Essential Estrogen

The cutoff for first-quarter fundraising was last night. Maybe we'll now be able to visit with candidates without one of their hands flying out, palm up. (But don't hold your breath.) The results of the money game will be officially available April 15.

Our prediction: the surprise coming out of this first quarter will be Sen. Chris Dodd and that his money situation will float him into the national media's top four on the Democratic side.

There is an interesting article in the NY Times which details how the emergency room visits and catastrophic injuries of all other sports combined do not surpass those caused by cheerleading.

This past week, The Caucus Cooler ran the story on former congressman Greg Ganske endorsing Sen. John McCain. It seems the GOP is also having troubles with key folks endorsing too early.

Hawkeye GOP has a preview of the upcoming Lincoln Dinner.

Hillary Clinton is planning another visit to Iowa.

Jesse Jackson endorsed Sen. Barack Obama.

The Johnson Co. Democratic Central Committee has elected State Central Committee member Brian Flaherty as chair. Another State Central Committee member, James Moody, was elected as vice-chair. The only disappointment in the elections is that there will only be three women -- out of the hundreds of capable and talented women in Johnson County -- serving on the executive board. Alicia Trimble will once again serve as second vice chair; Gina Schatteman was elected as treasurer; and newcomer Dawn Suter will be one of the co-chairs of the membership committee.

Sixty Des Moines jobs are placed on the chopping block as Meredith Corp. announces it will close the print version of Child magazine. The Des Moines-based company publishes 25 subscription magazines including Better Homes and Gardens. The final print edition of Child will be the June/July issue.

All of Iowa's four-year-olds could attend preschool paid for by the state and taught by licensed teachers if legislation which recently passed the House continues through the Senate. One thing I find worrying about this actually resulted from the graphic which ran with the article. The graphic is a map of the U.S. with states color-coded based on the percentage of four-year-olds enrolled in state-financed pre-kindergarten in 1005-06. The state with the most children in such program is Oklahoma. I need to do some more research to determine how long Oklahoma has had this program. As of right now, Oklahoma is lowering proficiency standards in order to bolster needed information under the No Child Left Behind Act.

State Rep. Geri Huser and Rep. David Tjepkes said they won't recommend an increase in the gasoline tax when they ask for more road work money. According to David Yepsen the pair will be looking to increase motor vehicle registration instead. (You know, you can register vehicles in other states for pennies compared to what residents pay here in Iowa.)

If you read our thoughts on Rep. Dawn Pettengill, you may also wish to click over to Iowa Progress and read their take on the situation as well. (They seem to be much more forgiving than we are.)

Iowa state republicans can finally put down the Kleenex since they've discovered an emotional pot to stir for the next few weeks.

I missed the Barbara Walters interview of Rudy Giuliani and Judith Nathan, but was able to read Seth Gitell's take on it.

Yesterday I completed an informal poll of Democrats at the Linn County Democratic Hall of Fame as to whether they had ever been included in one of those Zogby or other national polls (such as the one reported last week). Again, this was completely informal, but no one I asked at last night's event had ever been included in one of the national polls. We are beginning to wonder if it isn't only Western Iowans who are included in such things and if, quite possibly, we should begin to cry about it.

While Presidential hopefuls currently serving in Washington are having a difficult time juggling their responsibilities with campaign trail requirements, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has stepped up to the plate and will be traveling to North Korea this month for meetings with government officials. While it may not gain him any points with Iowans who are feeling a bit ignored by him, it's bound to bring him a heck of a lot of press for those wholesale political states.

Democratic Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich says his campaign has arrived at a "teachable moment and an opportunity for growth."

Bill Romjue was named Sen. Joe Biden's Iowa State Director.

Meanwhile, Mike Gravel, who gets ignored even by the pollsters, recently debated a law professor about the parallels between the Iraq and Vietnam wars. "What happened in Vietnam is that the best and brightest of the left took us to war without reason," he said. "In IIraq, [it was] the best and brightest of the right." Ouch.

Steve Forbes is endorsing Rudy Guiliani. Michigan State Sen. Jack Bradenburg is switching endorsements from Romney to Guiliani. (Check the link for more on the issues with Romney's campaign.)

Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama can't even escape controversial tidbits with their endorsements. BET co-founder and President of the Washington Mystics of the WNBA Sheila Johnson is endorsing Obama while her ex-husband (not on necessarily good terms) Robert Johnson, the other BET co-founder and owner of the NBA's Charlotte Bobcats endorses Clinton>

In response to the media's interest in the contents of Anna Nicole's fridge, Iowa Guy has ... *gasp*... posted a photograph of the contents of his own refrigerator. Further, he'd like to collect others.

