general election. Their Republican primary opponents have already endorsed the pro-science Democrats running in November.

The true test for evolution, however, will probably come in 2008 when the seats of three moderate members of the board are up for election. Will liberals and moderates fall asleep again and allow the religious right to swing the board to the right? Will the religious right care enough to come out and vote? If pro-science candidates can hang onto the board through two elections, then Kansas and perhaps the nation will have made real progress against the anti-evolution forces.

Meanwhile, those of you interested in the political strength of the religious right should direct your attention to the race for attorney general in Kansas. Democrat Paul Morrison is running against Republican Phill Kline, much beloved by the religious right. If Morrison -- a Republican turned Democrat -- can win in scarlet Kansas, that may well signal new weakness in the power of the far right.

And that, my friend, would be a very good thing indeed.

Texas Democrats keep Tom DeLay on the ballot -- with the help of the Fifth Circuit

By Nancy Jane Moore

In a suit filed by the Texas Democratic Party, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Texas Republicans can't replace Tom DeLay as a candidate for Congress.

That's right: The Democrats sued to make sure Republican DeLay, who has retired from Congress, stays on the ballot, especially since he is under indictment for money laundering and has been tired to Jack Abramoff. The Democratic candidate, former Congressman Nick Lampson, would like nothing better than to run against DeLay, who engineered the Texas redistricting that cost Lampson his seat.

This is for DeLay's old seat, the one he held from 1984 until last June. He won the Republican primary for it back in March, but then decided in to retire from Congress. He hasn't been doing any campaigning. Without another candidate on the ballot, the Republicans haven't been able to do any campaigning either.

According to The Washington Post, DeLay has claimed his Northern Virginia home as his residence, even though his wife remains in Sugar Land, Texas. However, the Fifth Circuit said the Constitution requires that a candidate reside in the district on election day and said it was not possible to say where DeLay would be living on the first Tuesday in November.

The three judges on the Fifth Circuit panel included two judges appointed by Clinton and one by the current Bush. However, the ruling was unanimous. The federal district judge who first heard the case -- and also ruled that DeLay had to stay on the ballot -- was appointed by Bush Sr.

The New York Times reported:

In Washington, Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he was "mostly shocked" at the ruling "because Tom DeLay is usually so good at finding a way around the law."

This whole delicious mess is of DeLay's own making -- had he pulled out of the Republican primary, his party would have a candidate who wasn't tied to ethics scandals. But in March he was determined to hang on.

And the district isn't as conservative as it used to be. DeLay was so confident in his power that he moved some of the strong conservative precincts into nearby districts to make them more Republican.

Tom DeLay is a walking definition of hubris. And the chickens are coming home to roost.

"How many deaths will it take 'til he knows that too many people have died?"*

By Nancy Jane Moore

Today's Guardian Unlimited has a special report on children killed in the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Reporter Ghaith Abdul-Ahad writes:

Then another child was pulled from under the rubble, and another followed, and then another. You go a little crazy when you see little body after little body coming up out of the ground. I looked around me and all I could see in the house was the detritus of their short lives -- big plastic bags filled with clothes, milk cans, plastic toys and a baby carriage.

The actual civilian body count in Lebanon is unclear -- a July 28 Inter Press News Service story on Common Dreams News Center estimates the real total as 750 people -- but however many there are, no one doubts that lots of them are children.

Hundreds of thousands of people have been driven from their homes. Every news report contains pictures of towns reduced to rubble.

The Israelis keep saying that they must bomb residential areas, because Hezbollah fighters are hiding out among citizens. Most general news reports repeat this as if it were fact. But more detailed reports -- such as this one on Salon -- suggest that this is untrue. Reporter Mitch Prothero writes:

My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians like the plague.

And while civilians are suffering in Lebanon, Hezbollah doesn't seem to be going away. Today's New York Times says they fired over 200 rockets into Israel. Israeli civilians have been killed and displaced as well, though the death and destruction in Israel is much smaller than that in Lebanon.

