Howie Hates Interracial Marriage and Women in Workforce

The worst writer (and that's saying a lot!) in Gordon Howie's Potemkin blog village, Brad Ford, sullies Election Day with a double dip of doofusry, exposing the true racism and sexism behind Gordon Howie's "conservative" agitation:

After all, isn’t the political “Iron Triangle”–government, education, media–really “owned” by the Left?  Does anyone think for a minute that Western Civilization, Christianity, and traditional values will fare well under liberals of any stripe?  Gay sex will prosper, racial blending will surge, a food-stamp mentality will flourish, and harassed women will be prominent in the consumer-driven workforce-but is that really progress? [emphasis in original; Brad Ford, "Right Must Work Harder Regardless of Who Wins," Right Side, November 6, 2012]

Good grief. I know Howie likes Mein Kampf. But wow: in one sentence, Ford says that interracial marriage and women in the workforce are both bad things.

I don't know who's funding Gordon Howie's little media fantasy game. But we need to find them, show them the racist, sexist garbage Howie is peddling, and ask them if that's really how they want their money spent. If they don't, then they can pull their funding, and Howie can pay his own way for his organization's White Man's agenda. And if they do, we can hold them accountable right along with Brad Ford and Gordon Howie for their retrograde racism and sexism.

Patricia Stricherz Makes History: First Female Legislator from Lake County

At some point, Patricia Stricherz may cease to amaze me. But not tonight.

My wife and I got to wondering when the last time was that Lake County elected a woman to the South Dakota Legislature.

That's a tricky question, and I welcome my fellow bloggers and commenters to contribute their research. For one thing, districts change, so we Lake County residents haven't always been in District 8. But a quick scan of the Legislature's archive reveals that Patricia Stricherz is the first woman from Lake County ever elected to the Legislature. Going all the way back to Charles B. Kennedy, who served two years in the Territorial Assembly, Lake County has produced 63 legislators, all male.

Now Stricherz moved from Moody County to the great rebellious part of Lake County known as Winfred just this summer, so we almost didn't get to claim her. Had she stayed in Moody, she'd have made history there, too: no lady legislators have ever had Moody County as their home address, according to the archive.

Now here's the stumper question: has Lake County ever been represented by a lady from another county in our district? Remember, districts change over time (and will again next year, as the Republicans recarve our fair state in an attempt to ensure their continued dominance at the polls), so figuring this one out will take a little historical review. No prize but praise and fame, but hey, South Dakota political trivia buffs: start searching!

Congress Passes Herseth Sandlin's Tribal Law and Order Act

Some honyocker over on my KELO blog says I never say anything nice about our Congressional candidates. La-tee-da...

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin got an important piece of legislation through Congress this week. Her Tribal Law and Order Act got amended into another bill, HR 725, on Indian arts and crafts, passed the Senate by unanimous consent, then passed the House yesterday 326–92.

What does the SHS's bill do? Let the Congresswoman explain:



Not bad. Amnesty International sees this bill as a huge step for Native women's rights, as it will clear away some of the legal bureaucracy that hinders investigations of rape and sexual assualt against Native women (86% of which crimes, says Amnesty International, are committed by non-Native men).

So who could be against strengthening prosecution of rape and assualt, improving interagency cooperation, and boosting recruitment and training of BIA/tribal cops? Only 92 House Republicans, including Minnesota's Michele Bachmann, for whom it must just be too hard to admit that sometimes government can and should act to solve problems.

Of course, Kristi Noem, SHS's GOP challenger and a Bachmann clone in many ways, wouldn't have voted against this legislation, would she? Since the primary, Noem has added a "Native American Issues" page, where she says, among other vagueries, "I am committed to working to ensure there is basic law and order in Native American communities."

Nice statement. Too bad Noem doesn't back it with a plan... like the legislation that Stephanie Herseth Sandlin just passed.

-------------------
Update 12:20 CDT: Read more!

1. Indian Country Today points out that the new law will require some tribes to spend more to get properly licenses attorneys and judges.
2. President Obama digs it.
3. So does the National Congress of American Indians: "This historic legislation is an opportunity for tribes and the federal government to work together to make our communities safer, and it supports the sovereignty of tribes to investigate and prosecute serious crimes on our lands."

Update 2010.07.24: Jon Hunter seems to think the Tribal Law and Order Act is a fairly good idea.