You may have caught Sen. Joe Biden on Fox News Sunday today. At nearly the end of the show (which deals mostly with AG scandal and sworn testimony) Biden informs host Chris Wallace that his campaign has raised roughly $3 million in this cycle.

BIDEN: Well, I think we're going to talk about somewhere around $3 million for this quarter. I think we're on track to be able to raise what we need, which we think is $20 million to $25 million to compete.

But, Chris, if this gets down to just straight money, then there's only going to be one, maybe two candidates in the race. But I don't believe that.

I believe as long as Iraq and foreign policy and these big issues are in play, that my having enough money to compete in Iowa will allow me to win the nomination.

I don't think it's going to be won by money.

Biden makes the best point for Iowa and New Hampshire remaining first in the nation as well as them holding their contests at least one full month ahead of any others: even those without money can play here. Wallace, of course, doesn't get it.

WALLACE: But, Senator, I mean, let's be realistic here. The estimates are that when the numbers do come out the next few days, that Senator Clinton may raise north of $25 million, maybe even north of $30 million. Obama north of $20 million.

Can you really honestly -- I mean, you're a realistic man. Can you compete at $3 million?

I think someone should have told Wallace that it is difficult to step on Biden's toes. After all, he's been around the block a few times and knows how to make a point.

BIDEN: ... I read Broder's article (note: subscription required) today, you probably saw it, saying that 90-plus percent of the punditry talk about the status of affairs for presidential campaigns at this stage is worthless.

This is worthless. If people think we're going to pick a nominee based on how much money they have rather than based on their ideas, I think they vastly underestimate the Democratic electorate in these primaries.

From there Wallace moved on and allowed Sen. Mitch McConnell to answer an ad by Americans United for Change without having an opposing viewpoint available.

This post has been two days coming and, until today, I wasn't sure exactly what I wanted to say.

Several years ago, three Iowa women met as a part of an online "mommy" group. While they didn't necessarily share the same political views and personal beliefs, they did have one key thing in common: a firm resolve that more women's voices, ideas and sensibilities were needed in public policy.

Two of the women had already experienced pregnancy loss and, unknown to us all at the time, another was about to join the horrible 'club.' These shared experiences - along with ungodly long email messages and marathon phone calls - formed a strong bond between the three. It is a bond which surpassed politics, parenting and religion. It didn't take long for the trio to discover that, in today's society, what they found is a very unique thing.

As we -- your three EE bloggers -- took stock of one another and our remarkable relationship, we did as women often do. We began to formulate a way to bring what we've found to others. Thus, this blog was born... but not without hesitation.

All three of us are women, but being a woman is not *all* we are. Many hats are required for our lives. As we planned to embark on this journey foremost in our minds was our commitment to our families. Next in line came our employees and our associations. Two of us were in positions, due to business, which made us extremely hesitant to 'go public' with our blog. The third, while also a business owner, wasn't nearly as concerned about that aspect as she was about her current political affiliations and commitments.

All of this brings us to the important announcement... EE will soon be two instead of three. We've known for several days one of our contributors -- our Western Iowa contributor -- might be relocating. While the relocation remains only a possibility, we regretfully accept her decision to no longer be a part of the blogging community. The rest of this post belongs to her alone. It is her story to tell.

I like to think I'm a strong woman. I like to think that I'm one of those women who, when confronted in the grocery store in front of the purple cabbage, will stand up for her beliefs. Matter of fact, a few weeks ago, I would have told you I was that kind of woman. Recent events have proved me wrong.

I knew I didn't want to 'out' myself as a blogger -- especially not a political blogger. I keep kids for a living and our family needs my income. I knew my daycare parents would not be forgiving of my interests in politics or whatnot. In most of their eyes there should be no 'whatnot' outside of our church congregation. "If you can't say it here in front of the eyes and ears of God, you best not be saying it."

As both Paige and Lynda have moved to become more public with their blogging, I've been holding them and EE back. I'm not ready and I'll never be ready. As the first sentence says, I didn't know until today exactly what I was going to do.

I don't know if you have been following the horrible happenings of Kathy Sierra, but the situation she finds herself a part of is one of my own worst fears. I have feared letting people know who is on the other end of the keyboard because I've been afraid of pulling my family into a situation to which there are no easy answers or solutions. It hasn't just been the scorn of my local people that has me worried, but the terror of the entire world knowing me and my beliefs on a personal level. I'm not ready to share as much as I'd need to share in order to continue here. I am an will only become more ineffective as time goes by.