Israel has become its own worst enemy. Yes, it was provoked, but the response is out of all proportion to the provocation. I have been shocked by the poll numbers that suggest most Israelis support this war, but I am heartened by a report on Haaretz.com, an Israeli publication, that some authors, songwriters, critics and editors have come together to seek an end to the war. According to the news report, they sent a letter to Israeli officials that said in part:

There is no doubt that Israel has the right to defend herself against the aggression that infringes on her sovereignty and harms her citizens. Nevertheless, the exercising of unreasonable force, mainly toward civilians, attests to neither might nor deterrent power. On the contrary, it is an expression of hysteria, of the loss of ability to distinguish between a localized threat and existential danger, between a reasonable response and an excessive show of strength.

Juan Cole observes "that the only way this conflict can end is for the Lebanese state to be strengthened so that it has a hope of dealing with Hizbullah." But the Israeli bombing campaign is destabilizing Lebanon, making that unlikely.

Cole also points out that the conflict is leading Al Qaeda to support Hezbollah, even though Bin Laden considers that group heretical since they are Shi'ites. That is, extremist groups who hate each other are uniting under the theory that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Surely this is not an outcome that any sane government seeks.

But the U.S. is standing behind Israel, and refusing to help broker a ceasefire until, as The Times reports, "there is a solid plan in place to disarm Hezbollah."

Now I keep reading speculation that we're actually in World War III or IV, depending on how they count. And on the front page of July 27's Wall Street Journal (which, alas, is restricted to paying customers online), there is a story about support for Israel's actions from the "Christian-Zionist" movement, which the Journal describes as an "evangelical political philosophy rooted in biblical prophecies and a belief that Israel's struggles signal a prelude to Armageddon." See my earlier post "And now for something completely scary" for more about fundamentalists who see the war in Lebanon as fulfilling the prophecies in the Book of Revelation.

The WSJ article goes on to observe:

While Mr. Bush is clearly close to evangelicals, he has never fully embraced their agenda or rhetoric. But their views are generally in sync with the aims of his national-security strategists, who reach similar conclusions through a different logic. . . . This melding of realpolitik and religion, say former and current U.S. officials, has produced a potent force.

That potent force is sowing more death and destruction.

I have reached one conclusion as I struggle to comprehend all this suffering and hatred: We will never solve the problems of the Middle East with violence.

I have been reading the Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh's book Anger: Wisdom for Cooling the Flames. "Punishing the other person is self-punishment," he says, and adds that this is true for countries as well as individuals. Every time one country invades, both countries suffer.
In a section called "Stopping Wars Before They Happen," he writes:

Violence can never bring about peace and understanding. Only by looking deeply in order to understand the true roots of violence can we achieve peace.

And that's the answer here. It's so obvious that violence isn't working, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in Lebanon. It's time to try something else.

*Bob Dylan "Blowin' in the Wind" Written in 1963 and still relevant today.

The Kansas Evolution Election: A victory for children

[7:30 a.m. update]

By Diane Silver

To quote the Lawrence Journal-World: "Darwin won."

Sally Cauble and Jana Shaver hung onto their leads, enabling moderates to once again throw a radical religious majority off the state Board of Education. Count this as a victory for the state's schoolchildren.

Even though yesterday's vote was only a primary, a moderate majority is assured. Pro-science moderate Democrat Janet Waugh has no opposition in November. Cauble and Shaver's general election opponents both support that new-fangled thing called science.

This is the second time the religious right has taken over the Kansas board, and the second time it has been thrown out of the majority. In both cases, voters ousted the anti-evolution members the first instant they had the chance by defeating the right-wing incumbents in the primary.

This victory not only means a return to science for the state, but also a return to professionalism in the state Department of Education.

One has to wonder how long Bob Corkins will last as education commissioner. A controversial figure who often opposed funding for public education, Corkins had no education experience when he was hired by the radical majority on the board.

Kansas Evolution Election: Anti-evolution forces win one, but may have lost the state board

[11:39 p.m.]

Over at Thoughts From Kansas, Josh is celebrating and calling the night a victory for the pro-science forces. This is a victory that will shift the balance of power away from the anti-evolution religious right. Looking at the numbers, I suspect he is right, but stay tuned to be certain.

[11:30 pm]

with 100 percent of the precincts reporting, AP has called the District 3 state Board of Education race for anti-evolution incumbent John Bacon.

