The Ohio Twenty-first

Holy Cow, I Was Wrong

2007-08-09T07:52:00.000-04:00

Sunday's New York Times Magazine has a meditation by political scientist Michael Ignatieff about how a smart guy like himself managed to be so misguided in his support for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. It's attracted a lot of comment. Entitled "Getting Iraq Wrong," long stretches of it deal less with Iraq per se than with the various ways by which intelligent people can still make bad policy choices.

A lot of professors, pundits and policy makers were ensnared by the intellectual traps he describes, many of them having to do with ideology and emotionalism. Others who opposed the war fell into similar traps, just in a different part of the political spectrum.

The people who truly showed good judgment on Iraq predicted the consequences that actually ensued but also rightly evaluated the motives that led to the action. They did not necessarily possess more knowledge than the rest of us. They labored, as everyone did, with the same faulty intelligence and lack of knowledge of Iraq’s fissured sectarian history. What they didn’t do was take wishes for reality. They didn’t suppose, as President Bush did, that because they believed in the integrity of their own motives everyone else in the region would believe in it, too. They didn’t suppose that a free state could arise on the foundations of 35 years of police terror. They didn’t suppose that America had the power to shape political outcomes in a faraway country of which most Americans knew little. They didn’t believe that because America defended human rights and freedom in Bosnia and Kosovo it had to be doing so in Iraq. They avoided all these mistakes.

Full article

In many respects, I'd include myself among those whom Ignatieff identifies as having displayed "good judgment." But there's an important difference. A lot of the people who showed good judgment actually spoke out, demonstrated, emailed their elected officials and wrote letters to the editor. Aside from grousing to a few colleagues and close friends, I didn't do a damn thing. I just let it happen.

It's not that I think my efforts would have made any difference. But not even to have tried -- that's some kind of sin.

Getting Away With Torture

2007-08-08T16:52:00.000-04:00

At left is a two-year old dog named China. Take a look at her neck. That isn't a collar. It's the wound left behind after a chain was surgically removed.

At right is Otis Clark of Somerville, Ohio. He kept China chained--which was perfectly legal since Ohio has no law forbidding or even restricting the practice. He did it for so long and paid so little attention that the chain actually became embedded in her neck. More than an inch deep.

Eventually someone rescued China and took her to Butler County's Animal Friends Humane Society. Clark claimed to have become aware of China's condition but lacked the money to take her to a veterinarian. China had emergency surgery. When the chain was removed, the stench was so powerful that several volunteers had to leave the room.

Clark, of course, was cited for animal cruelty. WLWT-TV of Cincinnati took it for granted that China would need a new home and gave out the humane society's phone number.

Wrong answer. Clark pleaded no contest, was convicted of animal cruelty, and was placed on probation. He nonetheless petitioned to get China back. Amazingly, Judge Robert H. Lyons granted Clark's request. Maybe he bought the contention of Clark's attorney: "I understand that they’re upset about it, but I think my guy loves his dog. That’s what he told me, ‘I love that dog.’”

Clark has a weird idea of what it means to love.

Judge Lyons did impose a list of conditions. And boy, are they ever strict! See for yourself:

1. The dog is licensed.

2. The dog is not to be tied.

3. The dog is to be vet checked every 90 days and results given to Mr Clark's probation officer. If the dog is not being properly cared for, it would constitute a probation violation. The first vet check is to be done on or about November 2, 2007. Failure to do the required vet checks would be a probation violation.

4. Mr Clark will be subject to random home visits be the probation department. If the probation officer finds that the dog is not being properly cared for it would constitute a probation violation.

5. Mr Clark is to make full restitution to the Humane Society, the payments are to be made in accordance with the payment agreement established through the probation department. Failure to make the agreed payments will constitute a probation violation.

6. Mr Clark is to read the book on dog care given to him by the court.

The dog is to be returned to defendant Otis Clark once the dog is licensed. If Mr Clark does not comply with the orders of the court or the terms of community control the dog will be forfeited and Mr Clark will face the possibility of 180 days of incarceration.

Apparently in Judge Lyons' book, just because you torture a dog doesn't mean you can't be a responsible pet owner.

Needless to say, Judge Lyons has refused to comment on his decision.

The Butler County prosecutor said that he would refer the case to the appellate division in hopes of having the decision overturned. Animal activists are, of course, outraged, and plan a rally outside the Butler County court house. It's scheduled for August 16 from noon to 2 p.m.

PETA has requested a letter writing campaign in which people "politely" ask Judge Lyons to reverse his decision. Don't hold your breath.

But you don't have to be an animal activist to be outraged. Being an ordinary human being should suffice.

Unchaining Dogs and Why It Matters

2007-08-07T07:38:00.000-04:00

Eleven states have laws that forbid or restrict the tethering of dogs. Ohio does not. In fact, so far as I am aware, only North Royalton has even a city ordinance that addresses the issue.

A number of Ohio cities do have ordinances that condemn breeds such as pit bulls as being inherently dangerous. They aren't. I volunteer at an animal shelter. We have a couple of pit bulls up for adoption, and they are as gentle as any other dogs if treated humanely.

Ironically, the practice of chaining or tethering dogs creates some of the same dangers that ordinances against pit bulls are intended to address. That's why Ohio legislators should introduce and pass a law that restricts or bans the practice.

Here's a FAQ, taken from the Humane Society of the United States web site.

1. What is meant by "chaining" or "tethering" dogs?

These terms refer to the practice of fastening a dog to a stationary object or stake, usually in the owner's backyard, as a means of keeping the animal under control. These terms do not refer to the periods when an animal is walked on a leash.

2. Is there a problem with continuous chaining or tethering?

Yes, the practice is both inhumane and a threat to the safety of the confined dog, other animals, and humans.

3. Why is tethering dogs inhumane?

Dogs are naturally social beings who thrive on interaction with human beings and other animals. A dog kept chained in one spot for hours, days, months, or even years suffers immense psychological damage. An otherwise friendly and docile dog, when kept continuously chained, becomes neurotic, unhappy, anxious, and often aggressive.

In many cases, the necks of chained dogs become raw and covered with sores, the result of improperly fitted collars and the dogs' constant yanking and straining to escape confinement. Dogs have even been found with collars embedded in their necks, the result of years of neglect at the end of a chain. In one case, a veterinarian had to euthanize a dog whose collar, an electrical cord, was so embedded in the animal's neck that it was difficult to see the plug.

4. Who says tethering dogs is inhumane?

In addition to The Humane Society of the United States and numerous animal experts, the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a statement in the July 2, 1996, Federal Register against tethering:

"Our experience in enforcing the Animal Welfare Act has led us to conclude that continuous confinement of dogs by a tether is inhumane. A tether significantly restricts a dog's movement. A tether can also become tangled around or hooked on the dog's shelter structure or other objects, further restricting the dog's movement and potentially causing injury."

5. How does tethering or chaining dogs pose a danger to humans?

Dogs tethered for long periods can become highly aggressive. Dogs feel naturally protective of their territory; when confronted with a perceived threat, they respond according to their fight-or-flight instinct. A chained dog, unable to take flight, often feels forced to fight, attacking any unfamiliar animal or person who unwittingly wanders into his or her territory.

Numerous attacks on people by tethered dogs have been documented. For example, a study published in the September 15, 2000, issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association reported that 17% of dogs involved in fatal attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 were restrained on their owners' property at the time of the attack. Tragically, the victims of such attacks are often children who are unaware of the chained dog's presence until it is too late. Furthermore, a tethered dog who finally does get loose from his chains may remain aggressive, and is likely to chase and attack unsuspecting passersby and pets.

6. Why is tethering dangerous to dogs?

In addition to the psychological damage wrought by continuous chaining, dogs forced to live on a chain make easy targets for other animals, humans, and biting insects. A chained animal may suffer harassment and teasing from insensitive humans, stinging bites from insects, and, in the worst cases, attacks by other animals. Chained dogs are also easy targets for thieves looking to steal animals for sale to research institutions or to be used as training fodder for organized animal fights. Finally, dogs' tethers can become entangled with other objects, which can choke or strangle the dogs to death.

7. Are these dogs dangerous to other animals?

In some instances, yes. Any other animal that comes into their area of confinement is in jeopardy. Cats, rabbits, smaller dogs, and others may enter the area when the tethered dog is asleep and then be fiercely attacked when the dog awakens.

8. Are tethered dogs otherwise treated well?

Rarely does a chained or tethered dog receive sufficient care. Tethered dogs suffer from sporadic feedings, overturned water bowls, inadequate veterinary care, and extreme temperatures. During snow storms, these dogs often have no access to shelter. During periods of extreme heat, they may not receive adequate water or protection from the sun. What's more, because their often neurotic behavior makes them difficult to approach, chained dogs are rarely given even minimal affection. Tethered dogs may become "part of the scenery" and can be easily ignored by their owners.

9. Are the areas in which tethered dogs are confined usually comfortable?

No, because the dogs have to eat, sleep, urinate, and defecate in a single confined area. Owners who chains their dogs are also less likely to clean the area. Although there may have once been grass in an area of confinement, it is usually so beaten down by the dog's pacing that the ground consists of nothing but dirt or mud.

10. But how else can people confine dogs?

The HSUS recommends that all dogs be kept indoors at night, taken on regular walks, and otherwise provided with adequate attention, food, water, and veterinary care. If an animal must be housed outside at certain times, he should be placed in a suitable pen with adequate square footage and shelter from the elements.

11. Should chaining or tethering ever be allowed?

To become well-adjusted companion animals, dogs should interact regularly with people and other animals, and should receive regular exercise. It is an owner's responsibility to properly restrain her dog, just as it is the owner's responsibility to provide adequate attention and socialization. Placing an animal on a restraint to get fresh air can be acceptable if it is done for a short period. However, keeping an animal tethered for long periods is never acceptable.

12. If a dog is chained or tethered for a period of time, can it be done humanely?

Animals who must be kept on a tether should be secured in such a way that the tether cannot become entangled with other objects. Collars used to attach an animal should be comfortable and properly fitted; choke chains should never be used. Restraints should allow the animal to move about and lie down comfortably. Animals should never be tethered during natural disasters such as floods, fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, or blizzards.

13. What about attaching a dog's leash to a "pulley run"?

Attaching a dog's leash to a long line—such as a clothesline or a manufactured device known as a pulley run—and letting the animal have a larger area in which to explore is preferable to tethering the dog to a stationary object. However, many of the same problems associated with tethering still apply, including attacks on or by other animals, lack of socialization, and safety.

14. What can be done to correct the problem of tethering dogs?

At least 25 communities have passed laws that regulate the practice of tethering animals. Maumelle, Arkansas; Tucson, Arizona; and New Hanover, North Carolina, are a few communities that prohibit the chaining or tethering of dogs as a means of continuous confinement. Many other communities allow tethering only under certain conditions; Jefferson County, Kentucky, for example, prohibits dogs from being tethered for more than eight hours in any 24-hour period.

15. Why should a community outlaw the continuous chaining or tethering of dogs?

Animal control and humane agencies receive countless calls every day from citizens concerned about animals in these cruel situations. Animal control officers, paid at taxpayer expense, spend many hours trying to educate pet owners about the dangers and cruelty involved in this practice.

A chained animal is caught in a vicious cycle; frustrated by long periods of boredom and social isolation, he becomes a neurotic shell of his former self—further deterring human interaction and kindness. In the end, the helpless dog can only suffer the frustration of watching the world go by in isolation—a cruel fate for what is by nature a highly social animal. Any city, county, or state that bans this practice is a safer, more humane community.

To its credit, the Ohio General Assembly does have four bills pending that deal with cruelty to animals; e.g., cock fighting and dog fighting. That's a start. But the practice of tethering dogs is a lot more common. It too urgently needs to be addressed.

For more on this issue, visit Dogs Deserve Better.

Angelo

2007-08-07T07:34:00.000-04:00

This is Angelo, a four-year old golden chow mix. Since last November I've been a volunteer at Citizens for Human Action, an animal shelter near my home. Angelo's been there almost as long as I have. His first evaluation is dated December 31, 2006.

Angelo rates a mention here because of the reason his owner had to surrender him. The owner's an Army reservist called to duty in Iraq, and he had no other option. I imagine he remembers Angelo and misses him. I also imagine he thinks that by now someone has adopted Angelo and given him a good home. Sadly, that isn't the case.

I've spent time with Angelo and he's a perfectly nice dog who gets along with most other dogs, though personally I think he would do best in a home where's he's the only dog. He weighs 40-50 pounds, which is not that tough to handle: a little too much for a little kid, but fine for one twelve years or older.

Angelo's been at the shelter for nearly eight months, and I've found that for many animals, this becomes a problem in itself, because prospective owners simply assume that if a dog's gone unadopted for so long, there must be a problem.

Well, in Angelo's case, the only problem is that his old master is in uniform, thousands of miles away, and his new master has yet to show up.

If you're interested in adopting Angelo, contact Citizens for Human Action. It's located just south of Westerville, Ohio.

Bible-Thumping Buckeye Bullies Disrupt Worship

2007-08-06T11:04:00.000-04:00

I'd be curious to know if State Sen. Tim Schaffer, whose 31st District includes Granville, has any opinion about this. I'm all the more curious because Schaffer hails from Lancaster, which is pretty much dominated by Pastor Russell Johnson, founder of the Fundamentalist Ohio Restoration Project that backed Ken Blackwell so fervently -- and unsuccessfully -- in 2006.

Two central Ohio churches recently had their worship services disrupted by members of a group calling themselves "Minutemen United," as I discovered when I opened this morning's email and found the following:

I invite you to keep the First Baptist Church of Granville and their pastor,the Rev. Dr. Kathy Hurt, in your prayers. First Baptist is a welcoming and affirming congregation [that is to say, a congregation that accepts gays, lesbians, etc. into full membership and participation] and is in partnership with the United Church of Christ as a member of the Alliance of Baptists. The church has been picketed because of an art exhibit and a week ago their worship service was disrupted. Kathy wrote last week to her church: "The protests by a group called Minutemen United, which began in conjunction with our hosting of the art exhibit 'Love Makes a Family,' are continuing in an especially unsettling way: individuals from the group have been coming to our Sunday worship services. Their intent seems not to be to join us in worship, for they do not participate in any fashion (and in fact some make a point of avoiding interaction with us), but rather to discover ways to challenge, even intimidate us.
Two Sundays ago, two members of the Minutemen group attended worship and simply observed. Last Sunday, six members of the group came to the worship service. During our time of joys and concerns, one of the group members, who identified himself as their pastor, came to the microphone and shared not a personal joy or concern, but some of their judgmental message. When it seemed that he intended to "kidnap" the service and move into a criticism of our welcoming and affirming perspective, I took the microphone away from him, at which point the entire group of Minutemen stalked out of the service."
Many of us have been subject of protests because of positions we or our churches have taken but seldom have our worship services been disrupted. We do want to welcome all people to worship, affirming that wherever you are on life's journey you are welcome here, but we do not want and can not allow the sacred time of worship and praise to be disturbed by persons who disagree with our welcoming of all of God's children. I understand this group has also recently targeted King Avenue United Methodist Church.

If this sounds like a case of persecution for righteousness' sake, you must have it backward. Visit the Minutemen United web site, which is one long lament about how persecuted they are. For instance, this event took place in Coshocton County.

Our Dear Friend Pastor Bill Dunfee and the men of his congregation had an attempt made on their lives' as they shared the Gospel at a local strip club. The Sheriff to whom they are speaking to as the explosion occurs told the press that it was a "fire-cracker", and that it was merely a Hatfield (stripclub) and McCoy (Christians) thing. The voice heard in the [YouTube] video saying "you guys go...go..." is the voice of the sheriff. Pretty intense firecracker, Huh? [To me it sounded like a cherry bomb going off in a dumpster -- some "attempt on their lives".]
Fifteen minutes before the explosion several peaceful Christians were leaning against the dumpster in which the explosion occurred....thank God for their lives.
The Coshocton County Sheriff's department will not protect the rights of Christians.
Is it just me... or does this not seem to be an act of terror?

It's just you.

Then there's the shock and outrage expressed on behalf of two members of Operation Rescue / Save America (and their child) who disrupted a recent U.S. Senate session in which -- horrors! -- a Hindu cleric was invited to the give the invocation. The disruption was severe enough that the they were removed from the chamber and arrested.

HOW THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN! Have our elected officials forgotten so quickly the God of our Pilgrim Forefathers, the God of our Founding Fathers, and the God who has blessed America and made her the mightiest nation in the world? Has Jesus, who made this nation free, been prostrated to the same level as every other religion?
The events that took place in the Senate chambers yesterday [July 12] would indicate that the answer is, “YES!” Well then, what happens when United States senators fail to stand for truth, and bow their knee to the false god of political correctness? Simple Christian moms and dads, grandmas and grandpas, sons and daughters, must stand up for Jesus! . . .
As the Hindu clergyman began his prayer to his false god, Ante rose up. Bible in hand and held high, he proclaimed, “Lord Jesus, forgive us Father for allowing the prayer of the wicked which is an abomination in Your sight.” The gavel was sounded by Senator Casey who commanded, “The Sergeant at arms will restore order in the Senate. The Sergeant at arms will restore order in the chamber.”. . .
The falsehood of Hinduism was eloquently challenged yesterday by those who know the truth that sets people free - Jesus. We pray that their lives will inspire many to do the same and call our nation to repentance and to return to the God of our fathers. May the hallowed halls and chambers of the Congress of the United States of America never again entertain the false religions of this age.

And while you're at the Minutemen United web site, check out the cool Minutemen United gear available for purchase.

A New Campaign Season

2007-08-06T08:08:00.000-04:00

Well, it's already that time again: a new campaign season. So far the media has focused almost entirely on the presidential horse race, where the field is about as wide open as I can recall since 1976. As I've said repeatedly on this blog, I have no particular expertise in politics. I'm just an average American voter, trying to get a better read on how to execute my civic responsibility. For that reason I've dusted off this blog, moribund since last November.

But I'll probably post only occasionally until we get the preliminaries out of the way: the front runners really establish themselves, they settle on a clear campaign message (right now they seem to be trying out various approaches to see what gets traction), and the process becomes less the province of the true political junkies, talk radio, and the cable news networks, who find gab fests about the political maneuvering far cheaper and easier than the reporting of actual news.

God, how I miss Walter Cronkite and the days when the news divisions were "loss leaders" designed, from a corporate standpoint, to elevate the prestige of the networks and not to make a profit.