Without a doubt Lynda and Paige are my best friends. I wish them and EE nothing but the best. I worry about them as they continue here without me, but I know they move forward with their eyes wide open. When I consider all that could be I have to be honest with them and with myself: Ultimately, it just isn't worth it.

Dennis Prouty, Director of the Iowa General Assembly Legislative Services Agency, has put forth a memo today which outlines the general fund receipts through March 31.

In the current fiscal year to date, total gross cash receipts increased $215.1 million (5.3 percent) compared to fiscal year 2006. The memo lists the major revenue sources contributing to the change as:

• Personal income tax
• Sales/Use tax
• Corporate tax
• Other taxes
• Other receipts

Revenue from person income tax in March totaled $235.3 million, an increase of $1.9 million (.8 percent) compared to March 2006.

Sales and use tax receipts were down 17.4 percent ($22.7 million) compared to March 2006. Receipts in the past month totaled $107.4 million.

Corporate tax receipts, however, were up $7.7 million (27.3 percent) compared to March of last year. The total for the past month was $35.9 million and these receipts have shown the strongest growth since Feb. 2003. In addition, in this fiscal year to date, corporate tax revenues have increased 36 percent.

Employment (non-farm) was reported at 1,490,200 for the month of February which is a 1.3 percent increase over February 2006. Currently, Iowa employment is 27,500 above its January 2001 peak of 1,478,700.

Finally, the Consumer Price Index through February 2007 was 202.499. That figure is 2.4 percent higher than one year ago. Core CPI increased .5 percent for February and the year-over-year change was 2.7 percent. (This figure has more than doubled -- from 1.2 percent to 2.7 percent -- since March 2004.)

Fair warning: Those in search of legislation and/or politics will want to skip this post.

This Thursday I get to travel to ISU and do something I've wanted to do for a very, very long time. I get to see -- close-up and in-person mind you -- Frank Warren as he presents the lecture PostSecret: Extraordinary Confessions from Ordinary Lives.

Warren began the PostSecret blog nearly three years ago as a community art project. He has since received over 50,000 secrets on decorated postcards. (The only rules are that it must be true and that it hasn't been shared previously.) The cards are scanned and put on the blog.

The postcards have been featured in many artistic forms, including a music video and Warren's books. A portion of the proceeds benefit 1-800-SUICIDE. It is anticipated that Warren will be sharing some never before seen postcards at Thursday's event.

For those who have never visited the blog, you might be shocked by your reaction to it. The thought of listening in on people's secrets sounds like a hoot at first, but then you actually do it and realize the absolute pain of so many people who walk beside us each and every day... such baggage being carried around.

Some of the art posted there hits home for me and I'll post the text of those here. (I'm going to refrain from posting those that hit *really* close to home.)

"I told my ex girlfriend that I didn't care any more. That she might as well jump off a bridge. --- And she did."

"I'm more worried about aging than I am about dying."

"I hate parents who have normal children and the perfect simple life that I wanted too!"

For those who like hearing people's secrets, but need something a little more... lighthearted... I suggest a visit to Social Moth. Maybe it's because of the art investment or perhaps even the postage investment on PostSecret as compared to the non-committed secret sharing on Social Moth, but items on Social Moth tend to be more everyday, random and off the wall. For instance:

"i left my vibrator at the hotel. i didn't want to call them to see if they had it in the lost-and-found. i'm sure they wouldn't have put it there anyway. i guess it's gone for good. man, i miss it."

"my eight year old little brother told me the other day that when he grows up he's going to have 'penis hairs'"

"Yesterday, I threw a granola bar at a homeless man off the Interstate because I couldn't slow down. I thought he would be pissed because it came so close to hitting him; but instead, he looked up, smiled and gave me a thumbs up."

In many ways, technology has brought us all closer together. With a few clicks I can tell you exactly what the weather's like in Hong Kong and maybe even find a web cam of a downtown street. There is no denying that technology has connected the peoples of the world. There is also no denying that technology hasn't been nearly as kind to individuals.

It use to be that I'd chat with other people around me while I waited in line. These days, I'm just as likely to pull out my BlackBerry and check email. I use to have friends who'd apologize for getting busy and not calling. Now they send me a status update on Facebook or leave me a comment on MySpace. I even have some younger family members who insist Twitter is the only way one should communicate.