Rounds Signs Law Protecting Domestic Abuse Victims' Ability to Get Insurance

It's official: domestic abuse is no longer a pre-existing condition in South Dakota. Governor Mike Rounds signed HB 1189 into law on Monday, March 8... which also happened to be International Women's Day. Nice timing, Gov!

One Pro-Life Bill Before SD Legislature: Extend Medicaid to Pregnant Women!

Unless someone pulls a hoghouse on us, we might have made it: for the first time in years (Carmen, can you document this one?), the South Dakota Legislature will not take up a bill dealing with abortion. Thank you, dear friends in Pierre!

There is one piece of pro-life legislation, and I'm actually glad to see it. Senator Adelstein and Representative Moser are sponsoring Senate Bill 193, a bill to extend Medicaid eligbility to pregnant women. What could be more pro-life than a statewide free delivery policy?

The bill appropriates $1,350,000 in state funds and $2,517,086 in federal Medicaid dollars for the program. That's less than was spent campaigning for and against the 2006 abortion ban. Four million dollars, and we provide health care for every woman in the state to help her have a healthy baby.

Now that's the kind of policy that would truly make South Dakota the pro-life state.

James and Joyner Respond to Tebow: Women Know Best

As you savor this evening's misogynist bacchanal ("Yay, violence! Watch my boobs! Government should rule my tubes!"), take a moment to watch a couple of athletes speak up for respect for women:

House Commerce Agrees: Denying Battered Wives Health Insurance Wrong

House Bill 1189 passed its first legislative test yesterday. The South Dakota House Commerce Committee gave unanimous approval (way to go, Mitch!) to the measure, which would prohibit insurers from asking questions about domestic violence for the purpose of charging higher premiums or denying coverage. Aye voters included good conservatives Reps. Shantel Krebs and Kristen Conzet.

A certain conservative blogger keeps insisting HB 1189 is bad, unnecessary, and futile legislation. Why oh why aren't his conservative friends in Pierre listening?

HB 1189: Domestic Violence Is NOT a Pre-Existing Condition

Republicans should not listen to me on campaign finance report dates. But when it comes to the issue of insurers treating domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, a lot of Republicans are listening to the Madville Times instead of Dakota War College.

Last fall, we talked about how some health insurers will jack up premiums or even deny coverage for women who've been beaten by their husbands. South Dakota's Division of Insurance assured us that would never happen. Mr. Powers dropped by to back that claim and suggest no law was needed. On his own blog, he called legislation to prohibit using domestic abuse as grounds to deny health coverage needless government intervention and a waste of time.

Evidently, a bipartisan group of 31 legislators have decided Mr. Powers is wrong. HB 1189 outlaws discrimination based on domestic violence in life and health insurance policies. Among the legislators Mr. Powers will surely lambaste for "wasting time" on problems that don't exist:

• Republican State Rep. (and candidate for U.S. House) Dr. R. Blake Curd
• Republican State Senator Russell Olson
• Republican State Rep. and SD GOP vice chair Shantel Krebs
• Republican Representative Thomas Brunner (who usually spends all his time pushing crazy pro-gun laws)
  

Both my senator and Pat's, Senator Merchant from Brookings, are sponsoring this bill. So's my Rep. Fargen, who's really out in front of things for a freshman, and Pat's Rep. Pitts. So are a crowd of DWC's favorite Dem targets: Senators Heidepriem, Jerstad, Turbak Berry, and best of all, Kloucek.

Go ahead, Pat. Criticize this bill. Whip your supporters up with your silly jokes about Frank's legislative prowess and Scott's cranium.

I will simply say... Blake, Russ, Shantel, and Tom; Pam, Sandy, Nancy, Scott, and Frank; and the rest of you... thank you.

Assertive Women and Blogs: More of Both, Please!

If you're a regular blog reader, look at your subscription list. Whom do you read every week? And how many of those blogs are written by women?

I just checked my Google Reader: male authors outnumber females roughly 2 to 1.

The question of why women don't appear to participate in the blogosphere as much as men arose when Dr. Schaff and I appeared on South Dakota Public Radio a couple years ago. It continues to occur to me as I look at what I read in the South Dakota blogosphere, what's available to read, and what I see in my comment box: generally more guys than gals.

I've hypothesized that women just aren't as interested in what often feels like the verbal equivalent of marking trees (while mocking dead-tree journalism... mix that metaphor!).