Running Out the Clock

2007-08-05T08:55:00.000-04:00

Cross-posted from Blog Them Out of the Stone Age

The current New Republic has an article by Andrew J. Bacevich entitled "Army of One: The Overhyping of David Petraeus." (Hat tip to Ethan Rafuse) It sounds like a swipe at Petraeus; it's really about how the de facto U.S. strategy -- propounded by Petraeus but accepted by all "but the doughty warriors at the American Enterprise Institute" -- has become one of "buying time for Iraqis to reconcile." But, he notes, the Washington clock is running out faster than the Iraqi clock. The pace of Iraqi reconciliation is running at about the same rate as that of my extended family, while the pace in Washington, governed chiefly by the 2008 election campaign but also by a sense that the Bush administration has blown it beyond redemption, is running a lot faster. An excerpt:

The most fundamental question that should be asked about the strategy is: Exactly how much time does Petraeus need to buy? The answer: a lot. With his frequent references to "the Washington clock" and "the Baghdad clock," Petraeus himself has recognized that "buying time" is by no means a simple proposition. The problem with the two clocks -- one driven by domestic politics and the other connected to events in Iraq itself -- is that they are wildly out of synch. As Petraeus himself has acknowledged, "The Washington clock is ticking faster than the Baghdad clock." Indeed, the steady erosion of popular and congressional support for the war, lately even among Republicans, suggests that time on the Washington clock has all but expired.
To correct this situation, Petraeus speaks of "trying to speed up the Baghdad clock a bit to produce some progress on the ground that can, perhaps ... put a little more time on the Washington clock." Yet Petraeus himself must recognize that this qualifies at best as a long shot. He knows that any counterinsurgency is by definition a protracted project. Success requires not weeks or months of exertions but years. As he told the BBC in a recent interview, "The average counterinsurgency is somewhere around a nine- or a ten-year endeavor." For his strategy to succeed, putting "a little more time" on the Washington clock won't come close to doing the trick. Indeed, unless the Petraeus strategy gains the firm and enthusiastic support of President Bush's successor, it doesn't stand a chance of working. Yet, unless John McCain's campaign pulls off a remarkable turnaround -- an unlikely event -- the president who takes office in January 2009 won't have campaigned on a strategy of "buying time" to prolong the Iraq war.
Furthermore, Washington's typically narcissistic preoccupation with the political clock has diverted attention from the fact that the U.S. military's Baghdad clock is also quickly running down. Apart from the doughty warriors at the American Enterprise Institute, most informed observers understand that, with the ongoing surge, America's land forces have shot their wad. The current commitment of 160,000 troops to Iraq is unsustainable beyond early next year, absent draconian measures like extending yet again the combat tours of soldiers who have already seen their deployments go from twelve to 15 months in duration. If the wizards who concocted President Bush's Long War had decided back in 2002 or 2003 to increase the Army's size, options for maintaining a large force in Iraq might exist. But Petraeus will find little consolation in such might-have-beens. "Buying time" in Baghdad requires the ability to sustain a very robust U.S. troop presence for years to come, and that's simply not in the cards.
Then there is the question of whether the actions of coalition forces, now engaged in the so-called "surge," are actually conducive to putting time back on the clock. Right now, it appears the opposite is true: Instead of putting more time on the Washington clock, the surge is actually causing it to run down more quickly.
Full article

Smokeless vs Smoke Screen: Issues 4 and 5

2006-11-04T01:15:00.000-05:00

A colleague of mine circulated the following email. In the nature of the case, I can't imagine he would object to my sharing it:

Dear Ohio friends and acquaintances,

I'm writing about two smoking-related measures on the Ohio ballot, and to request that you vote No on Issue 4 and Yes on Issue 5. Issue 5 would benefit public health immensely. Issue 4 is a sham written by Big Tobacco's lobbyists.

This set of issues has particular meaning for our family, which as many of you may know has waged multiple battles against cancer, as well as a direct importance for me because of my asthma. I suspect many of you may have similar direct stake in the issue, but since it's been clouded in deliberate confusion some clarification may be in order.

Here is the difference:

The worthy measure is Issue 5, sponsored by the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and a coalition of health groups called "Smoke Free Ohio," including the Association of Ohio Health Commissioners. This measure would eliminate smoking in indoor public working environments, thereby ensuring the safety of people who work in the hospitality industry while protecting the right of non-smokers to be free from secondhand smoke.

This would be a giant leap forward for the public health of this state, and help to eliminate some of the more than 400,000 needless premature deaths from smoking-related causes (mainly cancer) that occur every year in this country. As you may know, even "non-smoking" sections in restaurants are pervaded with second-hand smoke, affecting children and other innocents.

The sham measure is Issue 4, put forward by the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, RJReynolds Tobacco and other pro-smoking corporate donors under a PAC entitled "Smoke Less Ohio," a spin name for special interests who desire more smoking in Ohio. Issue 4 would create a constitutional amendment that would ban smoking in a few places while exempting bars, bowling alleys and bingo halls, requiring smoking sections in all restaurants, and repealing all current municipalities' legislation restricting smoking, barring any further local choice in the matter.

Right now Ohioans are informed enough to prefer Issue 5 over Issue 4, in polls. However, *both* measures look likely to pass, and if that occurs, Issue 4 will trump Issue 5, since it is a constitutional amendment. In one fell swoop it will simultaneously override all local ordinances, like the excellent one in Columbus, therefore *increasing* smoking in Ohio. This of course is exactly what Big Tobacco wants -- and why it has poured huge sums into television advertising, outspending Smoke Free Ohio by a 5-1 ratio.

Please tell your friends and family No on 4! Yes on 5! Word of mouth is critical to letting Ohioans know that almost all public health, scientific, and medical experts support Issue 5 and oppose Issue 4.

I'm probably whistling into the wind here, but I thought I ought not let this moment pass without saying something. I'm hoping this message -- or some more eloquent one that you write on your own -- gets forwarded around Ohio. Would you be willing to forward this on to all your friends and family in Ohio? If they in turn forward it, then, well, I'll try not to get my hopes up, but...

More information can be found at SmokeFreeOhio .

Televangelist Rod Parsley Under IRS Investigation

2006-10-11T14:18:00.000-04:00

Today's Washington Post, in a lengthy story about the decline of "values" issues in Ohio politics, reports that Rod Parsley -- a Columbus area televangelist; pastor of World Harvest Church; and founder of Reformation Ohio, a political advocacy group known for its less than subtle support for Ken Blackwell -- is under investigation by the IRS:

Parsley, who faces an Internal Revenue Service investigation prompted by a complaint by a group of ideologically moderate ministers who allege he has crossed a line barring political advocacy from the pulpit, has not endorsed Blackwell. But he is quick to add: "I'm sure Ohioans will recall which candidates have stood with them in the past."

But the bulk of the story focuses on matters like this:

So far, it seems that the efforts of Parsley and other evangelical leaders are being overshadowed by this state's recent record of job losses and the resultant economic concern. The unemployment rate in Ohio is 5.7 percent -- a full point above the national figure. Meanwhile, the Ohio Poll found that 82 percent of Ohioans believe that the economy is in poor or fair shape, and two-thirds say things are getting worse.

Full article

Even Among Evangelicals, Candidates' Religion Matters Less Than Supposed

2006-10-09T02:03:00.000-04:00

The October 8 Columbus Dispatch reports the surprising results of two polls it jointly conducted with the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics:

The surveys of more than 2,200 people show that Ohioans are deeply conflicted over several flash points: candidates talking publicly about their religious beliefs, public officials’ closeness to religious leaders, clergy members talking politics from the pulpit, and whether matters such as poverty and health care are just as much religious issues as abortion and same-sex marriage.
The twin polls also reveal sharp disagreements between the public and clergy members over the proper roles of religion and politics.

One of the more striking findings of the surveys was the differences between the clergy members and their flocks, especially among conservative Christians, defined here as white Protestants who consider themselves evangelical or born-again. For example:
• 83 percent of those pastors say they plan to vote for Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell for governor, while just 44 percent of white Protestant evangelical voters are backing Blackwell, now secretary of state.
• 42 percent of the pastors have been involved in some type of political activity in the past year, more than 2½ times the rate of their parishioners. (Some of that difference might be explained by the fact that most pastors are better educated and thus more likely to play an active role in the political process, Green said.)
• 53 percent of the pastors say they encourage their members to vote one way or the other, double the rate of parishioners who say their pastors provide such guidance.
The wide disconnect between pulpit and pew has not turned up in other studies, [John] Green [of the Bliss Institute] said.
"We tend to think of these religious communities as very monolithic. We presume the flock is following in lock step.
"There’s no question that the ministers have influence on their followers, but not as much as we may have thought," he said.

Full story

Forum on Church and State in Ohio Politics: Civility and Substance

2006-10-09T00:06:00.000-04:00

Discussants from both conservative and liberal perspectives squared off Sunday afternoon in a 90-minute forum that, although quite animated throughout and briefly contentious at points, was for the most part a model of civility and substance. I was in the audience and the quality of the exchange left me genuinely impressed.

The lineup was first-rate:

John Green, moderator, is Senior Fellow in Religion and American Politics at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. He also serves as Director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics and is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of Akron. Dr. Green has done extensive research on American religious communities and politics.

Phil Burress, discussant, is Executive Director of Citizens for Community Values, a Cincinnati-based grass roots organization whose mission is to promote Judeo-Christian moral values and reduce destructive behaviors contrary to those values, through education, active community partnership, and individual empowerment at the local, state and national levels. Mr. Burress and CCV led the successful 2004 Ohio constitutional amendment ballot initiative that bans same-sex marriage.

Russell Johnson, discussant, is Senior Pastor of Fairfield Christian Church in Lancaster, Ohio, and Chairman of The Ohio Restoration Project, an organization dedicated to mobilizing lay persons and "Patriot Pastors" to combat the "toxin of dogmatic secularism which has sought to deny America's Godly heritage and undermine her God-given potential."

Barry Lynn, discussant, is Executive Director, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a non-partisan, non-sectarian organization which since 1947 has defended separation of church and state in the courts, educated legislators, and worked with the media to inform Americans about religious freedom issues and organize local chapters all over the country.

Marcus Owens, discussant, is counsel to All Saints Episcopal Church of Pasadena, California and former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, was instrumental in formulating a recent complaint to the IRS concerning questionable partisan political activities by two central Ohio churches.

Jay Sekulow, discussant, is Director of the American Center for Law and Justice, a Washington-based organization founded by Pat Robertson in 1990. Through its work in the courts and the legislative arena,it is dedicated to protecting religious and constitutional freedoms. The ACLJ specializes in constitutional law and has argued several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. During the past six years Mr. Sekulow has become closely linked to the Bush administration and is the leading Supreme Court advocate of the Christian Right.

Eric Williams, discussant, is lead spokesperson for the fifty-six central Ohio religious leaders who recently sent letters to the IRS complaining of partisan political activities by two central Ohio churches. Rev. Williams serves as senior pastor of North Congregational United Church of Christ, Columbus, Ohio.

The forum began with the two pastors, Russell Johnson and Eric Williams, speaking for eight minutes each on what they saw as the key issues at stake. Johnson emphasized America's "tremendous heritage of faith" stretching from early colonial times to the present." He noted that references to God and recognizably Judeo-Christian values were embedded in the country's founding documents, and averred that much of the country's success could be traced to the efforts of faith-based people to redress wrongs and improve the society. During the past fifty years, however, an unprecedented wave of "secular bigotry" had rolled over the land. "Forces of darkness" were attempting to "muzzle people of faith." The religious left, Johnson believed, had aided and abetted the secular left in this effort.

Johnson held that the religious left had long been involved in politics in precisely the same ways that the religious right was doing. He mentioned specifically Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. The religious right, however, was being "demonized" for its efforts in the apparent hope that it could be intimidated into silence. He concluded by saying that both the religious left and right ought to be active in the civic arena.

Eric Williams opened by stressing the need to respect and honor people of other faith traditions. Like Johnson, he looked to history to frame the issues at stake, but took as his touchstones such people as Roger Williams, who was banished from the 17th century Puritan Massachusetts Bay colony for arguing that the colony had grievously erred by effectively merging church and state. He noted the fears of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson that a group of powerful churches might succeed in influencing government sufficiently so as to foist its own religious views on others. He quoted the clause of the First Amendment that reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." He also quoted former president Jimmy Carter, who, in his book America's Endangered Values, agreed with Roger Williams about the abuses that arise when religion becomes entangled with government.

For the next hour, the six discussants responded to a series of prepared questions served up to them by moderator John Green. Three of the discussants -- Johnson, Philip Burress, and John Sekulow -- essentially represented the conservative side of the debate. Johnson and Burress believed that their organizations, the Ohio Restoration Project and Citizens for Community Values respectively, were observing Internal Revenue Service guidelines concerning the political involvement of 501c(3) organizations (churches, etc.). They were engaged in voter mobilization, dissemination of voter guides, and issues advocacy (all legal activities) but not endorsement of specific candidates (which the IRS guidelines prohibit). Sekulow considered the IRS guidelines too vague and cumbersome to be anything but mischievous, and thought the rule prohibiting churches from supporting or endorsing candidates should be eliminated.

The other three discussants -- Williams, Marcus Owens, and Barry Lynn -- represented the liberal side of the debate, or at least the side preferring a robust separation between church and state.

At the end of an hour, moderator John Green asked the discussants to respond to selected questions submitted by audience members on 3x5 index cards.

Probably the most substantive part of the discussion dealt with the IRS investigation of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California. The IRS accused the church of violating the prohibition against partisan political activity during a 2004 pre-election sermon which notionally portrayed Jesus Christ as addressing George W. Bush and condemning him for the policy that had led the United States to attack Iraq. Owens is serving as legal counsel for the church; Johnson -- whose Ohio Restoration Project is the target of a complaint to the IRS lodged by thirty-one clergy, notably including Eric Williams -- hoped Owens would be so good as to defend his organization in the same way. Sekulow read extensively from the sermon and used it to help make his point that the IRS were a hopeless muddle.

As I've said, the forum was for the most part a model of civility and substance. Its most contentious moments occurred when Johnson pointedly asked Williams a number of questions. Why had Williams organized and filed a letter of complaint with the IRS without first approaching Johnson in accordance with the scriptural injunction for Christians to resolve their differences among themselves? Would Williams refuse to endorse Lincoln, even though Lincoln freed the slaves? Did Williams oppose the prayers said by Amish schoolchildren in the wake of a recent, brutal series of murders of school grounds in Pennsylvania?

On this last question, Johnson briefly got the better of Williams, who remained doggedly on message in a fashion reminiscent of Michael Dukakis in 1988 when asked if he would favor the death penalty for someone who had raped and killed his wife. But Barry Lynn spoke up and said that questions like the prayers in extremis of Amish schoolchildren "always arise on the edge of these great questions." But when the religious right tries to abridge abortion, squelch equal rights for gays, and arguably establish a de facto theocracy, Lynn continued, he was disposed to stick with his critique of the religious right and "give a pass to the Amish kids."

Photos taken during and after the forum are available here.

Streaming video of the forum (in .mov format; about 90 minutes)

Fireworks at the Goodman - Kreider Debate - Part 3

2006-10-07T00:42:00.000-04:00

Actually, here begins the non-fireworks segment of this multi-part post. It concerns the debate itself.

To cut to the chase: Who won? Without meaning to play pollyanna, I'd say the audience won. They got what they came for: a substantive debate between Kreider and Goodman in which, for the most part, you got a good sense for the candidates' views, strengths, weaknesses, and priorities.

But if you insist on asking me to name the winning candidate, I'd argue it was Kreider, not because I'm a Kreider supporter but because, as the challenger, she had the most to gain and also the most to lose. Consider: Goodman is the incumbent. Kreider has never held public office. With over a decade of experience in Ohio policy and politics, one would expect Goodman to have a strong command of the issues. Kreider, in contrast, ran the very real risk of appearing to be out of her depth. Instead, with one (in my opinion, avoidable) exception, she did very well. You might be out of sympathy with her views, but she certainly showed that she had studied the issues and knew what she was talking about.

The debate format involved a moderator who served up questions prepared by Otterbein College students and given to the candidates ahead of time -- a format, it must be said, that was surely helpful to Kreider. Each candidate had a few minutes to respond and an optional opportunity for a brief rebuttal. At the end of the first hour, the debate was opened up to questions from the audience. That lasted roughly thirty minutes, and it was during this final phase that the Crowd of Three (see parts 1 and 2) ganged up on Goodman.

Before the Q&A, each candidate got to make an opening statement. Kreider emphasized her connection to ordinary people and averred that Goodman's ad campaign was trying to portray him as an agent of change but that he was really an established political insider and a member of a Republican-dominated General Assembly that had driven Ohio steadily downhill for over a decade. Deploying the debate's only visual aid, she showed the wide difference between the sources of Goodman's campaign contributions and her own:

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 (coming)

Fireworks at the Goodman - Kreider Debate - Part 2

2006-10-05T16:52:00.000-04:00

The second episode occurred when Kennedy Kent and James Whitaker (Mr. Whitaker shown at left), confronted David Goodman about an attack on two West High School students that took place on February 14, 2006. Apparently Goodman's office had been asked to help in the case -- exactly how was not well explained -- and Ms. Kent and Mr. Whitaker felt that they were being stonewalled.

The details didn't really come into focus for the audience, because the pair essentially spoke as if the audience was already oriented to the context of their concerns. Nor did most of us grasp Ms. Kent and Mr. Whitaker's connection to the event. Personally, I didn't even catch their names, and only figured out their identities a short time ago.

After the debate, I spoke to Mr. Whitaker -- I should have gotten his name but unfortunately did not -- and although initially he seemed a bit wary of me until he got a basic idea of who I was, he was then kind enough to let him take a snapshot of him (and reciprocated by getting one of me, I guess just in case). He also gave me two CD-Rs with material on the incident. Both contain recordings of phone conversations: the initial 911 call and seven subsequent exchanges with various school board and law enforcement officials.

I listened to the conversations and could gain only an impressionistic picture of what had occurred. But using various names, dates, and so on, I conducted several Google searches until I found a web site, Justice for Kids. That's how I finally learned the names of Ms. Kent and Mr. Whitaker.

According to the Justice for Kids (JFK) web site, the pair "have been fighting for children's rights for over 20 years. They are professional advocates and educators, and their passion and conviction have helped many."

Here's the gist of the original incident and its significance, taken from a JFK press release on June 6, 2006:

[T]wo teenage girls were assaulted on February 14, 2006 at a West High School basketball game by a 36 year old male felon named James Drennen and another unidentified male adult.

The police report, hospital records, photographs and criminal complaints filed February 15, 2006 at the City Prosecutor's office indicated the girls were seriously assaulted on February 14, 2006. Although James Drennen was arrested that night, he was released from Reynoldsburg jail on an unrelated charge February 16, 2006.

The criminal complaints against James Drennen for his attack on the girls were closed with unsigned letters to the parents dated March 1, 2006 and with the approval of three male intake persons, one of them being Bill Hedrick, the Director of Intake in the City Prosecutor's office.

Due to the effort of Justice for Kids and the families affected by James Drennen, the case was reopened May 11, 2006; and Steve McIntosh, our Chief City Prosecutor, indicated he and another prosecutor would personally handle the case.

On May 23, 2006, Assistant City Prosecutor Bill Hedrick charged James Drennen with two counts of menacing threats and two counts of disorderly conduct on West High School property on May 19, 2006; however, Drennen was not charged for his previous menacing threats and assaults against children and women. Why so little protection for children and women?

Even with his criminal history of felonious assault, theft, robbery, manslaughter, crack cocaine possession, and present charges of menacing threats and disorderly conduct on school property, James Drennen is still free to threaten and intimidate our most vulnerable citizens.

Subsequent press releases detail JFK's advocacy efforts in connection with the case, but none mention David Goodman or state senator Ray Miller, in whose 15th district the attack actually occurred.