If this was one of those nationally-known blogging sites, this would be the place where I'd call for a tech-free day. It would be a day where we'd all agree not to blog, not to turn on the BlackBerry, not to boot up the computer and would give the time we'd normally spend at a keyboard/keypad to a local charity. Of course, this is not one of those big blogs. At best I could convince maybe 100 people to take part in such a technology boycott. Of course, it would take us an additional four hours behind the monitor to plan such an absence. There'd be auto-responders to create, "I'm out boycotting" graphics to make and post, not to mention all those 'scheduled' tasks just so nothing would actually be missed.

So... the national technological boycott isn't the answer either. Maybe, for tomorrow, I'll make a point of not checking the BlackBerry when I'm in line. Maybe I'll return to the days of idle chit-chat with a complete stranger. Who knows, one conversation may be able to change someone's outlook on the day.

As for the rest of you, I'll hopefully see a few faces at the ISU lecture.

If you haven't decided what you'll be blogging about this weekend, Blue Gal has a blogswarm idea for you: Blog Against Theocracy.

We'll be doing our part to ensure the separation of church and state and (maybe) to show some love we've been neglecting. (It'll make more sense when you read the post.)

We feel beholden to add that Tengrain at Mock, Paper, Scissors designed the logo which appears here and that Liz of I Speak of Dreams has designed several others. Also, if you need more info on what this is all about, check out either the First Freedom First site or video.

Hope to see many of our favorite bloggers participating this weekend, April 6-8.

blog against theocracy

You might have noticed the article in today's Des Moines Register. It features two key Democratic activists discussing the first quarter fundraising estimates by the Presidential hopefuls.

The two interviewees:

• Rob Tully -- Des Moines lawyer and former member of the Democratic State Central Committee (of which he is also a former chairman); current (as well as former) number one for Sen. John Edwards
  

  Des Moines lawyer Rob Tully, who backs former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, said the Democratic race will likely come down to three candidates - Obama, Edwards and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

• Jeff Link -- Des Moines Democratic stragetist; owner of consulting and 'opposition research' firm Link Strategies; former manager of Sen. Tom Harkin's 1996 and 2002 campaigns (although he was forced to resign in 2002 following the unauthorized taping of then Rep. Greg Ganske); former Iowa director for VP Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000; and former Iowa Director for America Coming Together (now defunct).
  

  Democratic strategist Jeff Link agreed that the money raised by the top candidates means the real field of candidates is small.

We are not ignoring the fact that there is a third strategist - Joe Shanahan (former press secretary for former Gov. Tom Vilsack) - quoted in the article. The way we see it Shanahan is the only one who appears to be promoting Iowa. (Yes, Sen. Gronstal, we noticed!)

The article, immediately inflammatory because of its tilted headline, begins by stating "none [of the key Iowa political strategists] said the [first quarter fundraising] money would thin the field of Democratic candidates." Next follows Shanahan who states the truth: "It's April and there is plenty of time for someone to stumble."

The rest of the article, written by the Associated Press (which most definitely should know better), goes about the task of dismantling and dismembering the premise proposed in those first paragraphs.

The author notes Tully is an Edwards supporter, but goes ahead and uses his quotes in the article which, of course, play up his chosen candidate. If there is a silver lining, the AP did manage not to place the 'former IDP chair' label next to Tully's quote.

After a few comments about Obama and his crowd sizes, Link is called upon to also bemoan the loss of candidates who didn't manage to raise enough money to be competitive.

If Link and Tully had felt the need to speak out against the DNC calendar which placed four states at the beginning of the contest and created the mess now being referred to as Primary Super Tuesday, we'd be applauding them here. As it stands, however, the two appear to be taking a stance against their home state and that's something to which we take exception.

In Jan. 2000, Rob Tully, then chair of the IDP, was asked why Iowa should retain its first in the nation status. He replied:

Well, as Democratic chair, of course the answer is yes. There's a reason why Iowa has been first in the past, and I know it's difficult for a lot of people around the country to understand why such a small Midwestern state with a small minority population should be given this enormous status of going first. But there's a reason why both Iowa and New Hampshire have gone first over the last 30 years. Iowa is not a "primary" state, such as New Hampshire. This is not a popular vote that takes place in Iowa. This is a vote by party activists to test a candidate's strength and viability for its party nomination. Prior to the early '60s, candidates were chosen in smoke-filled back rooms, and the party, especially here in Iowa, moved to a caucus system that allowed the choice to be debated and chosen in the open forum of the Democratic Party here. This is about party activists who are individuals who read the papers, listen on Sunday morning to all the policy wonk shows, and work every day as committee people and volunteers in the Democratic Party. It is an acknowledgement by the national party that party regulars should have an early voice in the selection process for the presidential nominee from the party. We are very proud and take our job seriously. I have said many times as I travel around the state: to be a member of the Democratic Party is not a right or a privilege, but a responsibility. And I think we take that responsibility to heart, and I'm very proud of the Democrats here in Iowa.