Bacon ended with 49.3 percent of the vote, pro-science challenger Harry McDonald got 40.2 percent and a second challenger David Olphant received 10.4 percent.

Despite this victory, Bacon faces moderate Democrat Don Weiss in November. For full details on Weiss and other candidates, see Red State Rabble's fine overview of the entire field of candidates here.

Kansas Evolution Election: The pro-science forces win one

[11:20 p.m corrected]

AP has just called the District 1 state Board of Education race in Kansas City for the one moderate incumbent on the board, Janet Waugh. This gives her the Democratic nomination. Given the fact that she doesn't have a Republican opponent in the November general election, this IS the election. Unless I'm missing something, Waugh has just won her seat on the board.

Waugh's opponent made an early attempt to run a stealth campaign. This favorite trick of the religious right in Kansas allows a candidate to win an election by appealing to the mega-church audiences without campaigning in front of the general public.

By itself, Waugh's victory does NOT change the balance of power on the state board. That will depend on the results of the other races tonight, and of course, what happens in those races in November.

State Board of Education - District 1 - Dem Primary

183 of 190 Precincts Reporting - 96.32%

	Name	Party	Votes	Pct
	Waugh, Janet (i)	Dem	5,912	65.13
	Hall, Jesse	Dem	3,165	34.87

Kansas Evolution Election: Good news - bad news, but still too close to call

[updated 10:35 p.m.] The Good News The one pro-science incumbent up for election this year, Janet Waugh, appears to be beating off a challenge by an ultra-conservative stealth candidate. Pro-science candidate Sally Cauble is leading Connie Morris. Pro-science Jana Shaver is also ahead of the anti-evolution candidate in her district. The Bad News Things are not looking good for pro-science Harry McDonald or Donna Viola. However, it all depends on where these votes are coming from and on which precincts are left to report. Stay tuned. From AP: State Board of Education - District 1 - Dem Primary

166 of 190 Precincts Reporting - 87.37%

Name Party Votes Pct Waugh, Janet (i) Dem 4,739 64.20 Hall, Jesse Dem 2,643 35.80

State Board of Education - District 3 - GOP Primary

249 of 300 Precincts Reporting - 83.00%

Name Party Votes Pct Bacon, John (i) GOP 8,660 50.59 McDonald, Harry GOP 6,736 39.35 Oliphant, David GOP 1,722 10.06

State Board of Education - District 5 - GOP Primary

316 of 609 Precincts Reporting - 51.89%

	Name	Party	Votes	Pct
	Cauble, Sally	GOP	6,101	53.69
	Morris, Connie (i)	GOP	5,263	46.31

State Board of Education - District 7 - GOP Primary

296 of 463 Precincts Reporting - 63.93%

Name Party Votes Pct Willard, Ken (i) GOP 6,763 52.27 Viola, Donna GOP 5,162 39.89 Liggett, M.T. GOP 1,014 7.84

State Board of Education - District 9 - GOP Primary

299 of 428 Precincts Reporting - 69.86%

	Name	Party	Votes	Pct
	Shaver, Jana	GOP	9,281	58.80
	Patzer, Brad	GOP	6,502	41.20

Kansas Elections: Religious Right takes one on the chin

[10:25 p.m.]

AP has called the Kansas Secretary of State's race for the Republican nomination for incumbent Ron Thornburgh. He was running for the nomination against Olathe state Sen. Kay O'Connor, a darling of the religious right who was known for once saying that she wasn't certain women should have the vote.

With 65 percent of the vote in, AP is calling the race, giving Thornburgh a 71 percent to 29 percent victory.

The Kansas Evolution Election: Early Results

[updated 9:25 p.m.]

By Diane Silver

I've covered a fair number of elections, and my opinion is that no matter what the early numbers say, we can't tell much of anything yet. Actually, you don't have to be a political expert to see that. Very preliminary results put the anti-evolution forces on the losing side of several races or running neck and neck with their opponents, but remember it is early.

The Kansas Secretary of State's election site doesn't seem to be as up to date as some of the state's newspapers. The Secretary of State site is also running very slow.