But danah boyd, one my favorite smart bloggers (Joe Bartmann likes her, too!), suggests a sexual double standard may push women out of the often assertive push and shove of blog discourse:

Amidst the questions of women's assertiveness, we must also call into questions our interpretations of the messages they put forward. Cuz many women are immediately labeled "bitch" the moment they speak with the kind of assertiveness that would be considered average for men. And that double standard also sucks. If I'm honest with myself, I've definitely gone out of my way to look young and cute and fuzzy and lovable in order to avoid that label. And to smile even when I don't feel like smiling. Because, in many environments, if I look as serious as I feel, my message does not get across. Of course, this can also be a costly signal because plenty of other folks have dismissed me for being young. I've found that it's a sin to be young in academia while it's a sin to be a serious woman in the tech industry. Needless to say, my identity development is mighty confused [danah boyd, "whose voice do you hear? gender issues and success," apophenia, 2010.01.19].

boyd notes that she has always been assertive with her opinions, and has "never deflated them with "I may be wrong but I think...'" (the same German-Norwegian-Lutheran self-deprecation I tell my speech students to avoid). Everyone should aspire to boyd's confidence, but we need to make room for that confidence in civil discourse by not branding women as arrogant just for speaking the same way men do.

Read boyd, read the Clay Shirky article that got her thinking, then tell me—unapologetically—what you think.

Uterus = Pre-existing Condition: Health Insurers Discriminate Against Women

Hat tip to Joe Bartmann (sometimes I actually learn something from Twitter)!

While Dakota War College groans about Rep. Herseth Sandlin trying to take action to prevent problems that don't exist, let's take a look at a problem DWC will have an even harder time denying: health insurers treating womanhood itself as a pre-existing condition. An updated report from the National Women's Law Center finds that the individual health insurance market (insurance folks obtain themselves instead of through their employer's group coverag) commits rank discrimination against women.

In South Dakota, every major health insurance plan available in the individual market practices gender rating—i.e.,charging women higher premiums, just because they are women. 60% of those plans charge non-smoking women 4% to 18% more than they charge smoking men. In other words, South Dakota's health insurers view a uterus as less of a liability than cigarettes.

And South Dakota is supposedly a pro-life state. Yeah, right.

The NWLC report finds Montana is the only state so far with the wisdom and decency to ban gender-rating from any insurance plan. With good health insurance so vital to economic stability, we should follow Montana's lead and end this discrimination against women.

Love to Sibby: President Obama Protects Gang Rapists, Just Like Thune

No problem, Sibby...

President Barack Hussein Obama is as guilty as Senator John Thune of protecting gang rapists. The Pentagon supported the position of 30 Republican Senators in opposing the Franken amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would deny federal contracts to companies that try forcing employees to sign contracts surrendering their legal right to take their employer to court for workplace abuse like the gang rape and imprisonment Jamie Leigh Jones says she experienced at the hands of her Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad in 2005.

The Department of Defense gave this reason for opposing the amendment:

“The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract,” reads the DoD note. “It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse” [Araminta Wordsworth, "Thirty Senators and the Jamie Leigh Jones Rape Case," National Post, 2009.10.21]

Now I might split hairs a little, noting that DoD's reasoning is different from that of Senator Thune and his free-market fundamentalist colleagues. The Obama Administration dances in technicalities but then grants that it might be better to ban forced arbitration in all contracts—that's an idea worth considering!

Senator Thune, however, frets over removing arbitration as a "tool available for labor and management to use when it comes to labor agreements..." except, of course, when labor might benefit from using that tool. As Think Progress points out, Thune's excuse on his Franken Amendment vote is all hypocrisy:

While Thune is committed to the principle that corporations have the right to use binding arbitration to muzzle victims of rape, he has long argued against the use of arbitrators in regards to reforming how unions sign labor contracts. In fact, Thune has fashioned himself a chief opponent of the Employee Free Choice Act simply because of arbitration. Arbitration is a part of EFCA because, all too often, when employees vote to form a union, they still can’t get a first contract due to their employer’s delay tactics. However, Thune has argued that the most “egregious” provision of EFCA is arbitration. Arbitration to help unions form contracts with their employers, Thune argues, would “kill jobs” and hurt “every American business, both large and small” [Lee Fang, "Thune Offers Weak And Hypocritical Argument For Voting Against Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment," Think Progress, 2009.10.21].