While it is true that Link has never touted his belief about Iowa's First in the Nation (at least not to the extent that it can be located on the web), the fact remains that many Iowa politicos, himself included, are the product of Iowa's First in the Nation. For example, how many times do you think David Yepsen would be called into the national spotlight if it wasn't for the Iowa caucus? Those who have benefited and who continue to benefit from our state's good fortune should be the first in line to protect and defend our status.

Money might be able to buy a primary win in California or Florida, but it has never been able to buy a caucus night victory in Iowa. For these two individuals to make comments to the national media indicating that somehow money makes such a huge difference in our state caucuses shows how out of touch they both are with everyday Iowans. It is an affront to the individuals who continue to campaign here (and boost our economy) and a direct slap in the face to every Iowan who is still trying to determine which candidate has earned his or her support.

Earlier today I had considered writing an article about the controversy around Gov. Chet Culver's appointees to the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission. I had written a quick brief about the proposed appointments with the intention of coming back. Unfortunately, I never did.

The really good news is that Brian Depew over at The Rural Populist has more insights than I and does a great job of laying down the issues. While I'm sure I could string a few sentences together about this, he does it much, much better than I ever could because he has a personal connection. Great job, Brian!

Jim Addison over at Wizbang Politics has the skinny on Rudy Giuliani and his views on abortion.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to learn if the wedge-issue politics practiced by the Republicans over the past few years have true traction or if they are only talking point musing points.

Being Green In Iowa has all the details on the upcoming Dr. James Zogby visit to Cedar Rapids. There will be a public lecture on Saturday, April 14, at 7 p.m. at the Islamic Center. (Dinner catered by Aladdin Restaurant - YUM!)

Psst... not ignoring you, Jerry! Soon, very soon...

Iowa's veteran U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley may think the GOP Presidential field is wide open, but, when it comes to the left side of the aisle, his money's on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In Grassley's opinion, it is no great surprise that Clinton recently won the high-profile endorsements of former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro...

"She doesn't need a big boost," he says. "She's the frontrunner; she's going to continue to be the frontrunner. She's going to get the nomination, and so one of the smartest political moves that a political leader of Iowa could do is to back her."

When asked by a reporter whether he was confident Clinton would win the nomination, the Iowa Republican responded, "How are you going to stop her?"

Grassley said he expects to endorse a GOP candidate this fall, but we're just tickled pink he'd choose to endorse Clinton now. (He does so while noting how even pro-choice Giuliani would be better to social conservatives than Hillary.)

One can always count on the American Family News Network for all the latest hard-hitting news on the Presidential hopefuls... or at least a good laugh along the way.

Have you heard who is going to be headlining First Amendment Day (Note: PDF Document) at Iowa State University this year? First Lady of the Press H-E-L-E-N T-H-O-M-A-S!

Thomas, a former UPI journalist and current columnist for Hearst Newspapers, has covered every president since JFK. She is scheduled to speak on Thursday, April 19, at 8 p.m. in the Great Hall (ISU Memorial Union).

The festivities kick off that morning with an 8 a.m. freedom march from the Ames City Hall to Beardshear Hall on campus.The walk is followed by "Feast on the First Amendment," which includes debates, political cartoons, organization booths, music and food.

Other activities include panel discussions on both the future of talk radio (Friday, 1:30 p.m.) and "Journalists in Jeopardy" (Thursday, 2 p.m.); and a comedy and political satire show (Friday, 11 p.m.).

Here's the best part: All events are free and open to the general public. Get all the latest info by visiting the First Amendment Day web site.

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former U.S. Senator and Presidential hopeful John Edwards, will be a special guest on the Oprah Winfrey Show this afternoon. She will appear via satellite from Davenport.

Elizabeth admits she's "surprised and also a little disappointed" in the reactions some people have had to her announcement about the cancer returning. "People who had fought cancer in their own families were more likely…I found them almost universally likely to support the decision we've made. People who have faced it themselves support it," Elizabeth says. "And what bothers me about the judgment by people who haven't faced it is that they're not just saying something negative about us. We're used to that. … But they're also saying it to the families who decide they're going to stay in their jobs, they're going to continue teaching or continue painting or continue whatever their life work is, the thing that helps define who they are."