Judging by the CD-Rs and a fascinating video on the web site, Ms. Kent and Mr. Whitaker usually adopt a pretty "in your face" stance toward public officials, who generally respond as if the pair are tiresome at best and slightly demented at worst. It's impossible for me at this point to offer much by way of a conclusive judgment on their advocacy efforts, but the JFK web site puts me in mind of a famous remark by abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, "I have need to be all on fire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt."

To return to last night's debate, however, I still don't get the "mountain of ice" dimension of David Goodman or his office.

I did speak to Goodman after the debate for several minutes. He told me that he was in touch with the parents of the girls in question and that the parents wished the matter to be addressed as privately as possible.

For additional details about Justice for Kids and the West High School incident, see the following:

Nasty federal NCLB [No Child Left Behind] /abuse investigation in Columbus, OH (Daily Kos, September 22, 2006)

KingCast Presents Audiotape . . . (Chris King's First Amendment Page, May 20, 2006)

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 (coming)

Fireworks at the Goodman - Kreider Debate - Part 1

2006-10-05T03:09:00.000-04:00

The Columbus Dispatch offers this weird headline concerning last evening's debate between 3rd Senate District incumbent David Goodman and his Democratic challenger, Emily Kreider:

GOP incumbent verbally attacked by hostile crowd

Hostile crowd?? You mean the three people who at one time or another asked Goodman some sharp, confrontational questions? The subtitle, byline, and time stamp, at least, are accurate:

Candidates widely split on school funding

By Jim Siegel

The Columbus Dispatch

Thursday, October 5, 2006 12:12 AM

Offering starkly different views on whether Ohio's education funding system still needs an overhaul, state Sen. David Goodman and his Democratic challenger, Emily Kreider, faced off yesterday in a debate that turned chaotic near the end when some audience members became verbally hostile.
Before the ruckus, during which a handful of audience members at Otterbein College's Riley Auditorium shouted at Goodman and one even approached the stage, Goodman defended the current school-funding system while Kreider insisted that more property-tax relief is needed.

The two are vying for the 3rd Senate District, which covers much of northern and eastern Franklin County.
Full story

I was present at the debate, and I simply do not recognize the part of the story that suggests a meltdown. An Arab American man accused Goodman of having said, in 1994, that Arabs were "scum" and "filth." The moderator, audience, and Goodman himself sat still for it until the man, Mahmoud El-Yousseph, a retired twenty-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force, became frustrated when Goodman steadfastly denied having ever said any such thing. He continued to repeat his accusation, which derived from a 2004 email received by Mr. El-Yousseph from an attorney who once had an office near Goodman's during his early days of private practice, until the audience grew clearly impatient and the moderator managed to get Mr. El-Yousseph to subside.

I spoke to Mr. El-Yousseph afterward and got the impression that he had posted the email and related material on the web. That may indeed be the case, but a preliminary Google search shows mainly that he is a member of the Association of Patriotic Arab Americans in the Military. He seems to be a frequent letter writer to the Dispatch and has done some free lance op/ed writing as well, including at least two articles which have appeared in the English-language edition of Al-Jazeera.

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 (coming)

The George Allen Insult Generator

2006-10-04T12:06:00.000-04:00

Need a blow to your dignity and self-worth? Try Salon.com's George Allen Insult Generator!

I pondered briefly about what Republican candidate in Ohio -- Ken Blackwell, MikeDeWine, Deborah Pryce, Pat Tiberi -- would make a good pick for an insult generator. None are in Allen's league, but given a forced choice I'd have to go with Blackwell.

For everyone else, a Hackneyed Platitude Generator would be altogether more apt.

You Suck! No, YOU Suck!

2006-10-04T04:59:00.000-04:00

This was either a lot of fun to watch or a real pain in the ass. . . .

Candidates’ face-off is pointed, passionate, personal
Blackwell and Strickland sharply draw differences
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Joe Hallett and Mark Niquette
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Displaying passion for their deeply different philosophical viewpoints, the two major-party candidates for governor confronted each other yesterday in a frank and intensely personal way.

Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell and Democrat Ted Strickland, both claiming to be the mainstream choice, went at it face to face in a nearly two-hour meeting with The Dispatch editorial board, at times seeming to forget everyone else in the room.

"I’ll be happy to let you talk if you let me talk," Strickland said at one point as the two repeatedly talked over each other.

Although both maintained measured tones, the candidates pressed each other from the outset, each seeking to define his opponent by the company he keeps. Blackwell said that labor union bosses would hold sway in a Strickland administration, particularly Ohio AFL-CIO President William Burga.

"They will be a real block in the efforts to implement change in the status quo," Blackwell said, referring to unions.

Strickland said Blackwell would render the governor’s office a captive of the religious right, including two of its most vocal leaders: the Rev. Rod Parsley, of World Harvest Church in southeastern Columbus, and the Rev. Russell Johnson, senior pastor of Fair- field Christian Church in Lancaster.

"They have been the backbone of his campaign so far," Strickland said. "He has chosen to associate himself with that particular faction within the Republican Party, and I think that’s why a lot of moderate Republicans have broken ranks with their party and chosen to support me in this election."

Complete article

The Professor and the Patriot Pastor

2006-10-04T04:30:00.000-04:00

The thing I most dislike about politics is the itch to demonize one's opponent. This is a time-honored tradition in the United States. It has been called "the paranoid style in American politics," and it plays off the fact that citizens tend to vote their fears more than their hopes. It also depends, in no small measure, on citizens being only half awake, so to speak, when it comes to public affairs. I suspect that many office holders and aspirants would like nothing better than to discuss with voters the issues of the day. But by and large, voters don't have that kind of attention span. Thus there's little percentage in getting into the specifics of one's policy prescriptions. Whatever you say is more likely to be distorted and turned against you by your opponent than to influence the electorate. American voters claim to loathe the prevalence of negative political ads. The fact is, however, that they have only themselves to blame. Ultimately, the health of a republic is always in the hands of its citizens. All too often, American citizens are tried in the balances and found wanting.

The itch to demonize is, if anything, even more repellent when indulged in by politically active Christians. Nowadays when one thinks of politically active Christians, one thinks mainly of the Religious Right: conservative evangelicals, particularly Fundamentalists. And sure enough, it is not at all uncommon to hear such people excoriate those who disagree with them, implying or stating outright that people of different views are willfully, morally wrong, destructive of all that is righteous, and pretty much the devil's henchmen. But as someone who labors in a more liberal vineyard, I can tell you that the same itch exists on our part as well. It is not really a phenomenon of the political left or right, but the artifact of a fallen humanity.

I figure that if others are vulnerable to that itch, then so am I. And without compromising for a moment my own convictions, I try as hard as possible to bear in mind that those on the Christian Right are animated by a sincere concern for this society, that they have the courage of their convictions, and that they are willing to organize and fight for the things in which they believe.

As a military historian, I am a student of the warrior ethos, and in nearly every culture in the world, the warrior ethos counsels respect for one's adversary. It goes beyond mere chivalry or good manners. It has psychological survival value. Psychiatrist Jonathan Shay, who for years has treated veterans with post traumatic stress disorder, notes in a fine book entitled Achilles in Vietnam that often his clients begin to heal when they are able to honor the enemy they fought instead of continuing to think of them as subhuman "gooks," "rag heads," and so on. I think that by analogy this same dynamic applies to the so-called culture war. In many ways the metaphor of war is apt. The stakes are thought to be high, the possibility of compromise non-existent. One side or the other must prevail. Nevertheless, just as there are laws and customs of literal war, so too there ought to be laws and customs of this metaphorical culture war. And the foundation of these laws and customs must be a basic respect for one's adversary.

That is why in recent weeks I have twice visited Fairfield Christian Church, whose senior pastor is Russell Johnson, the driving force behind the Ohio Restoration Project and its "Patriot Pastor" movement. Individuals from my own church, North Congregational United Church of Christ, were the driving force behind the well known complaint to the Internal Revenue Service that the Ohio Restoration Project and another organization, Reformation Ohio, were engaging in partisan political activity prohibited under IRS rules for non profit organizations. Based on my reading of the evidence, I think the complaint is well founded. And in any event, enough of a case exists that it is reasonable to place the matter before the IRS for adjudication. But the fact that I think these organizations have overstepped the law, or that I find some of their tactics -- gay bashing, for instance -- reprehensible, does not give me license to forget that they are people, fellow citizens, not demons beyond the pale.

And I have found that they exhibit the same forbearance. This past Sunday I had to be in Lancaster to give a talk at the Sherman House Museum. Since Fairfield Christian Church is located in Lancaster, I decided to attend its morning worship service. One of the eighteen -- count 'em, eighteen -- pastors of this immense and vibrant church recognized me as a visitor. I explained that I was from Columbus and in town only for the day. He asked what church I attended, I told him, he instantly recognized the name. His demeanor didn't stiffen for an instant. Indeed, if anything he seemed even more pleased to have me as a visitor.

He invited me to stick around for lunch after church and if it had not been for my speaking engagement, I would have accepted. As it was, I thoroughly enjoyed the service, which had an authentic joy, and I admired Pastor Johnson's sermon, which was a well-crafted, intelligent exploration not of those awful secular humanists or whatever, but of the dynamics that typically injure a marriage and the skill set required to deal with the inevitable conflicts constructively. It was an impressive performance.

After the service, the associate pastor who had greeted me earlier made sure I was introduced to Pastor Johnson. Actually re-introduced: I met him once briefly last March. I often keep a small digital camera in a pocket of my sport coat. I handed it to the associate pastor and asked if he would take a picture of Pastor Johnson and myself.

Pastor Johnson requested, in a joking but serious way, that I digitally remove his fangs.

A Man's Gotta Do What a Man's Gotta Do . . .

2006-10-03T19:55:00.000-04:00

. . . and for 3rd District Senator David Goodman, that means going negative against his appealing Democratic challenger, Emily Kreider. From Ohio2006:

This could be the cheesiest attack ad ever. Having failed to make an impression as a legislator, State Sen. David Goodman (R-New Albany) is trying to portray opponent Emily Kreider (D-Westerville) as an "incumbent" and himself as a "challenger" by running a TV spot that says "for the past 12 years official records show Emily Kreider failed to vote on important issues like schools, critical care for senior citizens and emergency services," and referring to himself as "leadership for a change." It makes her sound like an elected official and him as a breath of fresh air, doesn't it? No, Kreider hasn't held office. The ad is referring to levies and ballot issues in special and primary elections. Few people vote in all elections, and although Kreider missed the general election in 2002 she has voted in every general, primary and special election since 2003. Goodman has been in the General Assembly since his appointment to the House in 1998, so the "leadership for a change" theme is pure fiction.

A comment on the post notes that according to the Franklin County Board of Elections, Goodman has himself missed eight elections since February 2001.

Handicapping the U.S. Senate Races

2006-10-03T19:34:00.000-04:00

John J. Miller, the national political reporter for National Review Online, evaluates the U.S. Senate races. Although an ardent conservative, he is sufficiently realistic to see that the Democrats and Republicans both have their work cut out for them -- and that since his last profile, the Republicans have lost a bit of ground in Virginia, thanks to George Allen's highly publicized campaign gaffes.

As for Ohio, the picture, from a Republican perspective, is a bit grim:

Democratic congressman Sherrod Brown continues to hold a slim lead over Republican senator Mike DeWine, 45 percent to 43 percent, according to Mason-Dixon’s poll of likely voters, released yesterday. It’s hard to bet against the incumbent, but this is a tough year for the GOP in Ohio. Would DeWine be doing better if Republican governor Bob Taft, who is enormously unpopular after an ethically challenged and lackluster tenure, had resigned? TOSS UP

I have a better question: Would DeWine be doing better if the Bush administration had not proven so spectacularly incompetent, or the Republican Congress so blatantly disinterested in any Americans save the wealthiest?

PS - What Miller doesn't say is that the Mason-Dixon poll, cited in his assessment of the Ohio Senate race, places the Democrats within striking distance of capturing the Senate. This is big news, since until recently the Republicans were expected to hold the Senate even if they lost the House of Representatives.

Blackwell Too Weak For Christian Right to Assist

2006-10-02T06:46:00.000-04:00

As nearly as I can figure, organizations like Reformation Ohio and the Ohio Restoration Project -- whatever one may think of them -- have energetically and quite competently stumped for Republican gubernatorial candidate Kenneth Blackwell. The problem is that Blackwell himself is such a lousy candidate that these organizations are not so much driving voters away -- after all, in 2004 Ohioans voted 62-38 percent to pass the anti-gay marriage amendment -- as they are unable to really jump start their own base.

I attended a rally sponsored in part by the Ohio Restoration Project on September 10. The line-up of speakers, including several from out of state, was impressive. But the immense church sanctuary was more than half-empty. Only about 200 rank-and-file who had bothered to come. Several speakers publicly expressed disappointment at the turnout.

Similarly, I visited Lancaster yesterday -- home of Fairfield Christian Church, which created the Ohio Restoration Project. I saw only a few Blackwell bumper stickers on cars in the church parking lot, and none once I left. In contrast, Strickland bumper stickers and yard signs were all over town.

Goodman, Kreider to Debate on October 4

2006-09-26T08:14:00.000-04:00

David Goodman, the Republican incumbent in the 3rd senate district, and Democratic challenger Emily Kreider will meet for a debate at Otterbein College on Wednesday, October 4.

The debate will be held at the Riley Auditorium of the Battelle Fine Arts Center, 170 West Park Street, Westerville.

Details about the format are here.

I'll be interested to see what happens when these two wholesome-looking people square off. I've had some limited contact with Sen. Goodman, who strikes me as personally quite civil -- he wrote me a few days ago to supply his campaign web site and, concerning this blog, remarked, "I enjoyed your comments. It's hard to find a reasonable voice out there in the blog world." (Not the political blog world, that's for sure.) Similarly, Emily Kreider and I have exchanged a couple of emails about the meltdown her web site's PayPal function has every time I try to contribute money online.

Up until now, both candidates have gone with positive political ads. Goodman has emphasized his role in creating the Amber alert system and in cracking down on sexual predators, and Kreider's "I Am Emily Kreider" campaign is negative only in the sense of its insidious but unmistakable implication that Goodman cannot possibly be Emily Kreider.

That may be changing. This morning I received this email from Kreider's campaign:

Hi Team-

We're doing something right.

With 43 days to go until election day, David Goodman has started airing an attack ad against our campaign.

Instead of doing the hard work of listening to voters, Goodman believes he can buy this seat. The Ohio Republican Senate Campaign Committee has purchased 1.1 million dollars in T.V. time in central Ohio. There's only one competitive senate race in central Ohio so . . . it's safe to say that every dime of that T.V. time is devoted to attacking Emily Kreider.

All of this confirms that we're on the right track. Count on me to step up the pace and knock on more doors.

Volunteers have made all the difference. To date, we have knocked on over 7,000 doors and distributed 32,850 door hangers. That's why we're ahead in the polls. Thank you.

I'll be curious to see this attack ad, if that's what it actually is. And I'm sure I'll get my chance. These days the Columbus media market is saturated with campaign ads.

Issue 2: YES, For Crying Out Loud, Let's Pay a Halfway Decent Minimum Wage

2006-09-25T10:10:00.000-04:00

The current minimum wage in Ohio is $5.15 per hour. Issue 2, backed by organizations like Ohioans for a Fair Minimum Wage, proposes an amendment to the Ohio constitution that would raise this to $6.85 per hour.

An amendment seems a cumbersome way to accomplish this. But the Republican-controlled Ohio General Assembly couldn't be bothered to do the job in a more elegant fashion. In fact, it raised Ohio’s appalling $4.25 minimum wage to a slightly less appalling $5.15 only this year -- and then largely in hopes of heading off this ballot initiative, not from any actual concern for the working poor.

And if I were to ask why the lack of concern, my guess is that I'd get a list of condescending reasons as long as my arm about why what appears to be a transparent shafting of the working poor is really a hard-headed, realistic, yea, noble effort to keep jobs in Ohio.

Unlike most people who maintain political blogs, I don't think of myself as a political junkie or pundit. I'm basically just a voter. This blog is a tool by which to become a more responsible voter. To call it anything more would be kidding myself and, well, pretty much the rest of you.

In that regard, the amount I don't know about politics and public policy literally fills volumes.

On the other hand, I do know something about basic fairness and human nature.

It is basic fairness to pay someone a living wage for a full-time job. I'm better educated than most Americans. I've had the good fortune to land a job I like, that has good benefits, and that pays, by my standards anyway, a decent salary. But despite my good education, I can't understand how the job I do makes me, as an American citizen, any better than someone less educated than I am who is stuck with a job that he may not like, with few if any benefits, yet who puts in a solid 40-hour work week. I don't see why such a person should do that and still live in poverty.

It is human nature to pay as little as possible for a given good or service. And if you're a businessman, that often includes labor.It is also human nature to rationalize one's choices, and I can tell that if I dived into the literature opposing a hike in the minimum wage, I would find no end of tough-minded eloquence explaining to clueless Ivory Tower me why my sense of basic fairness is really just soft-headed sentimentalism. And I could reply that as a conservative in the traditional sense of the term, I object to having human relationships so sweepingly mediated by money. And you could stare at me blankly.

But we don't need to do that. You can just explain to me what makes this fair:

I just ran a check of the hourly wage I received for the first job I ever held, adjusted for inflation. I was fifteen years old; the year was 1975; the job involved shelving books at the Westerville Public Library. The skill involved was an ability to grasp the Dewey Decimal System which, trust me, is within the abilities of your average ten-year old.

The pay was $2.00 an hour, which in 1975 was subminimum wage. (The statutary minimum wage was actually 2.10/hour, raised to $2.30/hour in 1976.)

Adjusted to 2005 dollars, the wage I received for my very first job was $7.49 an hour. Had I received the 1975 minimum wage, it would have been $7.87 an hour, and in 1976 that would have jumped to $8.61 an hour. Essentially, in economic terms it was better to be a pimply-faced, living-with-mom-and-dad teenager in Ohio in 1975 than it is to be an on-your-own adult Ohioan in 2006.

I only worked about 10 or 15 hours a week, but let's say I put in 40 hours a week at $2.00 an hour. Adjusted to 2005 dollars, that would have given me an annual income of $14,380.80 -- not great, but well over the federal poverty line for a single individual living in the continental U.S. ($9,800 per year), and actually enough to support one dependent ($13,200 per year).

In contrast, the State of Ohio thinks it's perfectly fine for an employee to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and earn $10,712. That's above the federal poverty line for a single person, I grant you, but if you've got one dependent -- a kid, an elderly parent, a spouse who doesn't work -- you're almost $2,500 below the poverty line. A lot of adults fit that description. (And by the way, 74 percent of those receiving minimum wage in Ohio are adults.)

Raising the state minimum wage to $6.85 an hour will not exactly usher in the millenium. It comes to $14,248 -- not quite as good as I would have made had I quit high school in 1975 and gone to work full-time as a library page, but not the scandal we presently pretend is just.

What absolutely kills me are the reasons trotted forth for opposing Issue 2:

The National Federation of Independent Business-Ohio, the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants and other groups under the banner of Ohioans to Protect Personal Privacy argue that the proposed amendment would impose onerous record-keeping requirements on businesses and endanger the privacy of millions of people in the state.

They say it could result in the release of a flood of payroll records containing individuals’ pay rates, home addresses and other sensitive information.