President Obama deserves serious criticism for letting his Defense Department take the wrong side on the issue of federal defense contractors, arbitration, and protecting women. So does Senator Thune.

Thune Votes for Gang Rape; SF Media Gives Pass

Travis at Badlands Blue makes a good point: why is the South Dakota media giving Senator John Thune a pass on his vote for gang rape? Angie at Dakota Women opened the story for discussion in the South Dakota blogosphere two weeks ago, even beating Jon Stewart to the punch. Yet as far as I know, only one professional reporter in this state has seen fit to ask our Senator why he would vote against Senator Franken's amendment to prohibit federal money from going toward defense contractors who force their employees to give up their civil rights.

(Reminder of the Jon Stewart position: we'll bust ACORN for giving bad advice to a fake pimp, but we keep pumping millions of federal dollars to corporations whose employees commit gang rape?)

That one bright, shining exception: Kevin Woster (of course!) does good journalism and takes up the issue in a Sunday report in the Rapid City Journal discussing possible Dem challengers to Thune in 2010. (If you've read others, do let me know!)

But Thune's hometown rag, that Sioux Falls paper? Nothing. The Sioux Falls TV "news"? Nope, zip, nada.

Senator Thune puts the profits of Halliburton and other Republican money machines over the protection of women and the prosecution of gang rape, and no one making money for reporting news—at least no one on this side of the river—thinks it might be worth asking the Senator to clarify his position?

As Travis notes, so much for the "Liberal Media." If you want liberal media in South Dakota, you have to do it yourself.

p.s.: Gee, maybe the new Shawn & Mary Show on KSFY ActionNews will bring a fresh start to the state of serious journalism in South Dakota. Ah, just like the good old days with the Chet and Dave Show—that is what they called it, right?

Victims of Domestic Abuse Need Health Insurance Reform

We've talked about the problem of insurance companies treating domestic abuse as a pre-existing condition and nine states, including South Dakota, not prohibiting such a nefarious practice. We've heard our state Division of Insurance assure us that no insurer is going to try excluding a domestic abuse victim from coverage, and that the state wouldn't let them if they tried.

But even if South Dakota had a specific state regulation against denying insurance due to domestic abuse, battered women would still face challenges in keeping their coverage:

Nancy Durborow, Health Projects Manager for the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, says she isn't surprised that state departments of insurance haven't heard about the problem. "They don't see it because they're not looking in the right places."

Insurers never directly ask about abuse status on an application, Durborow explains. Instead, they learn about a history of domestic abuse in a myriad of other ways. They might find evidence in an applicant's medical records, such as repeated visits to an emergency room or a doctor's notation about abuse. Insurance agents may find out during an interview with the applicant. Durborow has even heard of cases where insurance agents have visited local courthouses to search for Protection from Abuse Orders, which are public information. Insurers may also see reports of domestic disturbances in a local newspaper.

In most states, insurance companies are not required by law to explain their decisions, so a domestic violence victim may never know why coverage was denied....

Lisa James, director of health for the Family Violence Prevention Fund, a non-profit group that works to prevent domestic violence, says the fear of being denied coverage is almost as menacing as the actual denials. Some women have heard about this type of insurance discrimination, she says, "especially those who have spent time in shelters with others. Women are concerned about keeping their medical information confidential."

In addition, the possibility of being denied insurance could discourage women from leaving an abusive partner. And for a woman with children, she says, the risks are multiplied. "It could be a denial not only for her, but she might also be worried that if she leaves, she won't be able to take her children to the doctor."

But the deterrent effects of these insurance practices don't stop there - they also have been known to plague the doctor-patient relationship. According to James, women may not feel comfortable discussing their difficulties with medical providers for fear that the information could be used against them down the line. She also hears from doctors and nurses who are worried that they may be compromising their patients' ability to get insurance by asking about and documenting abuse [Jenny Gold, "Domestic Abuse Victims Struggle with Another Blow: Difficulty Getting Health Insurance," Kaiser Health News, 2009.10.07].

Representative Herseth Sandlin, take note: Passing health insurance reform this year solves this problem. The bill coming to the House floor tells insurers they can no longer use pre-existing conditions as a justification for denying coverage. Pass this bill, and then when a woman has a history of going to the hospital for broken bones, it won't matter whether it's because she has a bum for a husband or just a calcium deficiency: she can keep her insurance and not go broke.