In Iowa the show airs:

• KCRG/Channel 9 - 4 p.m. (Cedar Rapids)
• KWQC/Channel 6 - 3 p.m. (Davenport)
• KCCI/Channel 8 - 4 p.m. (Des Moines)
• KCAU/Channel 9 - 4 p.m. (Sioux City)

“Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.”
~ Joseph Campbell

I believe most Americans walk through life and give little thought to the separation of religion and state. Outside of immigrants, I doubt there are many living the U.S. now who have personal experience with a religious-based government or theocracy in general.

Roughly a year ago, however, members of a subcommittee in the Missouri House of Representatives passed a resolution which named Christianity the state's official 'majority' religion. It did not protect minority religions, but did "protect the majority's right to express religious beliefs."

The resolution, which passed and now stands as a part of Missouri's history, reads as follows (as printed in the St. Louis Post Dispatch):

While many groups expressed their displeasure and words of caution, the act against the U.S. Constitution was mostly swept under the rug since there was no call to action built into the resolution.

“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
~ Sinclair Lewis

A few months later and a few states down, a well-known woman running for the U.S. Senate (as well as serving in the House) in Florida was quoted in the Florida Baptist Witness as bringing a direct message from God. Katherine Harris stated it is God's will that we "have the faithful in government." She added that separating religion and government is "so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women, we're going to have a nation of secular laws. That's not what our founding fathers intended and that's [sic] certainly isn't what God intended."

In that same interview Harris stated the principle of the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told" to discourage religious people from running from office.

While the original articles dealing with Harris have been removed from the Orlando Sentinel site, you can still get information on this incident by visiting Raw Story and The Carpetbagger Report.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
~ Steven Weinberg

Religion has been a motivator for both good and evil in society. Religion has often been a primary force behind the worst humanity has seen as well as a beam of light as humanity moves away from the worst.

It has been, and continues to be, at both ends of the spectrum.

For that reason alone -- the fact that religion can prompt the most profound dedication to others as well as bring about the most loathsome and atrocious acts against others -- religion must remain separate from any government which is to be of, by and for the people.

“The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
~ Georgia Harkness

So, as firmly as I believe most Americans walk through life mostly unaware of their good fortunate when it comes to the separation of religion and government, I also believe the loss of that separation -- whether to the immediate benefit of your or my personal belief system -- would result in the long-term loss of our society, culture and nation.

“The problem with writing about religion is that you run the risk of offending sincerely religious people, and then they come after you with machetes.”
~ Dave Barry

I believe the Bush Administration has weakened (if not completely punctured) the thin wall separating church (religion) and state (government) in our country and, by doing so, has placed the very fabric of our nation at risk.

Key to this administration's transformation has been the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program. Under this program, tax dollars collected from citizens like you an me, are funneled into religious philanthropic pursuits. How much of our tax money? No one knows for sure, including former FBCI Director Jim Towey.

In September 2003, the program was expanded (by $28 billion) to allow religious groups accepting taxpayer monies to proselytize and practice discriminatory hiring practices.

Much more information on FBCI can be found by visiting The Roundtable on Religion & Social Welfare Policy.

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
~ Thomas Jefferson

Not only does the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.") protect the government from undue influence of religion, but it protects religions as well as private decision-making from undue influence of government.

This is what many seem to be forgetting. The Constitution and our Founding Fathers didn't just protect government from religion, they protected religion from government. They did so as a result of their own personal experiences with both religion and government and from first-hand viewing of what happens when the two mix.

Blog Against Theocracy

I've started two other posts for the EE this morning, but just can't seem to get them finished. Like most the nation, I've been watching the goings on between the Rutgers basketball team and media personality Don Imus. Since I typically believe giving voice to such incidents does more to provide publicity for the person who made the stupid statement than it does for the cause, I had decided not to write anything.

That changed when I watched the Rutgers news conference this morning.

For those of you who missed it (and it continues as I type), here's a very brief summary: "The comments put a stain on what should have been a great moment for all of us, but more than that it is a symptom of a larger problem which attacks women, in general, in society."

There were two details out of this press conference which gave me pause. In order to fully understand what happened in my own head this morning, I need to explain that I'm the one who is typically hopping at the top of the stands and screaming, "That isn't right!" As has been evidenced right here in the EE posts and comments, many times I'm the one discovering offensive material when others see nothing wrong.

While I can point to Imus' own track record of questionable speech as well as being desensitized by media which doesn't often realize sexist and racist comments, the bottom line is that I did not stand up as I should have this time around. I didn't do my part and I'm sincerely sorry for that.