The Lawrence Journal-World seem to be posting results fairly quickly. See here.
Also see The Wichita Eagle.
Associate Press results are here.

=================

[earlier post]

It's 7 p.m. here in boiling Kansas and the polls have closed.Turnout for the primary appears to have been very light today, perhaps because of the outrageous heat.

We should have preliminary results in the state Board of Education race and other races in about an hour or so. Please return to In This Moment for the latest, or check out the results yourself at the Kansas Secretary of State web site here.

For the state Board of Education race, look for the results in these districts.

District 1 * Janet Waugh (pro-science Democrat)
District 1 * Jesse Hall (anti-evolution Democrat)

District 3 * Harry McDonald (pro-science Republican)
District 3 * John Bacon (anti-evolution Republican)

District 5 * Sally Cauble (pro-science Republican)
District 5 * Connie Morris (anti-evolution Republican)

District 7 * Donna Viola (pro-science Republican)
District 7 * Ken Willard (anti-evolution Republican)

District 9 * Jana Shaver (pro-science Republican)
District 9 * Brad Patzer (anti-evolution Republican)

For background information, look at the What the Heck post and the Who's Who post.

Headlines: Vote today in the Evolution Election; heat & other insanities

The Kansas Evolution Election: Time to vote!

What is really the matter with Kansas

What is really the matter with Kansas

By Diane Silver

Thomas Frank became a best seller in 2004 with the book What's the Matter with Kansas. His claimed the problem is that we feeble-minded Kansans had been mislead by the bait and switch tactics of the Republican Party. After much not-very-scientific research, however, I have deduced that he was wrong. The true problem with Kansas is the heat.

It's summer on the prairie again. Out here thermometer readings are irrelevant because the difference between 100, 103 or 105 or more don't matter much.

In the blessed Heartland of Our Nation, there really are only four different temperature readings in the summer. These are:

• Too Damn Hot
• Sauna
• Blast Furnace
• The Breath-Catching Phase Between Heat Waves (That's when the temperature plummets to 95 or even, gasp, 80-something.)

I'm a native of the north -- born and bred in Michigan. My brother and sister in law still live there, residing in the Alaska clone country near Lake Superior. As far as I'm concerned, anything over 90 is a personal insult.

As I write this at 8ish in the morning, it is already 83 outside. The temperature today is forecast to reach 101, but with high humidity it is supposed to feel like 110.

The local newspaper is warning pet owners not to lock their dogs in their cars. With rolled-up windows, temperatures inside a vehicle can reach 150 or more.

Not to underplay the importance of loving man and woman's best friend, but has anyone thought about what it is doing to us poor human beings to repeatedly climb into cars where it's 150-plus degrees inside? I'm betting we lose a few brain cells every time we do it.

Right now the collective breath of Kansans -- Republican, Democrat, religious and secular alike -- is being held as we wait for a predicted break in the weather. If the forecasters are right, the temperature will plunge to 96 tomorrow. And the day after that? Be still my beating heart! They are predicting a chilly 84.

What's the matter with Kansas? At this moment I suspect those of us living here would sum our answer to th question in something akin to a primal scream. And, I haven't even begun to talk about the chiggers yet.

Don't forget to vote. It's primary day today, and I hear the polling places are air conditioned.

The Kansas Evolution Election: Time to vote!

Today is primary day in Kansas. All you Kansans out there, forget about the heat, fortify yourselves with a dip in the pool, a spritz from the lawn hose and a bit of iced tea. The polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Get out and vote!

Why is this important? If enough social conservatives are defeated today, then the balance of power will shift on the state Board of Education from the religious right to mainstream moderates.

Who should you support in the state board race? See this Who's Who about the race. More information on the election is at Round One of the Evolution Election.

Even the New York Times is paying attention. Take a look at "In Kansas Evolution's Backers are Mounting a Counterattack."

Other races are also important. Watch for what happens in particular House races and in the race for the Republican nomination for the state insurance commioner. Here's a post explaining the race.

Check out the Kansas Equality Coalition Voters Guide here.

MAIN*PAC, a moderate PAC has endorsed the following candidates. They don't endorse in all races so make certain to check out the other information linked above.