Domestic Abuse and Health Insurance: Almost a Retraction

Three weeks ago, I reported a story making the rounds that South Dakota is one of nine states that allows health insurance companies to reject applications from victims of domestic abuse. "South Dakota women," I warned, "if your husband beats you, he may render you uninsurable."

Pat Powers, a former Pierre functionary in the state Division of Insurance, took expection to this contention, saying that even if there is no statute explicitly forbidding insurance companies from making such a heinous exclusion, he had never seen a single instance of an insurance company being that big of a jerk in South Dakota.

ThePostSD.com's Any Dunkle gets the same encouraging story from Division of Insurance assistant director Randy Moses:

True, Moses said, there is no law in South Dakota that expressly prohibits a company from denying coverage to abused women in the individual market. (State and federal government do not allow such a policy in the group coverage market.)

However, the reality is, any insurance company doing business in South Dakota must first gain state approval for any policy, including the actual language in its policies.

“No insurance company is going to ask (to make abuse a pre-existing condition), nor have I ever seen one that asks about it,” said Moses. “And, South Dakota is not going to approve such a policy exclusion” [Amy Dunkle, "The Huffington Post Misinterprets SD Insurance Regulations," ThePostSD.com, 2009.09.29]

Thank goodness such evil is not being done in our name. However, I'm not quite ready to say the original story was wrong. Pandagon and the SEIU are technically correct in their interpretation of existing South Dakota policy: there is none prohibiting an insurance company from seeking to exclude women who are victims of domestic abuse. Such women are protected by the good intentions of the good people we have working in Pierre, but not by a specific law.

Now

Put Lipstick on This Pig: Women Win More Pork in Congress

So this study makes Shantel Krebs the frontrunner against Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, right?

Are women more effective lawmakers than men?

That’s the preliminary conclusion of a study conducted by researchers at Stanford University and the University of Chicago, who say that on average, women in Congress introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors and bring home more money for their districts than their male counterparts do.

The study, which examined the performance of House members between 1984 and 2004, found that women delivered roughly 9 percent more discretionary spending for their districts than men [Erika Lovley, "Study: Women Lawmakers Outperform Men," Politico.com, 2009.09.15].

She can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan...

Wait—maybe I can look at this another way. Maybe this is what the fundamentalists had in mind when they said SHS should stay home and focus on her family. They weren't spewing misogyny; they were acknowledging that replacing SHS with a man would result in less federal funding for South Dakota projects... which is what every Republican wants... right?

Domestic Abuse = Pre-Existing Condition in South Dakota

A Kevin Bacon hat tip to my wife, who read this on Pandagon, who got this from the SEIU:

Loyal readers, you know I love South Dakota. That's why I live here. That's why my daughter will grow up here. But some news makes me want to take my state by the scruff of the neck and say "South Dakota! What on earth is wrong with you?!"

To wit: South Dakota is one of nine states that allows health insurance companies to reject applications from victims of domestic abuse. South Dakota women, if your husband beats you, he may render you uninsurable.

I can't sort out all the levels on which South Dakota's policy here is disgusting. Domestic abuse is all about power, usually some desperate, inadequate, pathetic man using fists and fear to force a woman into submission. Wifebeaters cut their victims off from avenues of social and financial support. Taking away a woman's ability to buy her own health insurance can cripple her financially and reinforce her dependence on her abuser. By making it possible for some brute to take away a woman's insurability with one drunken wallop, we, the state of South Dakota, become accomplices in domestic abuse.

Somewhere, some insurance company employee (any bets on whether it was a man?) had to reason out the following: "Gee, women whose husbands beat them might incur more medical costs. Women whose husbands beat them might reduce our profits. Therefore, we should not do business with women whose husbands beat them."

Our private health insurance system not only allows but embraces such appalling thinking. The state of South Dakota facilitates such evil, favoring profits over people. South Dakota considers wife-beating, like pregnancy, a pre-existing condition. I keep hearing we're a pro-life state, but our leaders keep providing evidence to the contrary.

We may not be able to legislate or educate every man into showing every woman the proper love and respect the Bible demands. But we can act to change an immoral system that perpetuates the powerlessness abusers inflict on their victims. Mitch, Gerry, Russ—fix this.

Domestic abuse is not a pre-existing condition. It is a crime for which the abuser, not the abused, should be punished. No man should be allowed to take away a woman's right, if not to receive health care, then to participate in the free market and buy with her own money the health insurance that is necessary to get care.