"Every person in this state ought to be concerned about their private records getting into the public domain," said Ty R. Pine, executive director of the business federation.

What crap. I've read the issue in all its clunky glory and those objections are horseshit. But if those objections reflect the only real problem, why don't these business organizations give the General Assembly a green light to draft and pass a good, rigorous state law? That would assuredly be better than trying to accomplish this objective by amending the Ohio constitution. In fact, the only thing worse than achieving this objection through constitutional amendment would be to continue to let poor Ohioans work as hard as the rest of us and still be poor.

"I Am An Emily Kreider Supporter"

2006-09-24T15:04:00.000-04:00

Although Ohio2006 Blog has already done this -- and gets far more traffic -- it occurred to me that I ought to pass along the schedule of upcoming fundraisers for Emily Kreider, Democratic challenger in the Ohio 3rd Senate District. At the moment, Kreider enjoys a slight lead over Republican David Goodman, despite Goodman's advantages of incumbency and a television ad campaign that is already up and running. As far as I know, Kreider's own ad is still confined to cyberspace (and in cyberspace, only those with broadband can hear you scream).

Asked for comment about Kreider's lead, Goodman claims to be undisturbed, and notes that historically he has always run come-from-behind campaigns. That may sound kind of anemic, but I suggest taking him at his word. So cough up some bucks and help get that "I Am Emily Kreider" ad on the airwaves. I've already written one check, and I have ~~an itch to write~~ just written another.

Your own check-writing opportunities this week:

Tuesday, September 26th, 6pm to 8pm
Old Bag of Nails in Westerville
24 N State St
Westerville 43081

Wednesday, September 27th, 6pm to 8pm
Old Bag of Nails in Bexley
18 N Nelson Rd
Bexley 43219

Thursday, September 28th, 6pm to 8pm
Old Bag of Nails in Gahanna
63 Mill St
Gahanna 43230

If you're going to one of these events, RSVP to Nicole at i_am_emily_kreider-at-yahoo-dot-com. Suggested contributions are $25 and up. Make contributions payable to Committee for Emily Kreider, 121 Triesta Place, Westerville, OH 43081. (You can also contribute online.)

Incidentally, Kreider and Goodman are scheduled to debate at Otterbein College on October 4.

Dispatch Poll: State Issues Still Up for Grabs

2006-09-24T10:43:00.000-04:00

According to polling results published in this morning's Columbus Dispatch, the margin between voters planning to vote for or against each of the three state issues is close enough, and the number of undecided voters great enough, that essentially these issues are still up for grabs. The situation is all the more cloudy because two mutually contradictory state issues on smoking are both leading in the poll:

Issue 3. Expanded Gambling

No: 48 percent
Yes: 43 percent
Undecided: 9 percent

State Issue 4. Bans Smoking Except in Bars, Some Other Businesses; Wipes Out Local Smoking Bans

Yes: 55 percent
No: 38 percent
Undecided: 7 percent

State Issue 5. Bans Smoking Statewide in Most Public Places

Yes: 58 percent
No: 34 percent
Undecided: 8 percent

Dispatch Poll Indicates Huge Democrat Win in Ohio

2006-09-24T10:15:00.000-04:00

Today's Columbus Dispatch gives the result of a poll suggesting that "a near-sweep of statewide races appears within the grasp of Ohio Democrats." The poll was based on returns from 1,791 registered voters who say they intended to vote in the November 7.

The poll is broken down extensively according political affiliation, voting record in recent elections, age, education, gender, race, religion, union membership, annual income and region. The Dispatch estimates a magin of error of +/- 2.2 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. "This means that if a poll is conducted 100 times, in 95 cases the result will not vary by more than 2.2 percentage points from the result that would be obtained if all registered voters in Ohio were polled and responded. Error margins are greater for poll subsamples."

Here are the basics:

Governor's Race

Kenneth Blackwell, Rep. - 33 percent
Ted Strickland, Dem. - 52 percent
Others - 1 percent
Undecided - 13 percent

U.S Senate Race

Sherrod Brown, Dem. - 47 percent
Mike DeWine, Rep. - 42 percent
Undecided - 11 percent

Attorney General

Marc Dann, Dem. - 39 percent
Betty Montgomery, Rep. - 47 percent
Undecided - 14 percent

Secretary of State

Jennifer Brunner, Dem. - 36 percent
Greg Hartmann, Rep. - 28 percent
Other Candidates - 4 percent
Undecided - 22 percent

Auditor

Barbara Sykes, Dem. - 44 percent
Mary Taylor, Rep. - 32 percent
Undecided - 24 percent

Treasurer

Richard Cordray, Dem. - 45 percent
Sandra O'Brien, Rep. - 34 percent
Undecided - 21 percent

Latest Poll Shows DeWine, Brown In Dead Heat

2006-09-23T06:27:00.000-04:00

As of September 20, a survey of likely voters conducted the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute and used by the New York Times as one of its election tracking polls has Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown in a statistical dead heat with Republican incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine. Brown, who has enjoyed an edge of several points in previous polls, still has a nominal advantage of 45-44 percent, but a difference of single percentage point is easily covered by the poll's margin of error.

Survey details follow:

Another 11 percent of voters are undecided.

Women back Rep. Brown 48 - 40 percent, while men back Sen. DeWine 49 - 41 percent. DeWine gets 43 percent of independent voters to Brown's 40 percent, a statistical tie. Among these independent voters, 17 percent are undecided, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

Relatively few voters say their choice stems from the candidates' opposing positions on the war in Iraq. More voters cite other issues as the reason why they support a candidate. About one in five voters base their preference on Sen. DeWine's support for, and Rep. Brown's criticism of, President George W. Bush.

Full press release

Joe Galloway: "We've Sunk to Osama's Level"

2006-09-23T01:50:00.000-04:00

A patriotic interlude at an evening worship event co-sponsored by the Ohio Restoration Project, September 10, 2006.

I've cross-posted this from my "professional" blog, which deals with military history and national security affairs. Its author, LTC Robert Bateman, is a career Army officer who returned in March from a posting in Baghdad and is currently assigned to the Pentagon. It introduces a recent column by the distinguished -- and far from liberal -- military correspondent, Joe Galloway. Together with Gen. Hal Moore, Galloway co-authored the bestselling We Were Soldiers Once . . . And Young, that was later made into the film, We Were Soldiers.

I met Galloway a few months before the 2004 presidential election. Although decidedly cool about John Kerry, he said he was going to grit his teeth and vote for Kerry anyway because of the abysmal way the Bush administration had conducted the occupation of Iraq. His detestation of the administration, particularly Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has only deepened over time. Galloway's September 20 column excoriates the Bush administration's recent attempt to rewrite our Geneva Convention obligations so as to permit the torture of detainees.

A couple of weeks ago I attended a sort of half-worship service, half-political rally organized by the Ohio Restoration Project and two other conservative evangelical organizations. I may write about that some other time, but for the present I just want to note that at one point the service involved a polished multimedia salute to the armed forces. I would be willing to bet real money that nobody in the ORP harbors any doubts about the moral rectitude of water-boarding prisoners or the way in which the Bush administration's explicit embrace of such measures harms the United States and endangers its service personnel. Let Colonel Bateman and Joe Galloway explain:

Joe Galloway's September 20 column, with which I heartily concur, and to which I would add that it's not just the moral side. . . torture is freaking stupid. We never get good intel from it, and indeed I myself was taught in several settings (because since Vietnam we've assumed that we would be tortured) that under torture the proper method of resistance was to make up lies. Make up simple ones, so you could be consistent and maintain them, and use things that you knew, but lie at will to end the torture of your body, because they will keep torturing you until you tell them something, and usually your persecutor is not educated enough about the niceties of your culture to understand what you've told him is a lie. McCain, a man who cannot lift his arms above his shoulders because of repeated and sustained torture at the hands of a nation which refused to acknowledge his status as a "lawful combatant" and therefore said that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to him, apparently once told the North Vietnamese, when pressed for the names of the men in his squadron, the entire starting lineup of the previous year's Green Bay Packers. (He was never caught in this lie either.)
I have heard (but cannot substantiate) that during Desert Storm one of our captured pilots told the Iraqis (who tortured him) that the man commanding his squadron was "Lieutenant Commander Homer Simpson." I believe this because the Iraqis were so ignorant of OUR culture that one of their attempts at pyschological operations to demoralize our troops before the war...was leaflets telling our troops that the "guy back home" was sleeping with his wife/girlfriend. Now, this plays upon a fear all deployed soldiers have, but the Iraqis completely achieved the OPPOSITE effect when they identified the "guy back home" as Bart Simpson. (No joke).
So, even if you USE torture, you get crap. Enough of my opinion though, here's Joe:
"The torture of prisoners is not only illegal under American and international law it is, put simply, immoral and unjust. It is also un-American.
"It is amazing that we are still hung up in a debate over President Bush's insistence that we bend and break our laws and the Geneva Conventions so that our agents can do everything short of murder to make a man talk.
"The president's bill -- blocked in the Senate by three Republicans who know war and know the law and know what's right -- would allow Central Intelligence Agency operatives to subject prisoners to water-boarding, or near-death by drowning; to being forced to stand for 40 hours at a time; to sleep deprivation; to being tossed naked into a freezing cold cell for days at a time."
Full article

Note: Both LTC Bateman and Galloway wrote prior to the accord reached late on the 21st between President Bush and the senators. To my mind, the new development doesn't blunt the thrust of their views. In fact, the more I've read of it, the less clear it is to me that the senators came away with any concession of consequence.

GodHatesShrimp.Com

2006-09-14T07:38:00.000-04:00

The two most reliable wedge issues of the Republican Party are abortion and gay rights. Abortion is a highly charged moral question on which reasonable people may disagree. Opposition to equal civil rights for gays, on the other hand, plays into sheer prejudice. One cannot craft, on non-religious grounds, any case at all for this proscription; and among Christians the case against gay civil rights depends chiefly on six so-called "clobber verses," most of which are found in the codes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy which are, on most other matters, viewed as part of an Old Covenant superceded by the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the creation of the New Covenant. I'm a specialist in nineteenth century U.S. history and believe me, Southern theologians could and did make a better scriptural case for chattel slavery.

Which brings us to the question of moral consistency. My personal view is that gossip is the most destructive Biblical sin overlooked by Christians, some of whom positively thrive upon it. Others think the wanton consumption of shellfish is most urgently in need of rebuke.

"Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants."

Visit the web site.

Needed: A Democratic Plan for Iraq

2006-09-13T09:11:00.000-04:00

Most Americans now regret, with reason, the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. It turns out that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no significant connection with Al-Qaeda, and no involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Was Saddam Hussein a vicious dictator? Assuredly. Are Iraqis better off now that he is gone? With 3,000 civilian casualties a month to insurgent actions, that's debatable. Is the United States safer as a result of the invasion? No.

But we can't turn back the clock. And if most Americans regret the invasion, they recognize that we can't just withdraw and leave behind a mess. Here the Democrats face a challenge. The electorate is unhappy with the Republican administration and the Republican-dominated Congress that put us in our present position, but they won't vote for Democrats simply because the Democrats oppose Bush. The Democrats have to put forward a compelling U.S. policy alternative for Iraq -- and to get us back on track regarding the war on terror.

One of the better plans I've seen comes from Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, unveiled in a September 10 speech at the National Press Club:

[W]hat should we do - what would I do - to make America safer in five years?

I would start with Iraq, for no strategy to make America safer can succeed unless we first solve Iraq. Iraq has already cost us dearly in lives lost and money spent. Because our forces are tied down, our ability to act against our enemies is limited -- and they know it. Because we hyped the intelligence before going in, our ability to convince allies -- and the American people --- of new dangers has been diminished. Because we diverted our energy and resources from Afghanistan, it is on the verge of failure.

This administration has no strategy for success in Iraq. It has a strategy to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to the next President. The overwhelming reality in Iraq is a sectarian cycle of revenge. Throwing more troops at Baghdad won't fix this mess. We need a political settlement that allows each group to pursue its interests peacefully.

I've offered just such a plan, not unlike what we did in Bosnia. It would keep Iraq together by providing each group breathing room in their own regions, getting Sunni buy-in by giving them a piece of the oil revenues, creating a major jobs and reconstruction program to deny the militia new recruits, and bringing in Iraq's neighbors to support the political process. If we do all that, we have a chance to bring most of our troops home by the end of 2007, without leaving chaos behind.

Getting Iraq right won't guarantee success on those other fronts we're fighting. But it will give us much more freedom, flexibility, and credibility to make the profound changes to our national security strategy these complex threats demand.

And it will make it easier to put our focus back on other profoundly important developments that will shape this century, like the developing roles of China, India, and Russia as major powers; the shortage of reliable sources of energy; and the growing impact of climate change.

Today, I am announcing a four-part plan to move America toward greater security. It flows from my conviction that protecting our homeland requires a dramatic reordering of our priorities; that real security comes from prevention, not preemption; that working with strong partners is better than alienating them; and that advancing democracy is about more than elections.

And my plan starts from the premise it is time for America to recapture the totality of our strength -- our military, economic, and diplomatic might -- and the power of our ideas and ideals. That is what won the Cold War. That is what has gotten lost these past five years.

Complete speech

Government by Hot Button

2006-09-12T08:35:00.000-04:00

Check out the Project for the Old American Century

9/11: Valor and Shame

2006-09-11T19:39:00.000-04:00

This afternoon I watched a DVD of United 93, a very good film released earlier this year about the one aircraft hijacked by Al-Qaeda on 9/11 that failed to reach its target (most likely the U.S. Capitol). The plane went down in a field outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

According to the best testimony we have, the aircraft went down after what the 9/11 Commission report terms a "passenger revolt" broke out at 9:57 a.m.:

During at least five of the passengers' phone calls, information was shared about the attacks that had occurred earlier that morning at the World Trade Center. Five calls described the intent of passengers and surviving crew members to revolt against the hijackers. According to one call, they voted on whether to rush the terrorists in an attempt to retake the plane. They decided, and acted.
At 9:57, the passenger assault began. Several passengers had terminated phone calls with loved ones in order to join the revolt. One of the callers ended her message as follows: "Everyone's running up to first class. I've got to go. Bye."
The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening cockpit door. Some family members who listened to the recording report that they can hear the voice of a loved one among the din. We cannot identify whose voices can be heard. But the assault was sustained.
In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and breaking glasses and plates. At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane.
Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, "Is that it? Shall we finish it off?" A hijacker responded, "No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off." The sounds of fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the aircraft up and down. At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, "In the cockpit. If we don't we'll die!" Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled, "Roll it!" Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said, "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!" He then asked another hijacker in the cock-pit, "Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?" to which the other replied, "Yes, put it in it, and pull it down."
The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!" The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting "Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest." With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C.
Jarrah's objective was to crash his airliner into symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House. He was defeated by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United 93.

How much would I rather have had a story like United 93 aired on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks rather than a mini-series devised by partisan film-makers and promoted in a partisan fashion, yet sold to the public as a faithful account of the years preceding 9/11. It demonstrably is not. From Media Matters:

The first part of the ABC miniseries The Path to 9-11, which aired on September 10, included a fabricated scene that depicts Clinton administration officials declining to authorize the CIA to capture Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. ABC retained the controversial scene despite the fact that it is contradicted by the 9-11 Commission report -- which ABC originally cited as the film's basis (although following criticism of the film's numerous inconsistencies with the report, network officials have since minimized that claim) -- and has even been disputed in recent days by conservative media figures such as Richard Miniter.

Full story

Eric Alterman has it right:

Who would have imagined in their worst nightmares that these political usurpers would employ the human catastrophe of 9/11 to continue the terrorists work for them? Who would have imagined that they would embark on a course that would eventually kill more Americans than died on 9/11 in wars that do nothing to ensure the nation’s security but much to inspire more Arabs to hate us and wish to attack us? Who would have imagined they would dissipate the global solidarity and support the world had offered us? Who would have imagined that, having ignored all of the signs of a certain attack, they would continue to ignore the most obvious steps to protect us against future catastrophe, leaving our ports, our nuclear facilities, our chemical facilities invitingly unguarded? Who would have imagined that they would willingly allow bin-Laden to escape? Who would have imagined they would lie to the rescue workers about the health effects of the air they were breathing. Who would have imagined that they would put the fate of the nation in the hands of a group of lying, conniving, rats like “curveball,” Ahmad Chalabi and the INC? Who would have imagined a political campaign in which a man like Max Cleland, a man who lost three limbs in Vietnam, would be branded as insufficiently patriotic by right-wing politicians and pundits who never sacrificed so much as a chicken dinner for their country? Who would have imagined they would use homeland security as pure pork money, doling out millions for Red State fire houses while leaving tens of millions who live near obvious targets -- and were attacked last time -- unprotected? Who would have imagined they would emulate our enemies, employing methods of torture and massacre?

Full post

Anti-Incumbent Spirit Runs High

2006-09-11T07:55:00.000-04:00

NEW CASTLE, Ky. (AP) - Dissatisfied with Congress, voters would probably hang a "Help Wanted" sign on the U.S. Capitol if given the chance.

"They're not doing their job," says Scott Newland, 39, an independent voter who backed President Bush in 2004.

The factory worker had harsh words for congressional Republicans and Democrats as he helped close his sister's New Castle deli one recent evening. "You need people that care. They don't care."

Such angry sentiments echo up and down the Ohio River Valley as it cuts through Republican-held congressional districts in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio - politically pivotal House seats in an election year in which Democrats hope to end 12 years in the minority.

At lunch counters, post offices, city parks and downtown streets, voters in this region and nationally are quick to voice their frustration with the GOP-controlled Congress, and their desire for more responsive replacements for the current crop of lawmakers.

It's a general disgust that may lead to firings of some politicians on Nov. 7. People already have hinted as much in Republican and Democratic primaries.

Kenny Brown, an independent, knows precisely what he's looking for in a congressman. "Somebody who cares for the working man," the supermarket employee, 66, says before picking up his mail at the PeeWee Valley, Ky., post office.

Judging by the past few years, Brown said, Bush and Republicans don't care. "Maybe the Democrats do, or maybe they don't."

-----

With congressional elections less two months away, the public is consistently giving the GOP-run Congress dismal marks. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll in August found that only 29 percent of the public approve of the job Congress is doing.

A CNN poll earlier this month found that 55 percent of Americans are more likely to vote for the challenger in any election this fall. And an ABC News/Washington Post poll in August found that 53 percent of Americans call themselves "anti-incumbent," a figure as high as it was in the summer 1994 shortly before Republicans seized control from Democrats.

Full article

"I Am Emily Kreider"

2006-09-09T09:00:00.000-04:00

From the Columbus Dispatch, September 9:

In her uphill fight against Republican Sen. David Goodman to represent the 3 rd District, covering much of northern and eastern Franklin County, Kreider’s campaign strategy has moved outside the box.

Her campaign created a television spot in which she does not appear and does not speak. However, an assortment of people repeat: "I am Emily Kreider." A voice-over says Kreider is "that part of you that’s not satisfied with the way things are."

The ad in question launches when one visits Emily Kreider's web site.

Confronting the Religious Right in Ohio: The Complete IRS Complaint

2006-09-09T04:54:00.000-04:00

Cross-posted from Radical Civility.