Waugh, Janet District 1 School Board D
McDonald, Harry District 3 School Board R
Viola, Donna District 7 School Board R
Cauble, Sally District 5 School Board R
Shaver, Jana District 9 School Board R

Rigney, Ginny District 6 Kansas House D
Yonally, Jim District 16 Kansas House R
Talia, Milack District 23 Kansas House D
Bachelor, Amber District 29 Kansas House D
Winn, Valdenia District 34 Kansas House D
Brewer, Quentin District 39 Kansas House R
Smith, Sherrelyn District 48 Kansas House R

Thornburg, Ron Statewide Secretary of State R

Praeger, Sandy Statewide Commissioner of Insurance R

The Kansas Equality Coalition Voters Guide is now online

By Diane Silver

For Kansas voters and out-of-state political junkies: Check out the new Kansas Equality Coalition Voters Guide.

For some reason known only to Blogger, I can't get the direct link to post. Go to the Equality Coalition's home page and scroll down to News & Events, then click on "read more" under August 1st Primary Voter Resources.

Less than a year old, the Equality Coalition works for fair laws for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Kansans. This is its first attempt at creating a voters guide. It is also the first time a gay-rights group has posted a guide that encompasses all of the contested offices statewide.

The good news is that many candidates did respond to the group's survey. The bad news is that many did not. That will only change as candidates learn that ignoring the Equality Coalition costs them at the polls. That will only change when fair-minded Kansans give money and time to the group.

On a slightly different note ... If you are meandering through the Equality Coalition web site and notice that it looks like there's not much happening in the Lawrence Chapter, don't dispair. The chapter is meeting and at work. They just aren't doing a great job of updating the site.

In the name of full disclosure: I helped form the Equality Coalition and sit on two of its committees.

The Kansas Evolution Election: Round 1 is tomorrow

By Diane Silver

My fellow Kansans, I am writing to inform you of your homework assignment. It has two parts. (1) Your job tonight is to call all of your open-minded friends and tell them to get to the polls tomorrow. (2) Your job tomorrow is to get yourself to the polls to vote in the primary.

The Aug. 1 primary marks Round 1 of the battle over control for the Kansas state Board of Education. Because Kansas is also an overwhelmingly red state, the primary may well mark the best chance to defeat to defeat some of the anti-evolution, anti-science incumbents who helped de-emphasize the teaching of evolution and undermine education in a variety of ways.

Right now the bad news is that officials are predicting a low turnout. Low turnout always favors the more fervent and organized group in a campaign. No matter what else you can say about the religious right, they are certainly fervent and organized.

Thoughts From Kansas puts the primary in perspective this way.

In 2004 there were less than 38,000 votes cast for the two candidates for the Republican nomination that Kathy Martin ultimately won (thus seizing a creationist majority). This is an off-year without an exciting race at the top of the ballot, so turnout will be lower. Getting a few people to remember to vote (this) Tuesday could easily swing the tide.

For more of In This Moment's coverage of the state board races, see:

The Kansas Evolution Election: What the heck is it?

The Kansas Evolution Election: Who's Who & How You Can Help

Thoughts From Kansas pointed us to this interesting column in this weekend's Wichita Eagle.

Other commentary and coverage of the primary can be found in the following.

On the Insurance Commissioner's race:
Kansas Politics: What the radical right really wants

On the primary as a whole:
Primaries see religious influence

Sen. Kennedy is letting his colleagues off the hook when he blames a deceptive process for the Senate's approval of Justices Roberts and Alito

By Nancy Jane Moore

In today's Washington Post, Sen. Edward Kennedy says that the Senate, and particularly its Judiciary Committee, were deceived by managed testimony in confirming Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

While I know the Bush administration (and the Republican-controlled Senate) insisted on limiting the testimony, the written opinions of both justices were available for anyone to read -- including senators. Just by looking at some of their past decisions I could have predicted what side they would take in the opinions Kennedy cites -- Alito's joining of the dissent in Hamden v. Rumsfeld, and their agreement in eviscerating the Fourth Amendment in Hudson v. Michigan. In fact, the only Supreme Court ruling that surprised me all year was a unanimous opinion Alito wrote reversing a death penalty case on due process grounds (Holmes v. South Carolina) -- I didn't expect him to ever rule in favor of a convicted defendant.

