evolution

State Senators Derek Schmidt (S-15, R-Independence, the Senate Majority Leader) and Dwayne Umbarger (S-14, R-Thayer) have introduced a bill for the 2007 session which will expand the public offender registry list to include those convicted of charges related to production of methamphetamine, which is a problem in Kansas.

There’s no bill number yet, and the 2007 prefile has not yet been made publicly available, so here’s an online Wichita Eaglestory with the details.

The list includes mostly sex offenders and also the worst violent felons.

My problem with things like this is: where do they stop? If we include meth makers on the list, why don’t we include crackheads? And if we include crackheads, why not heroin pushers or pot dealers? How about people who smoke in a Lawrence bar?

In other words (and I’m trying to avoid invoking the “slippery slope” here, which I guess I’ve just done), I don’t like the government to get in the habit of making lists of people — even criminals. I can see the utility in having a sex offender registry, mostly because of the nature of sex crimes. However, I think that these lists can be carried too far.

I know someone who used to be associated with the state bureau responsible for cleaning up after busted meth labs — and that group has enough stories to have an effect on meth use (and hence production) by releasing one per day about the idiots they have encountered. I won’t repeat them here, because I don’t want to identify my friend, but suffice it to say that meth must burn up the brain cells pretty quickly.

Wichita (ex-)pastors Joe Wright and Terry Fox are shutting down their radio show Answering the Call, which aired on many Midwestern stations as well as the “Christian talk” channel on Sirius satellite radio.

It seems that the show cost $10,000 per month to keep on the air, and that they didn’t want to pass the plate any more. Fox and Wright will pay what they owe themselves:

“People seem to enjoy” the show, he said, “but for some reason, they don’t want to pay.”

After Sunday’s show, Wright said he and Fox reviewed the finances and found they were in the familiar place of being behind.

“I told Terry, ‘Let’s just pull the plug on it,’ ” Wright said.

The amount they owe is “not a lot,” Fox said, and they plan to cover it.

Well, boys, your Sirius audience is already paying for it.

I don’t think that’s all there is to it, however. Later in the piece comes this:

Earlier this month, Immanuel released a statement that said Fox had used money from a church fund to support the radio program, a factor that church leaders said led to his resignation. The church did not say how much money was used.

Fox acknowledged he used mission funds for the radio show but said he had the authority to do so as senior pastor. He also said other church leaders knew of it and did not question him about it or indicate it was a problem.

Earlier in the Foxmania, there was a lot of speculation and unconfirmed rumor flying around that there was extramarital sex involved in Fox’s departure from Kansas’s largest church — and one of the state’s biggest political venues, at least under Fox — but I ultimately came to believe that it was not the case. I suppose it yet may have been, but few things end relationships of all kinds faster than a good old misappropriation of funds. The apologists and attack dogs would have come out in force after any Jim Bakker-style tearful “I have sinned with another woman” speech. The money situation is the more plausible explanation for Fox’s sudden departure.

In fact, I wouldn’t even read it. Dustin Diamond — brother of Beastie Boy Mike and son of legendary singer Neil, as well as a starring role on the sitcom Saved By the Bell appears in (shudder) a porno:

Everyone who remembers Diamond as a lovable putz is in for a shock once they see a 40-minute video in which he engages in a kinky three-way with two women, sources tell us.

We can’t get too graphic here, but word is that the action includes some bodily functions and an act known as a “Dirty Sanchez.”

Phoenix-based agent David Hans Schmidt, who has brokered some of Hollywood’s biggest celebrity-skin deals, confirms that he’s acquired the rights to a tape featuring Diamond.

“Just when you think you have seen everything in this business,” he tells us, “mankind has raised the bar another notch. Or lowered it.”

I wish I could say that is the most disgusting thing I’ve read on the Internet. Unfortunately, I’ve been a Web site operator/surfer for ten years, and this doesn’t crack my top twenty.

UPDATE: Now that I’ve written it, I don’t even want to read it. So I don’t blame you for scrolling.

How very… Christian:

LAWRENCE, Kan. - A judge who struck down a Dover, Penn., school board’s decision to teach intelligent design in public schools said he was stunned by the reaction, which included death threats and a week of protection from federal marshals.

Pennsylvania U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III told an audience in Lawrence Tuesday that the case illustrated why judges must issue rulings free of political whims or hopes of receiving a favor.