Re the now famous letter of complaint to the Internal Revenue Service concerning Reformation Ohio, the Ohio Restoration Project, and their parent organizations, World Harvest Church and Fairfield Christian Church, respectively, I've been able to make a copy of the letter with all nineteen appendices included. Print it off and read it; it's fascinating to get a more complete picture of what the fuss is about.

Uncovering the Ambush Laid on "The Path to 9/11"

2006-09-09T03:01:00.000-04:00

(Image thanks to xenophile)

A number of bloggers have been doing an excellent job of uncovering the nakedly partisan agenda of "The Path to 9/11," but Oricinus does it as well as I've seen it. Here are the relevant posts:

A Bush, Bush World - September 7. Excerpt:

Now that ABC has become a full-fledged propaganda organ for right-wing ideologues, I think it's fair to assume we'll be seeing similar changes throughout its parent company, Walt Disney.

Imagine, if you will, some of the new rides at Disneyland:

-- The Clintonhorn (as your rollercoaster descends the slightly crooked penis-shaped mountain, scary Bill Clintons with glowing red eyes jump out at you).

-- Space Media Mountain (another rollercoaster, this time with a dizzying array of meaningless media feeding frenzies -- O.J. Simpson, Natalee Holloway, JonBenet Ramsey, Brad and Angelina, Tom and Katie, J-Lo and Ben -- come whirling past in a mind-blowing rush).

The Other "Path to 9/11" Lie - September 8. Excerpt:

While most of the attention regarding ABC's The Path to 9/11 "docudrama" has focused on the bogus scene in which Clinton officials are depicted as letting Osama bin Laden go despite having him in their clutches -- a truly mendacious bit of right-wing propaganda -- there's another scene, apparently in the film, that deserves every bit as much attention and careful scrutiny.

That's the sequence described in the Salon review of the program:

Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice gets that fated memo about planes flying into buildings, and makes it very clear to anyone who'll listen just how concerned President Bush is about these terrorist threats -- despite the fact that we're given little concrete evidence of the president's concern or interest in taking action.

"That fated memo" in question is, of course, the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing memo that became the subject of extensive wrangling between the 9/11 Commission and the White House, which was intent on keeping it from being made public.

The purported scene in Path to 9/11 (which may turn out to be among the sequences the network is currently scrambling to correct) is in fact contradicted directly by Rice's own testimony . . .

Covering Their Tracks - September 8. Excerpt:

Digby pointed out the other day the fundamentalist organizations who appear to be behind the bogus ABC "docudrama" The Path to 9/11 -- most notably, the cultlike Youth With A Mission, whose founder, Loren Cunningham, is the father of the film's director.

Since then, a number of others, notably EarlG at Democratic Underground and SheWhoMustBeObeyed at DU, have done even more digging on this aspect of the film's origins. Mark in NC at DKos rounds it up:

The film was tentatively titled "Untitled History Project" and from this came the name of the Production Company, UHP Productions. (you can confirm this via IMDB..)

Obviously even the tentative name given to this film during it's 2+ years of production illustrates that this film was intended to re-write the history of 9/11.

... One of the goals of this Film Institute is to "help filmmakers, actors, technicians, etc. realize their God given potential and purpose in perhaps the most influential sphere of modern culture - film and television."

In a brochure for The Film Institute found on a YWAM members live journal, the organization describes itself as "An Auxiliary organization of University of the Nations, a non-profit entity designed to facilitate and launch University of Nations students into the film and television industry. The Film Institute provides internships, apprenticeships, scholarships, and the production of culturally relevant films that will cause awareness and resources for current issues."

Rick Ross reported awhile back that the Cunninghams had become involved with Christian Reconstructionism, the fundamentalist movement to install a theocratic state in America . . .

[The post goes on to note that a number of smoking gun web pages have been removed by these groups, only to be salvaged from the pitiless memory of the Google cache.]

Definitely worth a read.

(Thanks to Jonathan Dresner for the tip)

Democratic Senators Weigh In on "The Path to 9/11"

2006-09-08T04:57:00.000-04:00

Letter to ABC from several Democratic Senators

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney's plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, "When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right."

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network¹s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

* Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, "As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission's findings the way that they had." ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006]

* Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as "deeply flawed" and said of the program's depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, "It's 180 degrees from what happened." ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006]

* Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, "he thought they were making things up." [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

* Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006]

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, "It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer."

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan

NB: Educational media giant Scholastic, Inc. announced it's dropping its original classroom companion guides to a controversial new docudrama about the events preceding the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks -- and replacing them with materials stressing critical thinking and media literacy.

"After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues," said Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic, in a press release.

The original materials had been criticized for oversimplifications and failures to address flaws in post-9/11 policies, including the invasion of Iraq.

Full story

Text of Scholastic, Inc., Press Release

OK, I'm Convinced: "The Path to 9/11" IS Blatant Right-Wing Propaganda

2006-09-07T00:36:00.000-04:00

Cross-posted from my Daily Kos diary:

Aggh! A few days ago I saw some items in Daily Kos warning that "The Path to 9/11" was pre-election propaganda for the Right. But poking around the Internet, I saw other stories that suggested the film was mostly just dramatic and absorbing and neither liberal nor conservative in orientation. Michael Medved has convinced me of the error of my ways.

This evening I happened to be listening to a Christian Right AM radio station [WRFD, AM 880]. In ten minutes' time I heard Medved deliver two plugs for "The Road to 9/11." The second time I caught most of it on my digital recorder. Here's the transcript:

... The truth is that terrorist strikes against America began long before 2001, and a superb upcoming mini-series on ABC-TV, "The Path to 9/11," makes that point unforgettably clear. The five-hour dramatization begins with the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, highlighting eight years of confusion and passivity in the Clinton administration, while Bin Laden and colleagues intensified their anti-American jihad. As early as 1983 Hezbollah had killed 241 Americans in Beirut, and even four years before that, the embassy hostage crisis in Iran highlighted the new threat from Islamic extremism. Terrorism was hardly a response to the war in Iraq but that war was part of our response to a long series of atrocities reaching back more than twenty-five years. I'm Michael Medved.

That really tore it with me.

Next up was Hugh Hewitt interviewing the film's producer and one of its principal actors. Overtly, Hewitt made it sound like the film was just plain great drama, and the producer made it sound as if it was faithfully based on the 9/11 Commission Report. But taking the picture as it has now emerged -- the selective pre-screenings, Richard Clarke's assertion that at least one key scene is 180 degrees around from what actually occurred, and the smoking gun of the Medved plug, I've not only written ABC to protest, I'm not going to watch ABC again if they air this crap.

From one of many comments in response:

Howie Kurtz has written a pretty damning article about the film's brouhaha for tomorrow's edition (especially considering that it's coming from Howie!). This is becoming a big PR disaster for ABC/Disney. One juicy bit:

Top officials of the Clinton administration have launched a preemptive strike against an ABC-TV "docudrama," slated to air Sunday and Monday, that they say includes made-up scenes depicting them as undermining attempts to kill Osama bin Laden.

Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright called one scene involving her "false and defamatory." Former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said the film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions." And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

Word is, the other networks are starting to jump ABC as well. Any publicity is good publicity? Not always, and I hope ABC gets it with both barrels.

Pornography: A Wedge Issue Helpful to Democrats?

2006-09-06T09:06:00.000-04:00

The GOP has got abortion, gay marriage, and flag-burning (like it actually happens), among others, as wedge issues by which to attract support from voters whose interests do not otherwise coincide with the Republican agenda. The Democrats need a wedge issue of their own, argues Eric Sapp at Faithful Democrat, and he has one: Internet porn. There's actually a bill to go after Internet porn stalled in Congress, but . . .

Anyone figured out why this is a winner for us yet? You've got it, the Republican leadership has been holding up this legislation because they don't like the tax on business! It's hard to imagine a stance more counter to family values and anathema to religious voters than not protecting our children from internet porn because we don't want to tax the on-line porn industry. But that's the position the Rs have taken so far. The White House has also sided with the telecommunication companies and turned a deaf ear to evangelical Christian leaders who have pleaded with them to regulate streaming video on cell phones to prevent our phones from being spammed with streaming pornography. We all know what Jesus said about where one's treasure is, and since the R political machine is run on big-business and lobbyist money, it's no surprise that's where their heart is.

That is what makes this a perfect wedge issue. Even the most partisan evangelical has a deep-down fear that the Republicans really care more about helping corporations and the very rich than they do about the defending God and family. This forces religious partisans to face their biggest fears, and it clearly defines the Republican leadership as the hypocrites that they are. An added political benefit is that this is also an issue that appeals to women's groups since pornography generally promotes unhealthy gender roles, relationships, and body images.

Personally I've long thought that conservative Christians get a lot less from the Republicans than their tireless grass roots organization and campaigning for the GOP deserves. Republicans pay lip service to the Christian Right's agenda and then in practice pursue an economic agenda that actually hurts the individuals who comprise the Right, because with few exceptions these are people of modest means -- like me, come to think of it. So there's something to Eric Sapp's idea that conservative evangelicals aren't in utter thrall to the GOP. The problem, I suspect, is that too many Democrats at the top of the organizational food chain have written off conservative evangelicals, much as Republicans did the African American community until recent years.

What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?

2006-09-04T06:58:00.000-04:00

The speaker is Dr. John Corvino, a PhD in philosophy who challenges people on all sides of the debate to rethink assumptions about both homosexuality and morality. Corvino has been speaking and writing on GLBT issues for over a decade. His audiences include professional organizations, the NIH, the Lawrence Livermore National Research Laboratory (a division of the Department of Defense), and dozens of colleges and universities, including Cornell University, the University of Michigan, Southern Methodist University, and the Blumenfeld Center for Ethics at Georgia State University.

2006 --> 1796

2006-09-04T05:33:00.000-04:00

Poking around the blogosphere I stumbled upon BobGeiger.com, a Flappy Bird in the TTLB whose blog is graphics intensive and really a lot of fun to look at. I particularly liked his Yellow Dog Democrat logo, which I have appropriated for my sidebar just because I like dogs and it's so damn cute. If you click the dog, it'll take you to CafePress.com, where Geiger is selling a line of T-shirts, coffee cups, bumper stickers, etc., all based upon this theme:

Our goal is to provide you with merchandise that you can use to send a message to Republicans, conservatives and the Religious Right:

No prisoners...
No compromise...

No more reaching across the damn aisle!

There are plenty of Republicans who feel the same way, especially the Christian Right, which regards itself as engaged in an all-out war against powers and principalities that are dragging our uniquely blessed nation straight to H - E - double toothpicks.

In other words, you've got a political environment where neither side regards the other in terms of a legitimate, loyal opposition. I don't think we're there yet, but we're moving in the direction of the 1790s, when the concept of a loyal opposition did not yet exist.

The original founders believed that if citizens would exercise civic virtue and look beyond their narrow self-interest, they would apply republican principles, discern what was best for the commonweal, and vote and act accordingly. The Constitution was barely ratified, however, than it became obvious that citizens did not share a consensus view. Two groups emerged, the Federalists, headed by Alexander Hamilton, and the Democrat-Republicans, headed by Thomas Jefferson. (Democrat-Republican is a little confusing, given our modern party names, so when I teach the US history survey I just call them "Jeffersonians.")

The Federalists believed that they correctly applied republican principles and knew what was best for the country. That the Jeffersonians did not concur struck them as morally, willfully wrong: the Jeffersonians were behaving as a faction. The Jeffersonians felt exactly the same about the Federalists. The Jeffersonians, for instance, were philosophical about the excesses of the French Revolution and continued to admire the revolutionaries' slogan, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. TheFederalists considered the radical phase of the French Revolution (essentially 1792 onward) as clear evidence that liberty was leading to license -- the cardinal sin in a republic. That the Jeffersonians failed to see this could only mean that they, too, were prone to license. The Jeffersonians, in turn, regarded the Federalist reservations as clear evidence that the Federalists were a pack of closet monarchists.

George Washington was able to keep a lid on things during his two terms as president, but in 1796 the conflict broke out into the open. It got so bad that the Federalists seriously thought the Jeffersonians might welcome a French invasion and the Jeffersonians believed the Federalists were creating a New Army officered exclusively by Federalists and whose purpose was probably less to defend the country than to squelch internal dissent. It was a horribly divisive time in American history, and it damn near derailed the republican experiment in its infancy.

The republic survived, of course, and it's now the oldest and most successful republic in the world. Americans take that too much for granted. They think they can coarsen the political process as much as they want and it won't really do any harm. They think they can treat politics as war, demonize the opposition, "take no prisoners," and somehow it won't all end in a train wreck.

Well, they're wrong. Plenty of other republics have gone down the tubes -- it is, in fact, the most common fate of republics -- and there's nothing that exempts our own. We came close to blowing up our republic in the 1790s and even closer in the 1860s. And we may yet succeed in failing.

State of Ohio Budget Highlights, FY 2006-2007

2006-09-03T07:45:00.000-04:00

After posting my last entry, I got to thinking about the broad issue of taxes. The idea of being taxed at all is nowadays something like anathema. Kevin Bacon wants to cut taxes on the apparent theory that the less people are taxed, the better off they are, quite as if the revenues collected just went into a black hole somewhere. It's not just Republicans who talk this way. I just saw an ad touting how much Sherrod Brown has cut taxes during the course of his political career to date.

The fact is, of course, that without taxes you can't pay for the services that good government is supposed to provide. It seems to me that you can debate the priority that these services should have, or whether some services are necessary, or whether funds are administered efficiently. But just to tell people you'll cut their taxes. . . . Well, it seems absurd for citizens to uncritically embrace that as an unalloyed good, and slightly cynical for office holders and office aspirants to promise it without laying out the trade-offs.

Of course, that would require addressing matters in their full complexity, and it's an unhappy fact of life that not one voter in a hundred, maybe a thousand, would sit still for that. We live in a society that reflects in many ways exactly what the Founders feared might happen: a republic filled with citizens who lack the civic virtue required in a healthy republic, a republic where liberty has led to license and the door opened to all sorts of evils, especially, at the moment, plutocracy.

I say this as if I'm a better citizen, but ninety percent of the time I'm not. I'd just like to improve that percentage some. Anyway, clicking the title of this post will get you on your way to a quick education in the state's budget -- what comes in and where it goes.

Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon

2006-09-02T20:17:00.000-04:00

Kevin Bacon, you stopped by the house today. (Before onlookers gasp in awe, let me hasten to add that it wasn't Kevin Bacon the actor but rather Kevin Bacon the Blendon Township trustee. Bacon the trustee is the Republican candidate for state representative in the 21st District -- Linda Reidelbach, the incumbent, isn't standing for reelection.)

I wasn't yet back from a business trip to Washington, DC, so you knocked in vain. You did leave that attractive 4-color flyer, though, with your smiling face, adoring wife and kids, and the scribbled note, "Sorry I missed you! - Kevin."

Me too, Kevin. A few days ago I got a photocopied letter from Congressman Pat Tiberi saying what a cool guy you were and that you'd soon be visiting the neighborhood. Being in the mood for campaign politics these days, I thought it'd be interesting to meet you, however briefly. Well, at least I got the URL of your campaign web site. Not that I'd consider voting for you, judging by your standard Republican program of cutting taxes, ostensibly for the benefit of working families, who instead are far more likely to have needed government services abridged; and reducing one's ability to sue the big dogs when one is wronged, ostensibly to benefit the little dogs but of course really to make screwing the little dogs an affordable cost of doing business. It's amazing so many people buy that crap, but they do, so you might just go the distance.

Still, it occurred to me that one has to respect you, or anyone, who goes to the trouble of standing for office. My impression is that a few people, like Bill Clinton, revel in every aspect of it, but most, like Richard Nixon, find it a fairly unpleasant chore, the price one pays for getting a shot at power. Anyway, I got to thinking about a college course I once took on campaign politics. It was one of the more interesting courses I took, and I learned a lot about the process you've undertaken (and learned even more by working for a couple of campaigns). But that was half a lifetime ago and I figure that the game has to be a little different than it once was. So, just by way of providing a link for my own self-education, here's a how-to guide as prepared by the Kossacks of Daily Kos. There's probably a GOP equivalent somewhere, but I imagine the fundamentals are the same.

By the way, feel free to drop by again sometime.

Some of His Best Friends Are Sodomites

2006-09-01T19:31:00.000-04:00

Cross-posted from my Daily Kos diary for August 31:

The alliance between the Christian Right and GOP has no better exemplar these days than the support of two Ohio megachurches for gubernatorial candidate Kenneth Blackwell. Blackwell seems headed for defeat, but that's his fault -- arrogant, unethical opportunist that he is -- and not that of the megachurches' two de facto PACS, Rod Parsley's Reformation Ohio and the Ohio Restoration Project, chaired by Russell Johnson, senior pastor of Fairfield Christian Church.
Of the two, Parsley is better known, but Johnson, in my view and that of others who've encountered him, is the more impressive operator. Whatever his faults, he comes across as a true believer and not an Elmer Gantry type.

Last evening I learned that Johnson has agreed to be our sixth discussant at an upcoming Forum on Church and State in Ohio's Electoral Politics. I was pleased to hear it, having met Johnson last March after a "town hall meeting" with Jim Wallis. Here's my account of that episode. I hope it humanizes the conflict between progressive Christians like myself and conservatives like Pastor Johnson.

Full post

In Which Michael Meckler Squares Me Away

2006-08-30T21:40:00.000-04:00

A couple of days ago, Michael Meckler, a veteran observer of Ohio politics, emailed me in response to The 12th District: In the Shadow of John Kasich. With great courtesy he set me straight on a few things, and his email was so informative I asked permission to post it here. Michael was kind enough to agree.

Mark,

Your recent post on Bob Shamansky compelled me to point out a couple of things.

First of all, Shamansky is, and back in 1980 was, as credible a candidate as, say, Ted Strickland when Strickland won a congressional campaign for the first time in 1992. Yes, I take your point about Shamansky's age, but his background does not compare unfavorably with other congressional challengers. And remember, here in Ohio, we've had several former congressmen trying to get back into politics this year. (Bob McEwen and Tom Sawyer actually filed as candidates, and Dennis Eckart openly flirted with the idea of seeking some sort of office.) To call Shamansky a "yellow dog with money" is a bit harsh.

The 12th as it was constituted in 1980 was not as strongly Republican as it is today. Keep in mind, the congressional districts drawn in 1971 were done under narrow GOP majorities in the General Assembly, but with a Democratic governor (John Gilligan). During the Watergate-era elections of the mid-1970s, Sam Devine was seen as being EXTREMELY vulnerable, and he barely defeated popular Columbus City Councilmember Fran Ryan in 1974 and 1976.

Shamansky's 1980 campaign was remarkable for its use of television advertising. Shamansky ran an ad that has gone down in the annals of political history. A sumptuous desk of a businessman was seen from the back, with the businessman thumbing through a Rolodex (remember those?). A voice was heard over this picture: "When big oil needs a favor, they call Sam Devine." This ad was magic. Devine, who certainly didn't take Shamansky seriously enough, never recovered. In what was generally a good year for Republicans, Devine lost his bid for re-election.