To be fair to Sen. Kennedy, I know he voted against both of them. And he's right about the changes that should be made to the Senate procedure. He writes:

First, any qualified nominee to the Supreme Court will have spent many years thinking about legal issues. We should require that nominees share that thinking with the Judiciary Committee, and not pretend that such candor is tantamount to prejudging specific cases.

And he closes his article with this statement:

But it is essential that we learn enough of their legal views to be certain that they will make good on the simple promise etched in marble outside the Supreme Court: "Equal Justice Under Law."

Claiming they were misled by the process is just an excuse being used by Democratic and moderate Republican senators to justify their votes for justices with extreme judicial philosophies. They really voted for them because they were too scared to rock the boat -- the same reason they have supported many other bad Bush administration policies.

The Democrats should have filibustered both nominees. Going along to get along isn't working in the current Senate. In fact, given most of the actions of both houses over the past year, I think we'd be better off with a stalemated Congress.

About the only positive thing Congress has done this year is pass the extension of the Voting Rights Act. And in that case, due to the fact that there were questions about whether it would be extended, no one even tried to expand the law to cover other jurisdictions that have recently demonstrated serious flaws in their electoral process -- Ohio comes immediately to mind. A real Voting Rights Act extension would address current voting problems as well as making sure that the progress made in the South isn't abandoned.

The United Nations chides the U.S. for D.C.'s lack of votes in Congress

By Nancy Jane Moore

In a report issued by a human rights committee, the United Nations said Washington, D.C.'s lack of voting rights in Congress violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Imagine that: Not allowing your citizens to vote is considered wrong.

About 160 countries have ratified this treaty, including the U.S. in 1992. Apparently, though, the U.S. didn't really mean it when it, since nothing has been done about D.C. voting rights in the last 14 years.

According to The Washington Post article on the action, D.C.'s lack of voting representation was included in a report that also addresses secret prisons for those accused of terrorism, torture, and U.S. treatment of the poor and homeless -- a pretty sorry list of accomplishments for a country that touts itself as a democratic leader.

It's both gratifying and embarrassing to have the U.N. notice that we in Washington, D.C., don't have the same legal representation as other U.S. citizens. I'm glad someone besides those of us who live here has pointed out the problem, but it is embarrassing for the rest of the world to be made aware that the citizens of the Nation's Capital have no say in how the government is run.

Of course, the U.S. government immediately went on the defensive. The Post quotes from a letter by Warren Tichenor, who represents the U.S. at the U.N. in Geneva:

"The position of the District . . . is not a human rights violation; it is rather a justifiable and important aspect of the federal system of government freely chosen by citizens of the United States."

I guarantee you, Mr. Tichenor, the citizens of the District of Columbia do not consider our lack of votes to be either justifiable or an important part of our federal system. And if Congress would let us freely choose, we'd opt for representation.

As our nonvoting Delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, puts it in the Post article:

"We make such a big issue of everybody else's human rights record. We now have to be listed as one of the great hypocrites of the world."

Real kids are getting hurt: Once again a state court turns its back on the children of lesbians & gays

By Diane Silver

This week's opinion by the Washington state Supreme Court upholding a ban on same-sex marriage doesn't defend anything, but it certainly hurts thousands of children.

I am saddened that this simple fact keeps getting lost in the news coverage about gay marriage.

Here's the point: Many lesbian and gay couples are raising children together. Every one of those children needs the legal and financial benefits that come from having married parents.

Any parent -- whether heterosexual or lesbian or gay -- should be able to understand this and to understand why these kids need families that are legally bound together.

The Human Rights Campaign reports:

According to conservative estimates from the 2000 census, there are more than 1 million children being raised by same-sex couples in the United States. Without the ability to establish a legal relationship to both parents, children of same-sex couples are left without important protections, such as Social Security survivor benefits.

Every opinion that puts marriage farther away from same-sex couples puts the legal and financial benefits of marriage farther away from these children. Every opinion that allegedly "protects" marriage punishes these kids for having the poor taste to "chose" the wrong parents.