During the press conference Coach Vivian Stringer noted many people (like me) were prepared to wipe the comments aside because Imus is known for making such comments against professionals and politicians. She then turned her eyes toward the 10 young women to her left and said, "But these aren't professionals or politicians." She's right.

(Quick historical note here: Charlene Vivian Stringer holds the distinction of being the only coach in NCAA history to lead three different women's programs to the NCAA Final Four -- Rutgers University in 2000 and 2007, University of Iowa in 1993, and Cheyney University in 1982.)

I even want to take it a step further and say that we should be refusing to allow our media "professionals" to personally attack anyone on the basis of what they look like or what reproductive organs they possess. If members of the media want to attack Rosie O'Donnell, they should be smart enough and well-versed enough to do so without bringing Rosie's body shape into the discussion. If the media wants to attack Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, they should be attacking on the basis of something more than her breasts.

Another tangent - one that I wish I had more time to explore right now - is how I found the questions to the team members to be rather offensive. Several times it almost seemed as if those in the audience (the journalists and so-forth) wanted the young women on the basketball team to solve every ill in society.

"What programming should MSNBC use while Imus is on suspension?" asked one reporter. Another person asked what organizations should tell young people about the incident.

As much as anyone else, I'd love for us to discover one person so wise as to become an oracle for society. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way and to ask these 10 young women who are still working out the paths of their own lives to serve as an almighty moral compass for our nation is unfair (and perhaps sheds more light on the subject of sexism and racism in our country than we care to admit).

My final thought here is for Essence Carson and all the women of the Rutgers basketball team: I would be so thankful and proud if my daughters grew up to have your sense of self and were able to handle themselves so well under such extreme conditions. Our planet is a better place because all of you are in it. Chin up -- and congratulations.

While surfing the tubes of the Internets, I happened across the blog of Iowa Republican Party official Ted Sporer and a post about what he describes as a "window" to the "inside" of Elizabeth Edwards and a "view of the true soul of the Democrat." Well, with such a lead-in as that you can't blame me for reading on.

Sporer links to a single news article from the Associated Press. As you might have guessed, I have a couple of problems with the article in question.

1. The article twice uses the phrase "rabid, rabid Republican" with quotations, but never attributes the phrase to anyone. (Did an audience member say it? Did Edwards say it? Did the journalist think it?)
2. Likewise, in the sixth paragraph, the author provides us with the word "slummy" in quotations and in relation to the neighbor's property. Once again this statement is not directly attributed to anyone. (It, like the other above, is loosely linked to Edwards - i.e., "Edwards views..")
3. There is no overall context. The reader has absolutely no idea where these remarks were made or to whom they were made. The photo on the page shows Edwards at a Town Hall meeting in Davenport on April 4, but the slugline on the article is dated today.

On the surface, it might seem that Sporer wants to bridge the great political divide and find some common ground away from all the bickering. Appearances can be deceiving. Sporer, arguably one of the most outspoken and controversial partisan pundits in the state of Iowa, has not pulled up his roots and remains firmly in character.

Sporer uses this article, with all of its journalistic flaws, as some sort of twisted defense for his own extreme partisan views. Further, he pushes those reading his post to "internalize" the conflict and use it as self-compass of approval for their own divisive politics.

It comes as no great surprise to anyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the past 100 years that American politics can be nasty. But to have a person who has himself used ugly politics to benefit his chosen party, point to a journalist's lack-luster and questionable job on the spouse of a Democratic presidential hopeful as proof of political nastiness against him and his noble ideals is the height of irony... and just flat out hysterical.

Cry me a river, Ted.

If your loved one was terminally ill, who would you want making the decision of when (and if) life-saving measures are discontinued? Most of us, I believe, would want our loved one to make such decisions for his or herself. If that loved one could not make such decisions; however, who should?

Tomorrow in Texas, a mother will head into court in a final attempt to keep her terminally ill 17-month-old son on life support. If a judge refuses to hear her case and/or rules against her, hospital staff will remove his ventilator.

A 1999 Texas law signed by then Governor George W. Bush allows a hospital to make decisions in "medically futile" cases. Just over two years ago, the law faced its first battle and it withstood, allowing a Houston hospital to end the life of an infant boy, Sun Hudson, against his mother's wishes.

One of the co-drafters of the law as well as the 2003 expansion (to include decisions against the wishes of parents of minors) was the National Right to Life Committee. According to one of the attorneys who co-drafted this legislation, witnesses who testified in support of the bill included representatives of NRL, Texas Right To Life and the Hemlock Society.