The 12th as redrawn in 1981 (under a solidly Democratic Ohio House, a narrowly Republican Ohio Senate, and a Republican governor, James Rhodes) became MORE Republican, but that was primarily due to Shamansky not getting along with Vern Riffe, the powerful Democratic speaker of the Ohio House. Kasich, who lived in Westerville (and still does, I believe), was a young state senator who wanted to run for Congress. (Both Devine and Shamansky lived in Bexley). With Ohio losing two congressional seats, the geographic extent of districts expanded. Kasich and the GOP-led state senate wanted to add voters from adjoining areas of Licking and Delaware counties from what was the old 17th district, since GOP congressman John Ashbrook of Johnstown was running for the U.S. Senate and so his strong GOP district was one that could be carved up.

Riffe saw himself -- and expected others to see him -- as the state's Democratic leader. Shamansky, however, is not a go-along-to-get-along type of guy, and the congressman believed he didn't need to kowtow to a state representative from Portsmouth. So Riffe was more than willing to approve a redistricting that made it tough for Shamansky to hold the seat. (I believe that additional urban Democratic voters were also shifted from the 12th into Chalmers Wylie's 15th district.)

Certainly, at the national level, the 12th this year is not viewed as a competitive district -- in contrast to the 15th. But Shamansky is probably as strong a candidate as can be found. (I'm not certain Maryellen O'Shaughnessy still lives in the 12th after the boundary changes in 2001.) Would Columbus mayor Michael Coleman, who does live in the 12th, be able to attract the suburban and exurban voters who form a majority in the district? A wealthy suburbanite like Shamansky gives Democrats their best hope in such a district. (Compare Paula Brooks of Upper Arlington, who won a seat two years ago as a Franklin County commissioner to enable the Democrats to retake the majority.)

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your post.

All the best,

Michael Meckler
http://michaelmeckler.com

A Toe-Tapping Ode to Corruption

2006-08-30T09:40:00.000-04:00

This State

Jeepers, I Never Thought of That

2006-08-30T06:18:00.000-04:00

Pastor Rod Parsley explains why same-sex marriage would be intolerable:

The legalization of same-sex marriages is far-reaching and has consequences that we have only begun to imagine. If same-sex marriage is legalized, then on what basis can marriage be denied to any other group or coupling? If marriage were a civil right, than what would stop group marriages or what would stop someone from marrying their pet?

(From The Center for Moral Clarity FAQ)

I would imagine the same thing that stops someone from marrying their daughter or the toddler next door.

Admittedly, that's the dumbest portion of Parsley's explanation, but the rest of it isn't much better. You'd think that if you were going to draw a line in the sand over an issue, you'd at least have a more compelling rationale than the slippery slope fallacy coupled with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, wants to marry their poodle.

A Gaze Into the Crystal Ball

2006-08-29T12:12:00.001-04:00

MyDD : : Direct Democracy for People-Powered Politics -- a mouthful -- has taken a fairly sophisticated stab at forecasting the outcome of the 2006 U.S. House and Senate races. They think the Democrats will pick up the House (Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos disagrees ) but that the Republicans will narrowly retain the Senate. Based on the latest polls they're confident that Sherrod Brown will unseat Mike DeWine -- despite the fact that DeWine is spending more lavishly on his campaign -- and they see the 15th Congressional District leaning Republican, principally because Deborah Pryce is the third-ranking House Republican. The 12th District doesn't figure into their calculations, which presumably means they regard it as safely Republican. Rats.

Forum: Church and State in Ohio's Electoral Politics

2006-08-29T09:25:00.000-04:00

Some members of my church are organizing a forum on “Church and State in Ohio’s Electoral Politics,” to be held on the afternoon of October 8 in downtown Columbus. They’ve done an impressive job of lining up discussants with a variety of perspectives, including several from the conservative evangelical community. All they needed was a website to help publicize the event, so naturally, I guess, they approached me. I put it together last evening. I’m still waiting on good digital head shots of the six principal discussants, but otherwise I think it’s pretty much done. You can check out the page by clicking on the image, above.

Cross-posted from Radical Civility

The 12th District: In the Shadow of John Kasich

2006-08-28T20:51:00.000-04:00

It's an amazing fact of life, when you get down to it, how little most of us know about the people who represent us or aspire to represent us. During the hours I spent yesterday updating this blog to get it into campaign fighting trim, I knew maybe two-thirds of the people who are standing for the offices I'll be voting for come November, and I did that well only because I knew the incumbents.

The single most startling discovery I made is that Bob Shamansky is running to become the next Congressman from the 12th District, which happens to be my district now that I've moved from Clintonville, which was in the 15th District, long dominated by two formidable Republicans, first Chalmers P. Wylie and now Deborah Pryce. During the time I lived in Clintonville (1996-2003), the chance of unseating Pryce was pretty much zilch. Things weren't a lot better in the 12th District, where the hard-charging John Kasich had been Congressman since first winning election in 1982.

Kasich gained the office by defeating this self-same Bob Shamansky, 88,335 votes to 82,753. (A Libertarian candidate, Russell A, Lewis, received 3,939 votes, most of which would otherwise have gone to Kasich.) [See this link for 12th District election results.]

Shamansky had been in office only two years, having handily beaten 12-term Republican Samuel L. Devine, known in some quarters as "the Abominable No-Man" because of his penchant for voting against everything that might disturb the status quo. The 1980 vote was 108,690 for Shamansky and 98,110 for Devine: an impressive performance, particularly in a district that has been gerrymandered to favor Republican candidates for as long as I can recall. I can only guess why Shamansky lost after only a single term, despite the advantage of incumbency. The demographics of the district probably hurt, especially in an off-year election, and Shamansky was unfortunate to have to square off with perhaps the best natural politician to come out of central Ohio in, well, forever.

I can't say I ever liked Kasich. It was a purely personal thing. Interested in politics and aware that Kasich was sure to run a first-class campaign, as a 22-year old college senior I placed a call to his headquarters and volunteered to work for him. An hour or two later Kasich phoned back, his voice far more bold and booming than necessary. He was apparently under the impression that I had significant previous experience and at first behaved as if I were someone worth trying to impress. Once he divined that I had simply worked for a couple of campaigns in very minor capacities, he didn't bother to hide the fact that he had no time for the likes of me. I could go to his headquarters and stuff envelopes. Over and out!

I have had one or two other encounters like that with politicians. They say you can measure a person by how well or poorly they treat those who can be of no use to them. By that standard, Kasich failed to cut the mustard.

But what the hell. Kasich did run a great campaign, he handily bested Shamansky, and once he got the 12the District seat, beat the crap out of every candidate that challenged him. After a while the Ohio Democratic Party couldn't get anyone of real stature to run against him.

Not only that, Kasich became a prominent figure in Congress, especially after the Republicans won control in 1994, and his name was sometimes bruited about as a possible presidential candidate. He might even have run but for the fact that when his best opportunity came, in 2000, the annointed one was . . . George W. Bush, son of an ex-president. With no new worlds to conquer in Congress and, I would guess, no scope for a U.S. Senate run because Republicans already held both Ohio seats, Kasich decided to pursue other opportunities in business and the media. He was then just 48 years old.

I suspect his ship has sailed in terms of a run for the presidency, but as late as October 2000 -- despite his dutiful support for Bush -- Kasich still told a New York Times reporter he'd like to be president some day.

[O]only the next time he will not be so starry-eyed. ''I was not prepared for the fact that money was the dominating factor,'' he said.

The solution, he says, is to eliminate the $1,000 limits on individual contributions so that a candidate can raise a significant amount of seed money from relatively few people.

''No more pied piper for John Kasich,'' he said. ''Pied pipers don't win in America.''

Nowadays he's a managing director at Lehman Brothers and host of Heartland With John Kasich on -- yuck -- FOX News. I run into it occasionally and encounter that too bold, too booming voice, now in the service of some trumped-up piece of fake indignation that is the bread and butter of cable news commentary. It's kind of a waste, if you ask me.

Kasich's decision not to run in 2000 emboldened the Democrats to actually run someone of substance, Maryellen O'Shaughnessy, who comes from a distinguished family in central Ohio politics and had won a seat on the Columbus City Council in 1997. She's running for reelection to council again this year. Among the things not in her charming campaign bio is the fact that she met defeat in her run for Congress at the hands of Republican Patrick J. Tiberi. The vote was 139,242 to 115, 432, with a few thousand votes going to minor candidates.

Following Tiberi's victory, the Democrats went back to running Ed Brown, who got blasted by a 2-to-1 margin by Kasich in 1998 and lost just as about as badly to Tiberi in 2002 and 2004. Have a look at Brown's amateurish web site, with its frantic text and anemic political track record, and you will be forced to conclude, as I was, that only a Yellow Dog Democrat would waste a ballot on him. (For the uninitiated, a Yellow Dog Democrat is someone who would vote for a yellow dog before he'd vote Republican.) Brown was going to run again this year, only to be told by the Democratic steering committee that their nod was going to Bob Shamansky. Brown was incensed, writing in his campaign blog:

I stated to the steering committee that my campaign was about "The People and their Rights" and described many of my concerns and what I thought was needed to correct the problems that presently confront us. Several times I was questioned as to how much money I could raise and/or contribute. When I tried to expand on Social Security, Taxes, and Medicare problems, the raising campaign money question was again asked.

It became apparent that while my priority is "The People and Their Rights", their's [sic] is Money. Why should I have any reason to expect their endorsement when our priorities are so different?

Yes, Ed. Their priority is winning.

There are three great things about the 79-year old Shamansky. First, he is not Ed Brown. Second, he is not one of five other contenders for the nomination in the Democratic primary, one of whom I met in March and who assured me, in all seriousness, of her deep belief in UFOs and alien abductions. Third, he has money.

Lots of it.

As Columbus Dispatch reporter Joe Hallett put it after interviewing Shamansky in June, "[H]e has made millions as an attorney and real-estate investor, and he’s willing to spend some of it on his campaign. How much? 'I’m prepared to help,' he says. 'How’s that for a precise answer?'"

It's the kind of answer that would hack off Ed Brown, who doesn't have millions, only a passion for the People and Their Rights. And it impressed Hallett less than his observations of Shamansky's staff, which struck him as first-rate.

So why is Shamansky, "who spent a minute or two in Congress twenty-five years ago," vying once again to become the 12th District's representative? Not, apparently, to spare Democrats like me the ignominy of tripping a lever for Mr. People and Their Rights. Rather, he sees the Bush administration as incompetent, the Republican-dominated Congress as a disgrace -- these are not exactly profound observations -- and Patrick Tiberi as a softer, gooier version of Sam Devine.

Which for all I know isn't far from the mark. In six years I've never heard of Tiberi doing a damned thing, nor have I even received, to my knowledge, one of those starchy "Your Congressman Reports to You!" bits of franked mail that used to be de rigueur.

But let's face it. Suppose Shamansky unseats Tiberi in November. How likely is he to hang on to the 12th District for any length of time? How effective is he likely to be? Why can't the Ohio Democratic Party cultivate some young blood with grit, guts, and staying power, someone with a too bold, too booming voice? Someone likely to really make a difference?

Am I going to vote for Shamansky? Sure. What the hell else can I do? And I hope he wins in November because I don't think the country can afford a continued Republican majority in Congress and every defeated Republican is a step in the right direction. And I'll give Shamansky closer scrutiny than I have so far managed to do. But I've got a suspicion that what we've got here is a yellow dog with money.

Upcoming Forum: Separation of Church and State

2006-08-28T07:00:00.000-04:00

Cross-posted from Radical Civility

On Sunday I made it to church -- well, mostly -- and arrived in plenty of time to warble tunelessly through a couple of hymns before listening to the liturgical reading a sermon. The sermons at North Church UCC bear only a nodding acquaintance to those I heard in my evangelical past. There's no verse by verse exegesis, for instance -- not that I ever found that sort of thing exciting. Rather, the day's scriptural text served as a jumping off point for mobilizing the congregation in favor of greater community and political activism -- for with the mid-term election now just two months away, it's time to either organize or cede the political battleground to the Christian right.

After church about a dozen of us hung around to participate in one of several "listening sessions" apparently being organized under the auspices of the Industrial Areas Foundation Ohio and, even more to the point, We Believe Ohio. The focus was to ask attendees, "What is the one thing the next governor of Ohio could do to make life in Ohio easier for your family and community?" The purpose of the sessions, ultimately, was

To identify the issues for our Faith Vote Columbus agenda platform which are most widely and deeply felt across congregations and neighborhood associations.

To identify leadership for the Fall 2006 voter mobilization effort.

To identify stories and testimonies which exemplify the issues of our agenda of our aganda platform.

To create a broad, diverse constituency that has the experience of listening and of being listening to.

Here's the rest of the game plan:

The point of the operation is to create a sort of counterweight to the legally questionable but politically effective efforts of the Fairfield Christian Church's Ohio Restoration Project and the World Harvest Church's Reformation Ohio, both of which function brazenly as religious PACs (political action committees). The key difference between the contemplated effort by We Believe Ohio and those of the ORP and RO is the determination to operate within the restrictions imposed by the IRS concerning partisan political activity.

Some of us approach the task with misgivings about the wisdom of entangling our Christian witness with the rough and tumble of electoral politics. Underscoring this ambivalence about partipation by religious organizations in the political process is an ambitious forum being organized by a member of my church, the indefatigable Leslie K. Although a moderator and additional panelists are still being lined up, the heavy hitters are already in place. These include:

Jay Sekulow, JD, PhD, Chief Counsel for the "American Center for Law and Justice," and as if that weren't enough, "the European Center for Law and Justice." Sekulow has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and forms a formidable challenge to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Rev. Barry Lynn, JD, Executive Director of the the Washington-based "Americans United for Separation of Church and State."

Marc Owens, JD, Former Director, Exempt Organizations Divisions, IRS, Washington DC office. His thorough grasp of the relevant IRS codes were indispensable in crafting a stong case against the excesses of the ORP and RO.

The forum will be held on Sunday, October 8, from 2:00 to 4:00 PM in the Vern Riffe Center, Columbus.

Basically, this event will be required viewing for anyone interested in the question of church involvement in the political process.

Once I know more I'll start cobbling together a website devoted to the event. In the meantime, consider this a heads up.

It's the Campaign Season Again

2006-08-27T15:50:00.000-04:00

and consequently it's time to invest some effort in studying -- sigh -- the current political scene. I'm therefore going to embark much more frequently on politically-related posts. I thought about doing this on my other blog, Radical Civility, but then I figured, the central issues discussed over there are different, the tone of the comments is gratifyingly polite, and all in all I'd hate to pollute it with the hurly burly of partisan politics. So I'll do my politicking here.

Just by way of reminder: I'm a centrist Democrat who might easily be a moderate Republican if such animals still existed. But the fate of Christine Todd Whitman's PAC, My Party Too, has not exactly fired me with optimism on that score. Like it or not, the best organized and certainly the most effective Republicans are self-described conservative Republicans. I say "self-described" because it's usually unclear to me what exactly it is they're trying to conserve and in what meaningful sense they connect to the conservative tradition as historically understood. They basically strike me as stereotypical liberals with a different agenda. They overestimate the ability of government to re-engineer society -- the Iraq adventure is a case in point; they have not the slightest concern about the dangers of unchecked governmental power, so long as they themselves are in charge; and they have obviously forgotten a bedrock principle of conservatism: the law of unintended consequences.

Plus they whine a lot. If I hadn't seen it for myself, I could not imagine a political party that has controlled Congress since 1994 and the White House since 2000, to say nothing of so many governorships and statehouses and arguably the Supreme Court, rage about how besieged they are. I mean, can they possibly believe that?

The last thing -- and this is what really tears it with me -- is the way in which their style of politics, though undeniably successful at winning elections, contributes so signally to the coarsening of political discourse and the fraying of civility. Sure, there are plenty on the left who do the same thing, but there's also a big chunk of us in the center -- probably the majority -- who think it's bad for the country, both in terms of government and in terms of the general health of our society.

It's about time the Republicans took a big hit, because only a big hit is going to shake them loose from their current way of doing business and, hopefully, restore them to a GOP I could vote for and still respect myself.

PS to the Democrats: Get some ideas and grow some balls, will you?

Plus, the Water's Fine!

2006-06-30T19:00:00.000-04:00

Radical Civility

2006-02-19T06:48:00.000-05:00

The blogosphere, I've long since decided, already has enough blogs that emphasize political opinion. And besides, my time for blogging is limited. Most of the time I do have goes into Blog Them Out of the Stone Age, which deals with academic military history, my area of professional specialization. (In January it received a Cliopatria Award for Best Individual Blog.)

Still, there's more to life than politics or academe, and in recent weeks I've created a blog to support me in my spiritual journey. I call it Radical Civility. But when you think about it, spiritual concerns aren't divorced from political or professional matters. These apects of life are mere subsets of the incomparably larger concerns reflected in questions of ultimate meaning. So if an interest in politics has led you here--especially if that interest includes the intersection of faith and politics, Radical Civility may be worth a look.

Drawing the Line Between Caesar and Christ

2006-02-17T01:15:00.000-05:00

Cross-posted from Radical Civility:

A group of religious leaders has sent a complaint to the Internal Revenue Service requesting an investigation of two large churches in Ohio that they say are improperly campaigning on behalf of a conservative Republican running for governor.

In their complaint, the clergy members contend that the two Columbus-area churches, Fairfield Christian Church and World Harvest Church, which were widely credited with getting out the Ohio vote for President Bush in 2004, have allowed their facilities to be used by Republican organizations, promoted the candidate, J. Kenneth Blackwell, among their members and otherwise violated prohibitions on political activity by tax-exempt groups.

They are asking the I.R.S. to examine whether the churches' tax exemptions should be revoked and are requesting that Mark W. Everson, the federal tax commissioner, seek an injunction to stop what they consider improper activities.

-- From The New York Times, January 16, 2006.

Reaction from Pastor Rod Parsley and a variety of conservative and progressive commentators.

I'm an Adult, and I Vote

2005-05-04T23:06:00.000-04:00

Haven't posted in the past two months, at least not here. There are only so many hours in the day and so much blogging one can do. These days I maintain only my professional blog. I do remain interested in politics, but have tried to translate that interest into practical action by way of The North Star and my participation in a local church's Forum on Faith and Values, as both a consultant and speaker.

Periodically, however, I do get emails from Democratic and "progressive" organizations complimenting me on The Ohio Twenty-first, and most of the few "hits" the site gets these days come by way of Democratic and progressive blogs within Ohio. Which is fine: they correctly discern that my sympathies are more "blue" than "red."

I'm posting now at the specific request of one Brian C. Gardner. I'll just give you Mr. Gardner's email, lock, stock, and barrel, and then add my own brief observation at the end:

Professor Grimsly [sic: it's Grimsley],

My name is Brian Gardner, and I regularly post up blogs on http://www.colemanforohio2006.com, and I have a special request to ask of you. As I’m sure you’ve heard, Mayor Coleman has been getting a lot of flack in relation to the incident at Mifflin High School [if you don't know about this "incident," try doing a Google search using the keywords "Mifflin High School" and "rape"] as a result of the radio attacks of Glenn Beck. Recently I went to Glenn Beck’s web-site [the link is mine, not his] and listened to hours and hours of archives in order get a better understanding of the man, and if he had any relation to Kenneth Blackwell [again, the link is mine]. Below you’ll find the result of my experience and I ask that you please post this on your blog site for the 21st district. Thank you so much!