How many ways can children be hurt?

Consider this: What happens to a girl whose birth mother dies in a car accident?

The mother's life partner -- the child's co-parent -- may be the only other parent that child has ever known. The child has a loving bond with that parent, but no legal ties because of our backward marriage laws.

The girl has already been devastated by the death of her mother. Do we compound that tragedy by taking away her other parent, so that she is orphaned?

The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports:

Justice (Mary) Fairhust said the plurality and concurring opinions "... condone blatant discrimination against Washington's gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests."

That is all true, and it is all outrageous. However, this rationale isn't even close to the real reason why the ban on same-sex marriage is destructive to our country.

When will the courts and lawmakers realize that ALL children deserve to have secure families and that none should be relegated to second-class citizenship?

Coverage of the Marriage Issue & Washington Decision

Decision Could Impact Political Campaign

A Tenuous Legal Decision

Order in the court? Hardly

Banning Same-Sex Marriage Diminishes All Our Freedoms

State Justice Talk about Their Roles in Gay Marriage Ruling

Maryland Supreme Court to take on gay marriage

The Kansas Evolution Election: Anti-science candidate's campaign war chest is stuffed with out-of-district money

There's some good stuff over at Red State Rabble today. One fine post notes that the financial supporters of Kansas Board of Education member Connie Morris -- the poster child for the anti-evolution right -- only include 21 people who live within her western Kansas district. Yup, that's right: 21 living, breathing people.

Her pro-science challenger, Sally Cauble, counts 220 donors who live within the district.
Rabble writes:

The question is, can Connie's out-of-state, out-of-district friends on the religious right buy the District 5 election.

Let's hope not. Get involved. Give money. NOW.

More on Bush's Kafkaesque plan to try "enemy combatants"

The Washington Post has posted a copy of the Bush administration's proposed legislation for trying the Guantanamo detainees in a pdf file on its website.

According to the Post, the draft bill:

explains how the government would create commissions of U.S. military personnel who could impose a penalty of life imprisonment or death based on evidence never disclosed to the accused. Military judges could also exclude defendants from their trials whenever "necessary to protect the national security."

That doesn't sound like anything approaching due process of law to me. In fact, it sounds like a system that can easily be abused. If the defendants don't know what the evidence is, how can they refute it? I'm shocked, but I don't suppose Kafka would be.

My earlier comments on this legislation are here.

Kansas Politics: What the radical right really wants

By Diane Silver

The somewhat obscure race for the Republican nomination for Kansas Insurance Commissioner provides a clear window into what the radical right really wants. The race wil be decided in the Tuesday, Aug. 1, primary vote.

They don't want to just harass lesbians like me and limit the benefits our children receive. They want to make it harder for you -- whoever you are -- to receive a fair insurance policy, or possibly, to interact on a level playing field with big-money, big-power corporations. The reason I say that is because these folks are arguing for an end to government regulation.

Kansas City Star columnist Barbara Shelly does a good job today of explaining how this is playing out in the Insurance Commissioner race. That campaign pits incumbent Sandy Praeger, a moderate Republican, against Eric Carter, a member of the Kansas House who appears to have never met a government regulation, or maybe a government, he liked.

Shelly writes:

Voters on Tuesday will be rendering a judgment on government itself. Do they expect government to intervene on behalf of the public, or do they expect it to get out of the way?

Carter, on his campaign Web site, decries government as "the great fiction" and scoffs at social programs and regulation.

That dislike of regulation makes him a curious candidate for a watchdog post. The insurance commissioner monitors companies to ensure they set fair and realistic rates and pay valid claims.

Carter, a state representative from Overland Park, has sponsored legislation calling for unregulated pricing for auto and home insurance, and the lifting of mandated health insurance coverage for services such as prostate cancer testing, mental health treatment and chiropractic care.

Shelly adds:

These are strange times. Kansas has an education commissioner who has been openly hostile toward public schools. Washington is stocked with "regulators" who have made careers of fighting government regulation.

The trend is to stock government jobs with people who are antagonistic to government. As a "watchdog" who believes in unleashing the insurance industry, Carter would fit right in.