In a 139-page decision last year, Jones ruled that the Dover school board intended to promote religion when it instituted a policy requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. He ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

“And if you would have told me when I got on the bench four years ago that I would have death threats in a case like this as opposed to, for example, a crack cocaine case where I mete out a heavy sentence, I would have told you that you were crazy,” he said. “But I did. And that’s a sad statement.”

Jones then says something that I think more people need to see when they consider some of the more politically-motivated rulings of the last few years:

He said much of the criticism showed a lack of understanding about the role of judges, who he said should rule based on the Constitution and legal precedence - not on personal whims or political favors.

Funny how a lot of people who call themselves “federalists” freak out when a judge finds contrary to one of their pet causes. One expects it from the “living constitution” clowns, but having it come from ones who call themselves “conservatives” makes me take every charge of “judicial activism” less seriously.

Judge Jones was at KU this past Tuesday. If someone could point me to a transcript or recording of his talk, I’d appreciate it.

CORRECTION: Link fixed. See comments.

UPDATE: Pharyngulanche. Who’d have ever thought.

I don’t eat trans fats. I refuse to buy items that contain them. I’m the dope blocking up the aisle in Hy-Vee, reading the labels of every thing I buy. I thought that’s what we were supposed to do.

It appears that’s not good enough. Mark my words — barring a massive overhaul of the city commission, this or some other ridiculous intrusion into privacy in the name of “public health” will be tried in Lawrence:

Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.

“Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable,” said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city’s chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.

He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.

Don’t tell David Schauner.

[inherited from: Ace of Spades.]

UPDATE: This seems like a good time to bitch about the fact that I can’t grill trans-fat free beef on my apartment’s ground-floor deck.

I thought posting Social Security Numbers instead of names along with grades was illegal in this state. I was a GTA at K-State from 2001-2003 (in the early days of evolution), and I was told not to do it.

It turns out that it was simply a university policy not to do so — K-State has been scaling back the use of SSNs for identification for years, and I think it’s a good thing.

There are some public grade schools in Kansas which still use them:

North High senior Brendon May has learned enough about identity theft to know it’s not smart to give anyone access to your Social Security number.

So he doesn’t like that some of his teachers use his Social Security number when posting his grades anonymously.

May is among about 13,600 of the district’s nearly 49,000 students whose student ID is the same as their Social Security number.

The lists of grades don’t include names, but May thinks it wouldn’t be that hard to figure out which number belongs to which student. He said he’s heard other students “make smart comments” about stealing the lists.

Why a teacher needs to know a student’s Social Security Number at all is beyond me.

Since I have a big mouth, even after 1,562 days of mouthing off on this blog, I’m going to insert myself into a three-way on the nature of journalism and of blogging.

First, Dan of Gone Mild, which frankly hadn’t floated my boat until this post:

I am not a journalist. I admire journalists and appreciate their work - and get angry when they do it poorly. Their insistence on getting to primary facts and checking them out goes miles beyond what I and most bloggers do most of the time, which is to find something on the internet and run with it if it sounds right.

Bloggers who take themselves seriously and consider themselves “citizen journalists” need a reality check. Unless you’re doing the ground level development of sources and documentation, you are playing at journalism. The phone call I received yesterday was a friendly reminder that real journalists work on an entirely different level.

Second is Tony, a long-time supporter of the big e along with a lot of area bloggers:

But the notion that there is a difference between the written word in one arena vs. any other is really just [an] excuse to stop thinking, to stop being critical. I’ve read tons of excellent local blog posts that have provided more valuable first hand information than could ever be provided by our daily paper. And let’s not forget that there is only one major daily paper in this town [The Kansas City Star -- ed.] that would love everyone to think they have a monopoly on facts as well as distribution, government sources and press releases.

The attitude that something has greater credibility because it was published by a corporate entity is the reason that so many people in this town are so poorly informed or don’t even pay much attention to the news at all.

Finally we have another friend of evolution, “emaw_kc”, in Dan’s comment section:

Sorry Dan, but I respectfully disagree. I think we should all strive to be as responsible as possible whether we’re journalists or not.

Is it possible to agree with all three of them and not be stark raving mad?