Wrath of God: Ordain Homosexuals and Women... or Else?

The ELCA has approved the ordination of practicing homosexuals. John Piper, a Baptist preacher in Minneapolis, is claiming that God sent that tornado through town this week to register His disapproval. That claim wins SD Humanist's disdain; Pastor Piper's meatheadery also elicits six very appropriate questions and objections from Pastor Shel Boese. [Update 12:50 CDT: Father Tim adds his theological perspective as well!]

Let's test Pastor Piper's claim against a South Dakota story:

Pioneer Lutheran Church up by White used to be ELCA. According to the church history page, "Since the ELCA has drifted from its Lutheran and evangelical roots, Pioneer has associated more over the past five years with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ." Their June 2009 newsletter indicated that a call to missions pastor Tom Walker was predicated on his willingness to leave the ELCA and join the LCMC.

The church's website offers a number of resources. Among them:

• an article by Greg Lockwood arguing scriptural support for excluding women and homosexuals from ordination (Lockwood also digs male headship and denies it is "oppressive or demeaning to anyone.")
  
• Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood – Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, called a "useful resource," even though only one author in it is Lutheran. Co-editor of that book, and member of that council: Pastor John Piper.
• an article that says the Rapture is non-Scriptural bunk.
  

Pioneer Lutheran's pastor, Tyler Hepner, adjunct professor of religion and philosophy at SDSU, is also part of a budding Lutheran seminary in Brookings. Pastor Hepner calls honest atheists like me "spiritual parasites."

Ruins of Pioneer Lutheran
[photo courtesy Brookings Register]

Pioneer Lutheran burned down in the wee hours of April 19, 2009.

So if, as Pastor Piper claims, God goes snapping off steeples to indicate his displeasure with the ELCA's vote on human sexuality, what does he make of God leveling a church that leaves the ELCA, preaches male headship, links Piper's book, and hires a pastor who takes pokes at atheists?

Given enough time and Google, I could find some statement or action by pretty much anyone that I could portray as a sin that explains some misfortune rained down on them by a wrathful God. But is that really a worthwhile rhetorical game? And is it really something with which an ordained pastor should waste his time?

I don't know... maybe we should all check our home insurance policies.

GOP House Candidate Wasson Responds: Lady Leaders O.K., Tiller Killer Also Terrorist

Newly declared GOP House candidate Thad Wasson is on a new media tear this week. He announces his candidacy on Dakota War College, gives Dakota Voice a lengthy interview, and now responds to the nagging questions of this leftist gadfly. Will Chris Nelson and other GOP contenders for Stepahnie Herseth Sandlin's seat be so vigorous in their pursuit of online press? We can only hope.

To my relief, Mr. Wasson has offered reasonable answers to two questions offered here to test just how deep (or crazy) his social conservatism may be. First, he says his church's position that women should not exercise authority over men applies only in church. He has no problem with women serving in secular leadership positions: to my list of powerful South Dakota women, he adds, "Margaret Thatcher from Great Britain was also a leader of men."

Second, Wasson responds to Angie B's sharp question yesterday about whether he considers the murderer of Dr. George Tiller a domestic terrorist. The candidate's position:

Yes, I consider the man who shot George Tiller a domestic terrorist. He could have killed many more in that church, I am glad that he was arrested [Thad Wasson, e-mail, 2009.07.16].

I can live with that answer, but I still can't swallow his characterization of the Greenpeace Rushmore protesters as domestic terrorists. His response reflects a bit too much of that familiar conservative fearfulness:

For the Mt. Rushmore attack, I hope it was only a stunt but it might have been a dry run for something worse. My concern is for the public, I would like Greenpeace to have their assets seized to pay for the court costs and damage to our National Monument [Wasson, e-mail, 2009.07.16].

Every statement Greenpeace has made has indicated they intended no harm to the monument. They took clear precautions to avoid such harm. To suggest they have "something worse" planned is unwarranted fearmongering... which makes Wasson a perfect fit with the Republican Party.

Question: Does WELS Ban on Female Authority Apply to Politics?

Freshly declared South Dakota Congressional candidate Thad Wasson reads the blog. He e-mails me last night to say he's ready to answer questions.

Check that out: Republican, conservative, Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, and he reaches out to the leftist, secular humanist press. That wins him props in my book. (Don't get excited, folks: props ≠ vote).