The choice before Kansas voters Tuesday is bigger than a moderate Republican Party stalwart and a conservative fresh face.

It's also a referendum on Praeger's view that government should work for people, and Carter's goal of diminishing government.

I couldn't have said it any better.

Right now, the race between Praeger and Carter is unexpectedly close, which is truly unfortunate. It appears that few Kansas voters are paying attention. That's a real tragedy because if Carter wins and gets his way, everyone with insurance -- just about every single person in Kansas -- will be hurt by his policies.

Power failures are caused by deregulation, not acts of God

By Nancy Jane Moore

An article on TomPaine.com explains something I've been saying for some time: Deregulation of the electric power industry led to inadequate maintenance of the infrastructure -- and that's why we keep having major power emergencies.

The people of Queens, NY, just suffered through an extended power outage for over a week. A recent bad storm left many folks in St. Louis powerless for many days. Here in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area we've had so many extended power outages that I get nervous with every thunderstorm. When the power goes, you never know when it will come back on. After Hurricane Isabel a few years ago -- a category 1 storm that was milder than some of the electrical storms we've had -- several friends of mine were without power for more than a week.

The power companies blame everything on Acts of God or, occasionally, on excessive use by consumers. (The only time electric companies ever encourage conservation seems to be during a heat wave.) But as Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen puts it in the TomPaine article:

With the requirements to invest a share of profits into improving reliability now removed, Wall Street and the power industry shunned putting their money into unprofitable investments like upgrading transmission lines and distribution networks. Why should investors spend money on low-rate-of-return investments like reliability when they can make a killing buying and selling power plants?

He goes on to explain how this affects the companies that are actually in charge of the power that comes into your house and mine:

On top of this market failure, deregulation has also encouraged distributional utilities, like ConEd in New York, to skimp on preventative maintenance spending. They have slashed utility workforces -- particularly experienced, unionized jobs. And regulators in New York and other deregulated states no longer pour over the companies' reliability budgets, allowing the utilities' service to slide in pursuit of higher profits. As a result, distributional utilities now have too much incentive to replace equipment after, not before, it blows.

That probably explains why, from time to time, the power goes out in my neighborhood on nice days when there's not a cloud in the sky and the temperature is so mild I shut off the air conditioner and open the windows.

I won't even get into the exploding manhole covers caused by problems in the underground power lines that plagued the Georgetown area of Washington a few years ago, eventually causing a power outage so bad that businesses in the area had to shut down for several days.

What's the matter with Arlen Specter?

By Nancy Jane Moore

Why is Sen. Arlen Specter caving to the president on the surveillance issue?

Specter is the man who introduced legislation on July 26 challenging the constitutionality of Bush's use of signing statements as a non-veto veto (Washington Post report), the leading Republican supporter of abortion rights, someone usually considered a major irritant to Bush.

But on the surveillance issue, Specter appears to have gone over to the dark side.

Under the Specter/Bush proposal, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would decide whether the National Security Agency's warrantless information gathering actions -- including tapping into phone and email records with the apparent cooperation of telecommunications companies -- is constitutional.

Why should the FISA court, which is only set up to review and fast track warrants in classified cases, address constitutionality? That's the purpose of the Supreme Court and as near as I can tell, this proposed law steps on the Constitution by trying to reassign that power.

Or as Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien puts it:

When the privacy of millions of Americans is at stake, we deserve more than a closed hearing by a secret court.

A Washington Post report on testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee leads me to believe that the bill doesn't even require the White House to submit new programs to the FISA court:

Another witness at yesterday's hearing, Steven G. Bradbury, an acting assistant attorney general, made it clear that legislation introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) after negotiations with the White House would "encourage" -- but not require -- Bush or a future president to present any future surveillance program to the secret FISA court for approval.

According to The New York Times, Specter seems to think he's wrung a major concession out of Bush:

"I would just suggest to you" the senator said, "that given the president's attitude on the surveillance program and his attitude on executive power generally that it was not a simple concession, but really was quite a breakthrough."

Senator Specter, don't you understand? You don't need to compromise here. If Congress stands up to the president and reins him in, it won't matter whether he agrees or not.

You can read the proposed legislation in this pdf file on the EFF website.