Dan is right. Most bloggers cannot — and should not — be considered true journalists. I certainly don’t consider myself one, despite my intent to participate in a “citizen journalism” forum put on by my local outlet, the World Company. Fully 95% of the time I use the words “citizen journalist” it’s as a joke. Blogging is a pretty egotistical exercise, and it’s pretty easy to get caught up in the heady rush of it all. Get a hundred unique visitors a day and a name-check in the local paper, and all of a sudden a blogger starts to think he’s somebody. The typical, hardworking, honest journalist in my local paper has put a lot more work into his stories then any of us middle-to-lower-tier bloggers have into most of our posts.

Tony is right. Drawing a paycheck from the local journalism outlet does not make one a journalist. There are enough partisan hacks — no matter your persuasion — who claim the mantle of “journalist” that make me cast a jaundiced eye toward the profession. (As I’ve said, the closer you get in the levels of journalism to your local community, the more likely you are to find mostly honest actors. I’ve also said that I believe those that are partisan tend to lean one way.) He’s also right in another sense: It falls to us — who are in most cases willing consumers of that media — to pay attention. Many of us don’t. The fact that most journalists put a lot of work and time into making sure their stories are based on verifiable facts does not preclude someone who is not a traditional journalist from doing the same.

“emaw_kc” is right — sort of. Bloggers should be responsible. Sure, a blogger could just post any old thing on his site; he could just toe the Party Line™ with every post — some do, and some of those blogs get a lot of traffic. “A lot of traffic” does not equal “taken seriously”, however. I don’t feel I owe it to anyone to be responsible, however; I try to be responsible because I think it’s right. Whatever traffic I get as a result will come and go.

The truth is, many honest journalists have probably worked their whole careers waiting for the day (well, maybe nothing that dramatic) when their readers pick apart their work, dissecting the information and looking at the facts for themselves, perhaps caring about their domains a little bit more today then they had yesterday. The personal nature of politics today makes it that much harder to determine fact from falsehood, and as Tony hinted at, has sent us scrambling for our comfort zones.

But, sometimes, the facts are uncomfortable.

And I’ll second something else Tony said: A little distrust here and there is not a bad thing.

I haven’t heard anything new. All I know so far is that I along with 24 other schmucks will pack ourselves into the Channel 6 studios every Monday night in October.

It will also mark the first time in about four and a half years of blogging that I meet another blogger who I hadn’t already known before blogging, and that would be Joel Mathis, who’ll be wearing the “journalist” cap at the CJA. (As a blogger, it seems he’s busy wearing the “douchebag” cap. Or lace panties. Whichever.)

Developing…

A federal judge in Kentucky has suspended that state’s law which prohibits protests of any kind within 100 yards of any military funeral or memorial event — which, as it happens, is nearly identical to Kansas’s own law:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A federal judge has temporarily suspended Kentucky’s law forbidding protests within 300 feet of military funerals and memorial services.

U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell said today that the law goes too far in limiting free speech. The law aimed at Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., which is known for its anti-gay protests, is too broad, the judge said in issuing an injunction.

“The zone is large enough that it would restrict communications intended for the general public on a matter completely unrelated to the funeral as well as messages targeted at funeral participants,” Caldwell wrote in a 37-page ruling issued in Frankfort.

Earlier this year, the Kentucky General Assembly passed the law prohibiting nearly all protests near military funerals.

Lili Lutgens, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, which filed the suit, said Caldwell’s ruling protects the First Amendment.

“We think Judge Caldwell reinforced the importance of freedom of expression,” Lutgens said. “We continue to support the commonwealth’s efforts to protect funerals, but we know it’s not necessary to violate the First Amendment to do that.”

Shirley Phelps-Roper, the attorney for and member of Westboro Baptist Church, which stages protests at military funerals, praised Caldwell’s ruling.

“I’m surprised, but I’m happy about it,” Phelps-Roper said.

Coming soon to a Kansas courtroom near you (well, Topeka — which is “near”, say, Garden City in the cosmic sense*). As I wrote, I don’t believe laws targeting individuals or small groups are effective or necessary, and this particular law is overbroad with great potential for abuse by authorities.

And it looks to me like Shirley Phelps-Roper is being groomed to take over the child-abusing, barbituate-gulping family business.

Pulling up next to high-school girls while listening to Great White doesn’t have the same effect in 2006 that it might have had in 1994, when I was eighteen.