[Update 08:30 CDT: But canceling out those props: Wasson's declaration that the Greenpeace activists who draped a banner on Mount Rushmore are domestic terrorists. Ugh.]

There are numerous questions I would like to ask Mr. Wasson. But we have more than ten months before the primary. We'll have plenty of time to cover all the issues. For now, let's focus on an issue I raised Tuesday: the role of women in church and politics.

The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, to which Mr. Wasson belongs, takes this position on women and positions of authority in the church:

We believe that women may participate in offices and activities of the public ministry except where that work involves authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11,12). This means that women may not serve as pastors nor participate in assemblies of the church in ways that exercise authority over men (1 Corinthians 11:3; 14:33-35).

["This We Believe," Commission on Inter-Church Relations, WELS, 1999, p. 20.]

This statement raises the following questions:

1. Does this restriction apply exclusively to church affairs?
2. Does this Biblical position suggest that it is in any way unseemly, inappropriate, or sinful for women to perform work or participate in assemblies in ways that exercise authority over men in secular affairs?
3. (A more concrete rephrasing of question 2): Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, State Rep. Kristi Noem, Dr. Kari Forbes-Boyte (DSU Dean of Arts and Sciences), Brenda Young (Pennington County Commission Chair), and Sarah Palin all exercise prominent positions of authority over men. Do any of these women violate Scripture by holding these positions?

I look forward to reading Mr. Wasson's answers and sharing them with you, my readers.

Update 11:15 CDT: An anonymous commenter misses the point (and the comment policy) but nonetheless inclines me to clarify. These questions are not preamble to an attack on Mr. Wasson's religion. I want to understand how his religious views influence his political views.

Bob Ellis Spreads Misogyny and Racism in Obama Sissification

Obama hangs curtains at a teen shelter, January 19, 2009. Reuters

Bob Ellis posts one of the stupidest things I've heard from him all month. He recycles old e-mail forward fodder that I can trace back to some rag called the Oregon Catalyst, which juxtaposes photos of Ronald Reagan running a chain saw, George W. Bush clearing brush, and Barack Obama hanging curtains. Bob's clear intent: to perpetuate the "Obama is a sissy" meme (which didn't exactly win over the electorate last year).

Andrew Munson offers a good response:

I like this.

Reagan - sawing wood at his expensive ranch.
Bush - hauling wood at his expensive ranch.
Obama - hanging curtains at a homeless shelter, while doing work for charity.

Goodness, Barack. What a girl! Helping out the homeless... [Andrew Munson, comment, Oregon Catalyst, 2009.05.19]

Barack Obama paints a wall at a teen shelter, January 19, 2009. CBS

So does Erin Heidelberger:

Seriously? Why isn't serving at a homeless shelter for teenagers considered real work? He painted, too--is that manly enough for you? I think it says a lot about a man whether he's willing to work in actual service to someone else or merely clean up a little around his own ranch [Erin Heidelberger, comment, "The Measure of a Man," Dakota Voice, 2009.06.24].

I was going to say, Bob, that if you need to portray a powerful and articulate black man as a sissy just to affirm your own manhood, then fine, knock yourself out. But no. Bob, your insults are misogynist. They are sexist. They contradict your professed Christianity. And they don't contribute in the least to intelligent political debate. So knock it off.

I welcome criticism and disagreement. But when you have to stoop to calling the President or anyone else a weenie, you've got nothing.

---------------------------
Update 2009.06.25 08:35 CDT: Predictably, Ellis responds with the usual mishmash of red herrings and challenges to the manhood of any man who disagrees with him. He suggests my argument is nothing more than pandering to feminists (like Anna at DakotaWomen, who concurs with my critique).

My friends, forgive me my response:

"pander to feminists": oh Bob. I take the feminist line because it is against my principles to try proving my point by getting into a silly macho showdown. I also take the feminist line because (darn, I am about to violate my principles) beating you in a silly macho showdown (what, clearing brush? hauling railroad ties? building a deck? biking 50 miles?) would be far too easy.

For penance, say it with me, Red Green fans: "I'm a man, but I can change, if I have to, I guess."

-----------------
Update 13:00 CDT: A few commenters have had some criticism, but only Tim has had the courtesy to attach his name to said criticism. Thank you, Tim. Everyone else must be trolling the blogs from their work computers....