Sincerely,

Brian C. Gardner

OK, I’ve had enough of Glenn Beck’s ad hominem attacks aimed towards Mayor Coleman in relation to the Mifflin High School incident. I’m surprised that those who listen to Glenn Beck haven’t been able to decipher that it’s all a political ploy meant to taint the mayor’s image and boost that of Ken Blackwell.

How can I say that? Am I crazy? Only temporarily, since I took the time to listen to several hours of archives of Glenn Beck’s show, and I found some interesting moments that I’d like to share:

April 20, 2005. Hour 1, 37:02 to 38:32

Beck: Mayor Mike Coleman, are you for or against the rape and abuse of handicapped children in your school districts? I think that’s an easy question. I mean, the guy’s going to be running for governor of Ohio. I think the entire state of Ohio would like to know. It’s an important stance for voters to know. That’s an important stance for voters to know in Ohio, don’t you think? I’ll bet you we can call Kenneth Blackwell; I bet he’d answer that question. I betcha Blackwell would say, “I’m against the rape of handicapped children or just really any children in school in Columbus or in any Ohio school.” I’m guessing on that one. By the way, Blackwell is the current Secretary of State, I believe. I could have the wrong office. He’s the current Secretary of State of Ohio and going to be running for governor as well. But Mike Coleman has already thrown his hat into the ring and said, “Hey, I’m running for governor.” I think, Mike, you should take a phone call, and you should take a stand. Are you for or against the rape of handicapped people in schools? Simple question, really. Answer no. It’s a hot-button issue that we’d like to hear from Mike Coleman, but Mayor Coleman, apparently his office is to busy to get back to us.
Working on other things that I’m sure are as important as the rape and abuse of handicapped children in their school district.

Beck acknowledges here that Mayor Coleman is running for governor and he brings up one of his opponents in the race. Not only that, he automatically assumes Ken Blackwell’s position on the matter. And Beck says that he’s not being political? Also, if Beck knows nothing about Blackwell, which he claimed on April 21, how could he claim to know what Blackwell’s reaction would be? There are only two explanations:

1. He knows about Blackwell, which would make him a liar

or

2. He completely fabricated an argument from Blackwell with no knowledge of his views

If the former is true, then a clear political agenda is seen. If it’s the latter, then Beck is clearly a loon, since that would mean his show is comprised of imaginary argumentative standpoints of two individuals that he’s never met and knows nothing about. Either way, he loses.

Think about it. Before this quote, Beck knew nothing of the mayor or his positions; only that Mayor Coleman is a Democrat running governor. If, as he claims, he knew nothing about Blackwell, why would he put Blackwell forward in a favorable light compared to Coleman?

During that same day (April 20), Beck decided to do a fake interview with the mayor (I believe his producer did the phony voice). Here are some highlights:

April 20, 2005. Hour 2, 25:53-28:31

Beck: The interview we’d like to do with the mayor of Columbus, Mike Coleman.

[skip] [Note: this and other "skips" are Mr. Gardner's, not mine.]

Beck: I would assume that someone who wants to run for governor of the state of Ohio would be all over…would really lead the charge on something like this.

[skip]

Coleman (impersonator): And we’ve discovered that, of course with all issues, there are two sides to this one, Glenn. The one side that’s against rape of handicapped children.

Beck: OK

Coleman (impersonator): And there’s another side that’s for rape of handicapped children.

Beck: Right. Let me ask you this, mayor. Mayor Mike Coleman, or gosh, we wish it would have been if he hadn’t just stonewalled us here at the last minute. Mike Coleman, guy who want to run for governor, and I gotta tell you, you’ve got my endorsement so far Mike.

Coleman (impersonator): Oh, I’d be a great governor.

[skip]

Beck: But I’m asking you, who is the guy who wants to run for governor, Blackwell’s coming to mind [note: 28:20], let me ask you, should you, are you personally for or against the rape of handicapped children in your school district?

In these clips, Beck mentions three times the mayor’s run for governor and in the last segment, he flippantly mentions Blackwell. Why would Blackwell come to Beck’s mind in the “run for governor” if Beck knows absolutely nothing about him?

There is no doubt in my mind of Beck’s political agenda and how Blackwell could benefit from Beck’s partisan outlook.

***

Two quick points to be made:

1. Mr. Gardner seems to be asking me to post these words as if they were my own. I do not think this was his intent, since his email reprints, word for word, his blog entry of May 4, although it is standard practice for political activists to tell me, in effect: "Hey, would you write your congressman/senator/newspaper and give them these talking points? Heck no, we're not going to provide you with the facts on which to base your own opinion about issue XYZ. Just be our stooge. Think you can handle it? The future of America hangs on your willingness to be our chump!"

2. Mr. Gardner does not mention that Glenn Beck conducted this mock interview only after trying to interview Mayor Coleman and getting jerked around by Mr. Coleman's staff. According to Beck (and my memory of what Beck said on his admittedly obnoxious radio talk show), Beck's staff contacted the mayor's office on a certain day--I want to say a Friday afternoon soon after the Mifflin story broke. By the following Tuesday the mayor's office had agreed that the mayor would be available to Beck the next day, Wednesday, and Beck began promoting the interview on his show. But on Wednesday Beck's staff proved unable to reach Mayor Coleman, and finally Beck did the mock interview, by which time one gathers his staff had done a bit of background research on Mike Coleman and discovered he was running for governor against the execrable Ken Blackwell, the current Republican secretary of state who in this 2004 general election pretty much did his level best to disfranchise as many Ohio voters as he possibly could. During the mock interview the phone rang; it proved to be the mayor; Beck stopped the mock interview in mid-mock to talk with the mayor; the mayor then did one of the best jobs of "stepping on his own crank," to use an Army expression, of any public official I have heard in recent memory. I know this because I heard the interview myself (a pure fluke: I happen to bounce back and forth sometimes between conservative and progressive talk show radio).

Why title this post, "I'm an Adult, and I Vote"? Because I'm tired of getting played by the political parties, I won't put up with it, I insist on being treated as an adult, and I will make whatever pitiable attempt I can to punish any office holder or aspirant to office who tries to treat me in any other way.

BTW, after writing the above it occurred to me to follow Mr. Gardner's lead and check out the archive of Glenn Beck's broadcast (which indeed took place on a Wednesday, so that part of my memory is correct). Turns out you can access Beck's broadcasts for up to thirty days afterward. But it also turns out that you have to register in order to do so, and at the moment I don't have to time to do that. So I invite you to try it and judge for yourself whether my characterization of the Beck-Coleman interview sounds right to you.

Here's the link to the April 20 broadcast. The Beck-Coleman interview should be toward the end of Hour 3 of the show.

If You Can't Stand to Be Civil

2005-03-08T08:53:00.000-05:00

To my pleasant surprise, The North Star has actually become an active discussion group. As usual, though, the people who post most frequently are those who enjoy partisan politics. I happen to know from private emails and conversations that others in the group are actually a little inhibited, bemused, and in one case outraged by the emails that land in their mailboxes. It's not because the posts are offensive. On the contrary, by the standards of most present-day political debate they are models of civility. But because it involves power--who has it, who doesn't, and for what purposes power will be mobilized and used--political discussion by its nature can push people's buttons.

I will give an example. A social worker read some of the posts concerning Senate Bill 24 and wrote me a withering email about her impatience with "luxury problems." Most of the people with whom she works would love nothing better than to be faced with the "problem" of whether a state law is required to keep professors from mouthing off too much in class. They can't get access to vocational training, much less college. Her clients are instead trying to figure out how to keep food in their bellies and a roof over their heads once assistance from the government runs out. We can tell ourselves fables about how her clients are bums who should have done this or ought to do that. She knows her clients as people whose lives are as complex as anyone's and whose struggles are not so easily overcome. Well, apparently they'd better overcome them in 36 months, or else. Or else what? We don't have to worry about that. The social worker does. And for the clients, it's like staring down the barrel of a gun.

That's one of my frustrations with political dialogue, even the one I am proud to have played a role in fostering. Political problems are more easily "solved" if they can be caricatured. If I believed what Rush Limbaugh says about liberals, for instance, I'd hate them too. If I believed what many liberals say about social conservatives, I'd think that a theocracy was just over the horizon. The people who like to bat around political issues are intelligent and often well-informed, but their information and interests tend to be of a certain type. Often they'd rather discuss abstract political ideas--such as "I want government out of my life"--rather than explain how they want these ideas to be operationalized. The person who wrote the sentence just quoted is a student at a state-supported university who wants to have a political career in, presumably, a government. How does that square?

It would be refreshing, I think, if those who enjoy political debate were more solicitous of those who don't, but who are no less affected by the issues at stake. It would be even more refreshing if those who sit on the sidelines spoke up, asked questions, voiced comments. Of course, the "demolition derby" model of political dialogue makes that a risky proposition, and there are those who seem to think that politics is at all times a hardball proposition: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. But I think it's about time we talked back to that model of political discourse. What makes it better than a discourse based on courtesy and mutual respect? How is it that the lessons every kid in kindergarten is expected to learn should not be practiced in this most grown-up of conversations?

The North Star

2005-03-05T06:57:00.000-05:00

One of my hobby horses when teaching the American history survey is republicanism, which is what historians call the political ideology of the revolutionary generation. As I said in a previous post:

A republic is a form of government that is held together from below, by the citizens themselves. The founders who chose for this country a republican form of government understood that they were taking a very real chance. Historically, republics did not survive. They still do not. Most of the world's "republics" are so in name only. They are really dictatorships or oligarchies. There is no magic that exempts our republic from the same fate.

The steady drip, drip, drip of such sentiments into as many lectures as I could fit them--which is quite a few--has had the heartening effect of causing some students to think about how they themselves might be better citizens. A big chunk of good citizenship comes from being savvy and informed about current events and politics. Some of them--a couple, anyway--indicated they'd like to talk with me about that outside of class. So I announced that I would meet with interested students on Wednesday evening--March 2, the Wednesday just past--and reserved a classroom that would hold fifty students. I didn't know if even a single student would actually show up.

In the event, a few students did. Seven, to be exact. Four males, three females, to parse it one way. Six whites and one African American, to parse it another. Or by political affiliation: Four Republicans, two Democrats, and one conservative Independent.

We had a good discussion. In fact it was really very pleasant. The students knew rather more about politics than many, but what really distinguished the discussion was the way in which it was characterized by curiosity. When someone asked why another student thought such-and-such, it was never done in the aggressive, demolition derby way that characterizes most political exchange these days. It was done in a way that indicated the questioner was really interested in the answer. The objective was not debate but understanding.

It was a microcosm of what a local church hopes to accomplish, on a much larger scale, in a series of forums on contemporary affairs. I was recently approached to offer my ideas about how to help such a project succeed. I had a very nice meeting with one of the organizers, after which I received this email from the church pastor:

Hi Mark,

Leslie got home and filled me in on much of your meeting--she was very excited! I wonder if you might write out your conception or impression of the process of this community dialogue. My desire is to include expert presentations on the moral issues that are raised and theological reflection on the presentations. The common ground being explored is as much religious as it is politicaland I worry that the religious piece will be overshadowed or reframed. More, I hope that any presentation made and any dialogue entered into will be, in part, expressions of personal beliefs and convictions that the level of conversation reaches deep into personal identities rather than into ideologies or political positions. Well, what do you think? I value your insights and am grateful for your interest and participation in this offering to the community.

I wrote back:

I think the objective has to be the creation of a more civil and constructive public discourse. The presentations, important as they are, essentially create an environment in which to experiment with this discourse--to learn the techniques and approaches that best facilitate it, to see which ones misfire (and no doubt some seemingly promising approaches will), and to counter the inevitable problems that will arise.

The most obvious problem is that if a civil public discourse were easy it would already be the norm. The I-hate-you-I-hate-you-back model of public exchange is common because it works. It meets people's individual needs to vent their spleens and it meets the needs of politicians, lobbyists and political activists to mobilize political support. The most common political tool is the creation of fear. People do not so much vote in favor of things as they vote against things. In the American experience there is what has been called the "paranoid style" in politics. The most common variety is the threat to liberty. This goes back to the American Revolution, when the revolutionaries portrayed the British government and its policies as a threat to the liberties of colonists. A half-generation later the Federalists portrayed the Democratic-Republicans as a threat to liberty and vice versa; the Whigs and Democrats played on the same theme in the 1830s and 1840s; the Democrats and Republicans did the same in the 1850s and 1860s, and of course enough Americans believed this rhetoric to spark a civil war in 1861. I could multiply examples almost indefinitely. Examples from our own day, like the culture wars, are too obvious to need elaboration.

To the politics of fear may be added the tendency to see debate in terms of winning and losing. This model is explicitly promoted in nearly all high school debate clubs; it is used to measure presidential debates; it is of course the basis of our court system. In court the stakes are the guilt or innocence of a defendant. In presidential debates the stakes are election to an office. But what purpose winning serves in everyday debate I cannot fathom. What do you win? Usually your "defeated" opponent, crushed by your devastating wit and knowledge, is simply humiliated and through humilation becomes more, not less, wedded to his own position. All you really win is a boost to your own ego, and there are other, better ways to gain that.

Both the politics of fear and the win/lose model of debate very effectively close off honest discussion. Stacking the deck, ad homimen attacks, verbal tricks, solipsism, and a host of other tactics that would not be tolerated in a high school term paper are the common currency of almost every political conversation. Again, such tactics make sense if you want to gain election or block a given bill. But why citizens would employ these methods among themselves is less obvious, because for the most part, deprived of the chance to ever weigh the issues independently, we effectively just parrot the opinions packaged for us by the political elite.

Not only do citizens consume--indeed, we're force-fed--these pre-packaged opinions in bumper stickers, slogans, and sound bites, often enough what passes for political thought takes the form of dreaming up our own bumper stickers, slogans, and sound bites. Listen to those who call in to almost any politically-related radio talk show. You'll see what I mean.

I comment on the existing discourse at such length because I think there will undoubtedly be a tendency, in trying to create a civil discourse, to fall--or be pushed--back into what Deborah Tannen has called the "argument culture." Some people who attend the presentations will participate using the argument culture model simply because they are unfamiliar with any other. Some will start off civilly but will fall into the argument culture because their repertoire of skills in the civil discourse is limited. Still others, I feel sure, will try to sabotage the civil discourse, perhaps deliberately but more likely from some visceral hostility whose roots they themselves will not understand.

My guess is that the core dynamic will not be unlike marriage counseling which, in my all too extensive experience, is largely aimed at teaching better communication skills. The skills themselves seem simple, almost childlike, and when implemented effectively often produce a sense of stunned amazement on the part of spouses who had earlier been at each others' throats. But they are devilishly hard to implement. Under pressure one keeps reverting to older patterns of communication. It takes practice and the enhancement of emotional intelligence as well as purely cognitive knowledge to deploy these skills effectively on a day-to-day basis. Just so, I suspect, with a civil political discourse.

Because of the difficulty of sustaining a civil discourse, I think it will be necessary to evolve a set of appropriate sanctions to discipline those who violate the terms of the discourse. That, in turn, requires a set of ground rules, so that people understand what those terms are and what constitutes a violation. It requires a mechanism for calling attention to a violation. It requires a set of punishments. I suspect one will need a repertoire of punishments. At one end of the spectrum, it will be enough just to point out to someone that they're over the line. At the other, you will need a sort of ultimate sanction. You'll need a number of intermediate sanctions too, but by way of illustrating my idea of an ultimate sanction that fits this discourse, let me remind you of a key scene in the film Twelve Angry Men--which, I think, might very well be a good candidate for required viewing.

In this scene, the juror played by Ed Begley, Sr. launches into a racist tirade. The other jurors don't shout back at him. They don't call on the bailiff to have him removed. They don't say anything. Instead, one by one, they get up from their chairs, walk to another part of the room, and face away from the racist juror until he's left haranguing the empty air. He's utterly deflated. It's an incredibly powerful scene--and its power derives, I think, because it is so convincing. An audience instinctively knows that this would really work.

Anyway, such are my thoughts for the moment. I can suggest some ways by which a civil discourse might be constructed, but I suspect the two of you, and others, are better qualified for that. The part I'm good at is figuring out what can go wrong, and how to counter it.

As for not losing the religious component: that part's easy. In the New Testament it somewhere says that Jesus spoke with both grace and truth. Learning to speak like that, especially on matters that concern people's very lives, is a worthy project.

My students spoke that Wednesday evening with just that combination of grace and truth--truth as honest and authentic self-disclosure, I mean of course, not truth in the sense of absolute certainty. In fact the exchange had moments of touching uncertainty as a student would recognize a contradiction in their own political values. Nobody pounced. Nobody said "Gotcha." Everyone knew that few of us have worked out a political philosophy so seamless (and, I suspect, articificial) that it contains no tensions and contradictions.

As the evening wound down, we agreed that we would like to meet again. We talked about how good our conversation had been, but also how fragile, because anyone who had come to the meeting with a combative attitude, seeking to "win" debating points, could have squelched the whole thing.

I got everyone's email address and, later that evening, created a mailing list using Google Groups. In the course of creating the list, the server asked me to assign a name for the group. I thought a minute. Then I typed: "The North Star," after Frederick Douglass's newspaper. Earlier that evening there had been a brief moment of confusion as one student misheard a reference to Morningstar and thought she had heard The North Star. It was serendipitous, but more than appropriate. This was The North Star's motto:

"Right is of no Sex - Truth is of no Color - God is the Father of us all, and we are all brethren."

Sen. David Goodman Says Hi

2005-03-02T18:44:00.000-05:00

One of the most interesting aspects of keeping this blog is that, despite the almost unimaginable wealth of information now available on the web, it's actually not that easy to find basic political information about one's own district and elected officials.

By basic political information I mean such things as an accurate map of the Ohio 21st's boundaries. I found one by happenstance, but have since discovered that they're not that easy to come by. And even with that map, I discovered, it is not so easy to be sure, at the boundaries, which streets lie within the district and which are just outside. It seems a small matter, but it makes a difference if you're canvassing a neighborhood.

Like most things in life, this isn't an accident. It's not a conspiracy, either. Or if it is a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy between, on the one hand, politicians, activists, and lobbyists, who like to keep easy access to this information to people like them; and on the other hand, average citizens like myself, who for the most part could not possibly care less about the identity, much less the actions, of the public officials who supposedly represent us (and, I insist on believing, often actually try their best to do so).

It's a conspiracy, in short, of citizens who don't much act like citizens and politicians who have come to accept the ignorance and passivity of most of their constiuents as a fact of life.

Which is why, in low-profile races, so many campaign ads simply a) repeat the candidates' last names as many times as possible, in order to achieve name recognition; b) emphasize the fact that they are good family people who like children and pets, so you'll feel comfortable about them; and c) show their opponents in unflattering, shadowed black and white photos, preferably with ominous background music, so you'll feel uneasy about them.

It's not that our state legislators and local officials can do no better. It's that this is the best our limited attention spans permit them to do.

Still, sometimes that assumption of constituent passivity can get a little overdone. I will give you an example.