Although I fail to find enough humor in the turn of events to label them as ironic, Texas Right to Life and other primarily pro-life groups are working against the law they once supported. Matter-of-fact, according to the BBC, Texas Right to Life has been involved in more than 24 such cases in the last 18 months.

If there was ever a case to be made for government staying out of people's private lives, especially in the realm of healthcare decisions, this is it. Our government should never be allowed to force a family to flip the switch or not to flip the switch. I would also go as far as to say the government has absolutely no business making an inquiry as to the existence of a switch.

In 1995 I was pregnant with my second child when the world, at least as I knew it to be, ended. My child, a son, was terminally ill. Due to several severe neural tube defects including anencephally, there was no chance of survival. My initial response was to call the doctor a liar and run from doctor to doctor in search of a different diagnosis. Surely all of this could be fixed if I could just find the right doctor, right?

There are some things which cannot be fixed and, I soon learned, this was one of them. A few short weeks after learning my child would die due to his conditions, insult was added to injury. Not only would my child die, it was suspected he'd never make it to term. This was due to both his existing defects and an over-abundance of amniotic fluid.

After everything was discussed and all the possible outcomes weighed, my husband and I decided to end the pregnancy. If our son was to die pre-term, it was likely my body would not automatically move into labor and there were significant risks to both our reproductive future and my health. We already understood we would live without this child. Could we justify the risk of our then two-year-old daughter living without her mother?

Once our family made its decision, I expected the process to move quickly. That was not the case and -- due to many events I will not detail here -- it was several weeks later before I walked into a doctor's office to begin the process of turning off life support. What I didn't know at that moment was that our son had died and infection had already begun. (As a side note, those of you who have argued that D and X procedures (aka the non-medical term of partial birth abortion) for medical reasons are non-existent because you've never known a woman who had one. Well, I've just ruined future use of that statistic for you.)

Four years prior to our son's death, I sat in a hospital and watched my mother in her final few hours of life. Knowing she had fought a difficult battle with cancer and that she did not want any medical intervention when her body began to shut down, our family agreed to let her go.

Turning off of life support (whether that life support is a mechanical ventilator or a woman's womb) is something which should never be regulated by government. The choice belongs with the family.

My prayers will be with the mother as she goes before a judge tomorrow. Her son - just like all of us - is going to die. Her family - just like all of our families - doesn't need the government adding insult to injury.

Crazy busy today, but wanted to pass along this press release from Sen. Tom Harkin that landed in my inbox. Happy hump day, everyone!

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today introduced the Fair Pay Act of 2007 to address the wage gap for jobs of equal value among men and women. This legislation would address the historic pattern of undervaluing and underpaying so-called “women’s” jobs. For example, social workers (a female-dominated field) are paid less than probation officers (a male-dominated field) even though both jobs require similar levels of skill, effort, and responsibility. The Fair Pay Act says that where working conditions are similar, wages should also be similar.

“In nearly 10 million American households, the mother is the only breadwinner. These families struggle to pay the rent or make mortgage payments, buy the groceries, cover the medical bills and save for a child’s education,” Harkin said. “We simply must do something about the longtime pattern of wage discrimination. We can start closing the pay gap right now by simply paying women fairly.”

More than 40 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, women’s wages still lag behind their male counterparts’ wages – women make only 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. The average woman loses an estimated $700,000 over her lifetime due to unequal pay practices. The average African-American woman earns 67 cents for every dollar that a white male earns and Latino women receive only 56 cents per dollar earned by white men.

On April 24th this year, U.S. women will finally reach the earnings mark that their male counterparts achieved by December 31st of last year. The Fair Pay Act of 2007 would:

• Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, race or national origin.
• Require employers to provide equal pay for jobs that are comparable in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.
• Apply to each company individually and prohibit companies from reducing other employees’ wages to achieve pay equity.
• Require public disclosure of employer job categories and their pay scales, without requiring specific information on individual employees.
• Allow payment of different wages under a seniority system, merit system, or system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production.
• Allow employees who allege discrimination in wage-setting based on sex, race or national origin to either file a complaint with the EEOC or go to court.

Right now, women who suspect pay discrimination must file a lawsuit and go into a drawn out legal discovery process to find out whether they make less than the man beside them. With pay statistics readily available, this expensive process could be avoided. The number of lawsuits would surely go down if employees could see up front that they were being treated fairly.

Harkin also co-sponsored the Paycheck Fairness Act which would take critical steps to empower women to negotiate for equal pay, create strong incentives for employers to obey current laws, and strengthen federal outreach and enforcement efforts.

The following Senators co-sponsored the Fair Pay Act of 2007: Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), John Kerry (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).