My state senator is David Goodman, a youthful-looking Republican. His 3rd Senate district includes most if not all of the Ohio 21st--it's hard to be certain, because I've not yet found a detailed map of his district--and then extends to incorporate the entire eastern third of Franklin County. From my sharply limited knowledge he seems pretty energetic and bright. He was a city councilman in Bexley, a small but affluent suburban community, from 1995 to 1998; then representative of the Ohio 25th district from 1998 until 2001. Since then he has been a state senator, though in November 2004 he ran unsuccessfully to unseat Mary Jo Kilroy as one of three Franklin County commissioners. (The normally pro-Republican Columbus Dispatch endorsed Kilroy over Goodman, praising her "steady and pragmatic voice" and noting that Goodman "failed to make a case for replacing her.")

A couple of weeks ago I emailed Sen. Goodman about good ole SB 24, Sen. Larry Mumper's bill to tame irresponsible tenured radicals like myself. Sen. Goodman must be deluged with mail on all sorts of subjects, but in due time he replied. I found his letter awaiting me last evening when I got home:

Dear Mr. Grimsley,

Thank you for contacting my office regarding your opposition to Senate Bill 24. I also agree that hearing different viewpoints is an important part of the higher education experience. Students at our state colleges and university should be free to hear different viewpoints and form their own beliefs.

It's wonderful that Sen. Goodman feels that way. So do I. So does Sen. Mumper. The question is whether we need a state law to enforce this happy state of affairs, and on that point Sen. Goodman is silent.

Gee, what a shock. This is a form letter--a form letter written so that it would placate proponents and opponents of the bill alike.

The form letter I don't mind. That's understandable. But am I alone in thinking that even a form letter should provide some inkling of the legislator's own opinion of the bill, whether it's "I'm for it," "I'm against it," or "I'm thinking it over"?

But of course, why should Sen. Goodman stick his neck out, even a little, for the likes of me? I've risked only the time it takes to compose an email. He risks an erosion of political capital and popularity that could, in time, mean the loss of his office. I have tenure. He doesn't.

No, there's absolutely no reason for Sen. Goodman to stick his neck out.

Unless citizens like me oblige him to stick his neck out.

Which is why I am now on record as saying that I will contribute $100 to Sen. Goodman's opponent next year (in any race for which he's a candidate: due to term limits, he cannot run for a third term as state senator). It's not that I dislike Sen. Goodman. But I dislike the system that we have all conspired to create. And the first step toward changing it is to change my own behavior.

But to be fair, Senator: I'll make you a deal. If you or your staff happen to stumble across this post, and you favor me with an honest statement of where you stand on SB 24 and why you stand there, the hundred bucks is yours.

This isn't about politics. It's about creating a better environment in which politics can operate. The pols, the lobbyists, the activists quite obviously won't create a better environment. They are used to this one. They understand it. It works for them.

No, it's up to ordinary people like me. We will never change our political culture until we change our pattern of behavior as citizens.

Away from the Blog

2005-02-24T06:26:00.000-05:00

I'll be on hiatus for a few days. Look for a new post on Monday, Feb. 28.

The Few

2005-02-21T08:10:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday my History 151 class had its second midterm examination. The night before the exam I held online office hours between 10 p.m. and midnight. That is to say, I let it be known that students could contact me between those hours for help, via AOL Instant Messenger in preparing for the exam.

I thought myself very cutting edge to have such a thing as online office hours. Wrong, as usual.

At 1o p.m. I was bombarded by dozens of AIM message requests, all flooding my screen at once. I couldn't reply to one because the appearance of the next blocked me. The whole experiment threatened to be a disaster and I didn't have the foggiest idea how to fix it. Luckily a student--not me, mind you--a student, had the know-how and presence of mind to create a chat room. With the student's assistance, I learned how to steer the other students into the chat rooom, and off we went.

Even this arrangement seemed proved unworkable, though, because I now had between 25 and 30 students in the chatroom, all asking me questions. Fortunately it dawned on me to ask the students to answer each others' questions. I would monitor the traffic, I said, and intervene only if people were stumped or if a wrong bit of information went unchallenged.

This worked astonishingly well. My students, who hitherto had struck me as maddeningly passive, suddenly bloomed before my eyes. Someone would pose a question; another would respond--usually several. Frivolous questions got laughed out of court. Serious ones sometimes received a level of attention that went beyond anything likely to be on the exam and reflected an actual interest in the material for its own sake. Fascinated, I stayed online until 2 a.m. My major contribution was to upload a transcript of the conversation to the course web site from time to time, so that latecomers could look at previous exchanges.

All in all, I was amazed to see how actively engaged my supposedly "passive" students had become. Then it occurred to me to compare the list of people in the chatrooms with those who were actually participating. Although at one point 50 students were in the chatroom, only a fraction of these asked questions, and fewer responded. The success of the chatroom review depended entirely on the engagement of a few students.

It occurred to me that it is ever thus. In just about every aspect of life--churches, intramural sports, business, education, you name it--it's always a relative handful of people who make the whole thing go. The rest of the membership simply takes advantage of what the others have organized.

The same holds true in politics. In most elections, only a minority of eligible people show up to vote. A much smaller number than that is actually reasonably well informed about the candidates, the issues, and the current events and concerns that animate political life. An even smaller number gets involved intensively enough to have some influence over the selection of candidates, to circulate petitions, to hold demonstrations, to even write a letter to a public official.

We live in a republic. As I tell my students in History 151, a republic is a form of government that is held together from below, by the citizens themselves. The founders who chose for this country a republican form of government understood that they were taking a very real chance. Historically, republics did not survive. They still do not. Most of the world's "republics" are so in name only. They are really dictatorships or oligarchies. There is no magic that exempts our republic from the same fate.

All that has to happen is for the few to become . . . too few.

And how far away are we from that?

Cats Are Democrats, Dogs Are Republicans

2005-02-18T08:46:00.000-05:00

Unsure which party fits you? That's easily remedied. Just figure out which household pet you most nearly resemble.

In Praise of Larry Mumper

2005-02-16T06:05:00.000-05:00

I'm a college professor. In American culture we have seldom been a popular bunch. The famous comedy Animal House captured a common image of us when it depicted "Professor Dave Jennings," played by Donald Sutherland, as a tweed-jacketed, pot-smoking flake. The famous tear-jerker Terms of Endearment depicted the English professor "Flap Horton," played by Jeff Daniels, as a tweed-jacketed, skirt-chasing flake. Most recently, Larry Mumper, a Republican state senator representing the Marion area, has introduced a bill that would somehow--the enforcement provision is nebulous at best--debar professors from "persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose." Apparently we professors do this all the time.

I quote from a Jan. 27 article in the Columbus Dispatch:

Mumper, a Republican, said many professors undermine the values of their students because "80 percent or so of them (professors) are Democrats, liberals or socialists or card-carrying Communists" who attempt to indoctrinate students.

"These are young minds that haven’t had a chance to form their own opinions," Mumper said. "Our colleges and universities are still filled with some of the ’60s and ’70s profs that were the anti-American group. They’ve gotten control of how to give people tenure and so the colleges continue to move in this direction."

Stuff like this is kinda silly, in my opinion. Bills like this are made to be ideological soap boxes. Sen. Mumper gained his victory as soon as the bill began to attract national, even international, attention. He is probably better-known now that at any time before or hereafter.

Ironically, I think that he would be somewhat embarrassed if the bill did become law. If enacted into law the state would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending it against an inevitable lawsuit, and this at a time when the state budget is hard-pressed to deal with the most basic needs. I suspect that the 21st district representative, Linda Reidelbach--who seems very intent that the state should spend its money carefully--will ultimately vote against this bill or vote for it only if she knows in advance that it hasn't a prayer of passage.

Even so, at first, I admit, the bill got me down. I can't help it. I'm the sort of person who wants everyone to like him, and it saddens me to find that Sen. Mumper doesn't. I have won three teaching awards in my career, including the Alumni Award for Distinguished Teaching, which is the highest my university can bestow. But I am still, after all, a professor who is a Democrat and, some would say, a liberal, which apparently makes it hard to differentiate me from an outright Commie.

Upon greater reflection, however, I want to speak in praise of Larry Mumper. For Sen. Mumper, I now realize, was one of the influences who got me off the sidelines and spurred me to think about what I could do as a citizen to improve the quality of political discussion in Ohio. So thanks, Senator!

The Cost to Run for Office in the Ohio 21st

2005-02-15T10:01:00.000-05:00

Candidates spent over a billion dollars in 2004 in order to run for office. While the presidential, gubernatorial, and U.S. Senate races accounted for most of this tally, the cost to run for even a modest office such as representative of the 21st District was substantial.

As usual in American political races, the incumbent was able to raise substantially more money than the challenger.

Incumbent Linda Reidelbach raised $118,378.

Challenger Abramo Ottolenghi raised $45,005.

And for what purpose was all this money spent? Mostly so that we would merely know their names.

Hello, World / Bonjour, Le Monde

2005-02-14T04:06:00.000-05:00

About twenty percent of the traffic to The Ohio Twenty-first thus far comes from outside the United States. I didn't anticipate that when I created this blog, and it raises the question of whether to continue to write as if the reader is familiar with this area or to write in such a way as to orient a reader who may be from Europe, the Middle East, or Australasia.

I've decided to go with the second option. After all, twenty percent ain't hay. Besides, it may give people from other countries a better grasp of my own.

Follow this link to a map centered on my home. If you zoom out, you'll soon see the entire 21st District (which is essentially the northern fringe of Franklin County, Ohio). If you zoom out much more, you'll soon be able to place the state in the context of New York, Washington, Chicago, or whatever metropolis is most familiar to you.

For background on the United States, check out the entry in--I kid you not--the CIA World Fact Book.

Here's an interactive map of Ohio.

Once upon a time the land comprising the 21st District belonged to the Indians, though I am unaware of any tribes that resided here during historical times. The closest Indian communities were to the south, around Chillicothe; to the west, near present-day West Liberty; and to the north, around Upper Sandusky. The French claimed this region until their defeat in the French and Indian War. The British claimed it between 1763 and 1783. The United States won possession of it, supposedly by right of conquest, as a result of the War for American Independence, though it took a protracted Indian war (1790-1794) to enforce that claim. The areas comprising the 21st District were part of districts created to give land to veterans of that conflict. I live in what was once the U.S. Military District. A short distance to the west was once the boundary with the Virginia Military District.

Of course, scarcely any resident of the 21st District knows or cares anything about the remote history of the area. Home buyers may be intrigued to see references to the military districts on the abstracts of title they receive when they purchase property. But they quickly forget about such things. And why not? It makes little difference to their lives.

What typically matters more are the things you'd expect to matter: good jobs, good schools, good places to shop, good churches, and good parks, museums, and cultural sites, in roughly that order. The 21st District is essentially a belt of bedroom communities. Most people work in and around downtown Columbus, though in a development few anticipated, the completion of an expressway around the city--I-270--led to the construction of a series of corporate parks in this area during the late 1970s and 80s. This area was at the fringe of the city when my family moved here in 1972. Metropolitan Columbus has since swept another ten miles or so to the north.

The economy of this region--central Ohio, as it's generally called--is diversified. It consists of some manufacturing (e.g., Anheuser Busch, which has a huge brewery here), higher education (e.g., The Ohio State University, which has the nation's second largest main campus), finance and insurance (e.g., Nationwide Insurance); and government (Columbus is the state capital and county seat; it also has substantial federal infrastructure). As it happens, to take these elements in reverse order: I pay taxes to the government, once worked for Nationwide, currently work at OSU, and like to drink beer. Call it the circle of life.

The diverse economy shields the region somewhat in times of recession. Franklin County invariably has a lower unemployment rate than the state of Ohio. On the other hand, Ohio not infrequently has a higher unemployment rate than the United States, and Franklin County's unemployment figures are sometimes worse than that of the country as a whole.

This link to the U.S. Census Bureau provides population data on Franklin County. You can modify the data pretty readily to look specifically at Columbus, Dublin, or Westerville, though for some reason not Worthington. To my knowledge, you'd actually have to crawl through the specific tract data to come up with a demographic profile for the 21st District as a whole. Each government entity tends to draw boundaries with only loose regard for those of other entities. But you can get a rough idea by using the relevant zip codes (i.e., postal codes), in my case 43229.

What you discover is that the median age in my zip code area is 31.8. Fifty-five percent of households contain children under eighteen, though the average household contains just 2.3 people. Thirty-five percent of households consist, like mine, of persons living alone. (I've been divorced for five years). Seventy percent of the population is white, twenty-five percent is black, three percent is Hispanic (officially, at least: that part of the population tends to be underreported), and two percent is Asian. More or less.

That's a significant change from 1972, when my family moved here. This area used to be pretty much lily white. Among many whites it is still commonly believed that with the influx of a significant number of persons of color the neighborhood goes to pot: "white flight" remains a significant phenomenon. But I have never seen evidence that this libel is anything but a libel. And indeed, my neighborhood is in most respects more attractively maintained than it was when I first lived here in the 1970s and early 1980s.

The chow is a lot more interesting, too. Within five minutes' drive I can reach a good Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Greek, Indian, and even Ghanian restaurant, depending on what I feel like having. Plus Bruno's, the venerable Intalian restaurant that has been here since I was a kid.

I guess I should add that my family sold the house in which I live back in 1984, the year after my mother's death. I lived elsewhere--mostly other parts of Columbus but also in London and Santa Monica--until October 2003, when I bought the place again. In the intervening years my father also passed away--he died in 1989, before my nieces and nephews had a chance to know him--and I wanted them to have something tangible from their own parents' past. (It didn't hurt that this house has 800 more square feet than my previous residence, either.)

Here's some additional data for the rest of the 21st District, kinda sorta. It's broken out by zip codes and does not fit the district exactly, but it comes fairly close. I've arranged it to conform more or less to the contours of the district. Other zip codes contain portions of the district as well, but to include them here would misrepresent the picture because they primarily serve other districts.

43017 43235 43229
(space)43085 43224

See also this excellent report prepared by the Ohio Department of Development's Office of Strategic Research. It's for Frankin County but the data, especially the maps, are suggestive for the 21st district.

War Comes Home: In Memoriam

2005-02-13T05:02:00.000-05:00

To date, fifty Ohioans have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The list below includes those whose hometown is listed as one of the cities within the Ohio 21st District. I have no way of knowing if the dead were actually residents of the district. (It seems a meaningless issue, anyway.) The list is drawn from Fallen Warriors - Iraqi Freedom, maintained by Defend America News.

U.S. Army (includes Army National Guard and Army Reserve)
Pfc. Harrison J. Meyer, 20, Worthington, Ohio, Nov. 26, 2004, Iraq
Pfc. Branden F. Oberleitner, 20, Worthington, Ohio, June 5, 2003, Iraq
Pfc. Kevin C. Ott, 27, Columbus, Ohio, missing June 25, 2003, death confirmed June 28, 2003, Iraq
Chief Warrant Officer Brian K. Van Dusen, 39, Columbus, Ohio, May 9, 2003, Iraq
1st Lt. Charles L. Wilkins III, 38, Columbus, Ohio, Aug. 20, 2004, Iraq
Pfc. Nicholaus E. Zimmer, 20, Columbus, Ohio, May 30, 2004, Iraq

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count maintains statistics on the number of US and Allied military personnel killed and wounded in Iraq.

Iraq Body Count maintains a list of all Iraqi civilians killed since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, whether killed by US forces or by insurgents.

Needless to say, in a conflict as controversial as the Iraq War, statistics of this sort are exploited by both proponents and opponents of the conflict. Defend America News is an arm of the U.S. military and its coverage is favorable to the American war effort. Iraq Coalition Casualty Count and Iraq Body Count are sites maintained by opponents of the war, but their figures are generally considered accurate. This is particularly true for Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, which uses figures supplied by the U.S. Department of Defense and similar agencies of allied governments. The United States does not keep track of Iraqi civilian dead--at any rate, not officially--and Iraq Body Count works as best it can from press reports.

No vision of the morrow's strife
The warrior's dreams alarms;
No braying horn or screaming fife
At dawn shall call to arms.

--from Theodore O'Hara, The Bivouac of the Dead

Times That Try Men's Souls . . . and Families

2005-02-12T21:06:00.000-05:00

Because a reservist's place of residence correlates only very loosely with the unit in which she or he serves--when I served in the Army National Guard I lived in Columbus but served most of the time with an artillery battery in Marion--it's hard to tell how much the War on Terrorism has pulled away reservists who live in the Ohio Twenty-first. But my guess is that the number is substantial.

Check it out:

The Ohio National Guard - has several units from this area listed as deployed. As of February 9, about 3,618 Guard personnel have been activated.

Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment, 4th Marine Division, is based in Columbus. It has not yet been mobilized, but you can bet the training tempo is ramped up.

(still working on local Army Reserve and Naval Reserve units)

Army Reserve Units
338th Army Reserve Band - based in Whitehall

Naval Reserve Units

Welcome

2005-02-12T17:49:00.000-05:00

I live in the 21st House District of the Ohio General Assembly. The district encompasses a swath of northern Franklin County (click the link for a detailed pdf map; you'll need Adobe Acrobat to read it) and includes parts of Dublin, Worthington, Columbus, and Westerville.

I thought I'd begin keeping this blog as a way to ground my interest in politics in a practical context. If, as they say, all politics is local, this would seem an intelligent approach. Periodically on this blog I will look at the local, state, national--even international--political scenes. But I will always try to draw a thread of connection back to the 21st House District.

As nearly as I can tell, the district boundaries are drawn with a view toward advantaging Republican contenders for the House of Representatives seat. In civics class this is called "gerrymandering," but it's the way business has always been done and, if kept within limits, no one cries foul.

And in fact the incumbent is a Republican, Linda Reidelbach. Her Democratic opponent in the 2004 election was Abramo Ottolenghi. She received 26,547 votes (52.61 percent); he got 23,917 votes (47.39 percent). This data is drawn from from the first place I could find it on the web, a Democratic blog called Bring Ohio Home which includes recent Ohio State House election history. They apparently found it on the web site of the Ohio Secretary of State, which has very good links to state election results if you spend enough time navigating the site.

I will do my level best to post to this site once a day. I don't expect anyone to discover it for a while, and by the time they do I hope I will have posted enough info to make the blog worth reading.

Oh: who am I? Well, who do I have to be? I'm a citizen who lives in the 21st Ohio district. That ought to be the end of it--and would be if it were normal for Americans to take a serious interest in politics and government.

But if you must know, I'm also a 45-year old homeowner. I'm a lifelong Democrat. Yet I welcome the appearance of a new, moderate Republican political action committee called My Party Too. It is headed up by former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, who served as director of the Environmental Protection Agency under the first George W. Bush administration. By most accounts, including her own, she was not treated very well. My current reading includes her new book, It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America.

Lastly, I believe that healthy republics are held together from below, by a politically aware, engaged citizenry. Judged by that criterion, I do not think our republic could at present be called healthy. But I see signs of improvement. More people seem to realize these days that political choices matter, that the two major parties are not tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, and that even within the two main parties there are significant differences in opinion and approach, as the existence of My Party Too demonstrates. People talk more about politics and the blogosphere especially is dominated by political discussion. Some of it is crap but some of it is discussion of a very high order.

Anyway, I would like to be one of those politically aware, engaged citizens. This blog is my way of stepping up to the plate.