Is the private sector doing fine?

Maybe a little late, Ben and I discuss President Obama's comments in our Scripps Howard column. My take:

Obama was wrong: The private sector isn't doing fine. It's doing astoundingly great -- better than ever, in fact.

No, really.

How do we know this? Because corporate profits now comprise more than 10 percent of America's gross domestic product. As Reuters' Felix Salmon noted, that number has never been that big, ever. For comparison's sake, corporate profits topped out at just under 5 percent of the GDP at the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Instead of investing those profits and creating new jobs, which has been the usual pattern after previous recessions, corporations are sitting on the cash and hoarding the money. That's their right, but nobody should think that the private sector is doing poorly, and it belies the notion that Obama is running an anti-business administration.

It's the rest of us who aren't doing so well.

Corporate cash hoarding is one reason why. The other reason? Because government is slimming down.

No, really.

You wouldn't know that from Republican rhetoric that suggests the president has grown government bureaucracy to create a socialist kingdom. But the Washington Post's Ezra Klein ran the numbers, and the public sector -- including federal, state, and local governments -- has lost 600,000 jobs under Obama. Replace those lost teachers and social workers, and the federal unemployment rate declines to 7.8 percent -- still too high, but also a dramatic improvement.

For comparison's sake, President George W. Bush had grown public-sector employment by 3.7 percent at this point in his tenure, a number that, if duplicated today, would further reduce the unemployment rate to 7.3 percent. If Obama really was a big-government socialist, we might all be better off.

So Obama has produced huge profits and smaller government.

The private sector is doing fine, and it's clearly not enough. But ask yourself: What would Mitt Romney do differently?

Something I didn't address in the 300 words is what, if anything, federal policy can do to get big businesses to start investing in the economy again. But I'm not sure I have a good answer to that, in all  honesty.

John McNesby really, really hates accountability for Philadelphia police

Philadelphia Police are going to experiment with a new system that attaches cameras to cops and lets them record incidents from their point of view. John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, is naturally outraged: ""We're 500 cops below where we should be, so I'd be totally against it until they hired those officers, repaired every police station and put decent cars on the street," McNesby said. "When they finished that, I'd be more than willing to discuss putting cameras on officers.""

In other words: Never. You can have your accountability never.

Now: We all want police to have the best possible working conditions. But "best possible working conditions" shouldn't be necessary to ask police for some accountability. In any case, it's pretty obvious that  even if City Hall met McNesby's named conditions, he'd just move the goalposts a bit. The goal here to let police act as they will without interference from the public they supposedly serve.

On the bright side, though, McNesby's response reminded me of this:

About Gays and Mennonites

Back in 2001, I attended a national gathering of Mennonites in Nashville that brought two strands of the church together into the new Mennonite Church USA. It was a weird week—one that both made me thrilled to be a Mennonite, but also helped set my path out of the church.

The official gathering was on the grounds of the Opryland Hotel. But across the street from that, there was a second gathering—of gay and lesbian Mennonites. While individuals were allowed into the main gathering of Mennonites, the group itself wasn't allowed to put up a booth or display in the convention hall. So they met separately, sharing stories and worshiping together.

I made the trip across the street, and doing so permanently transformed my feelings about the church and its treatment of gays. It was meeting two gay middle-aged Mennonite men—one of whom had nursed the other through a heart attack—that I found compelling. They shared a real love, one that allowed them to serve each other in a real and genuine way.

And in that moment I thought: "Surely God can't condemn this. And if God does condemn this ... maybe I don't care. Maybe that's not a God worth worshipping."

A year later, I was out of the church.

I mention all of this because my friend Joanna, who is now the pastor of Peace Mennonite Church where I last attended, is under fire within the broader church denomination for officiating at a gay wedding. And today, she shares some thoughts about why she wants to be able to do that and (unlike me) remain a Mennonite.

Here’s the thing, though–I am not United Church of Christ or Presbyterian or Episcopalian. I am Mennonite. Anabaptist to the core. I will not baptize babies. I will not put a flag in a place of worship. I value simplicity and discipleship and community. And if I get to sing a few hymns in four-part harmony every week, that’s a bonus! I want my life to mirror the life of Christ, and I cannot find any other group of Christians that encourages me in this pursuit as well as the Mennonites. 

And here’s the thing–there are so many GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) people who also want to follow Jesus in this way. They want–they need–a Mennonite community as much as I do. It breaks my heart to know of sexual minorities who cannot find a faith home because the churches that most resonate with their souls will not welcome them in the fullness of who they are. 

And here’s the thing–the Mennonite church needs the graces and gifts of GLBT folks as well. It breaks my heart to think of the wonderful leadership, music, art, ministry that the church is missing out on because we do not fully include GLBT people. (I wish you all could know Randy Spaulding and Sarah Klaassen.) At a recent preaching conference I met a young woman pastor from United Church of Canada. When I told her I was Mennonite she said, “Oh, I have a lot of lesbian friends who used to be Mennonite.” 

And here’s the thing–from my perspective, according to my reading of the Gospel, anything less than full inclusion for gays and lesbians in our churches is an injustice. More than that, our failure to embrace and support sexual minorities is a rejection of Jesus’ way of love. It is to side with the religious powers that be–some of whom make good money off of their tirades against gay people–over and against the radical message of Jesus.

Read the whole thing.

As for me, my faith is still a broken thing. I do know that I won't worship a God who supposedly hates love—real and wonderful love. But I've also tried very hard to make sure I leave the door open to a return to the faith. And Joanna—her bravery and strength under fire—is one very big reason why.

Using yourself as collateral for a college loan

There are a few problematic things about Luigi Zingales's proposal to privately finance the college education of bright young students—starting with the fact that if you have to pre-emptively explain to readers that "this is not indentured servitude," it's probably indentured servitude.

But what really bothers me about the proposal is the assumption underlying this entire statement from Zingales: "This is not a modern form of indentured servitude, but a voluntary form of taxation, one that would make only the beneficiaries of a college education — not all taxpayers — pay for the costs of it."

This presumes that only the recipient of a college education is the beneficiary, and that's not even close to true. One reason the feds underwrite student loans—and why states still pay for public universities, even if that commitment is diminshing—is that the country benefits hugely from having a better-educated workforce. Those trained minds help create innovation and streamline processes, which—in theory anyway—has numerous positive ripple effects throughout the economy. The beneficiaries of a college education, then, include the taxpayers.

Deep Thought

Hmmm. Looking at my posts today, I wonder if people will think I'm turning conservative. I'm not. I just believe in a liberalism that meets the world as it exists--and that world has lots of people who aren't liberals. It's tough to get much done without securing their assent—or, at least, the assent of enough of them.

Are gay rights and religious freedom in conflict?

I don't think they have to be, but it appears they are in New Mexico:

"In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Elane Photography, an Albuquerque photography studio co-owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband, Jonathan, guilty of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for refusing to photograph Vanessa Willock’s same-sex “commit ment ceremony.” The court ordered the business to pay $6,600 in attorney’s fees.

If it was little surprise that the commission found in favor of Willock, it was a shock when, last month, the New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The three-judge panel rejected Elane Photography’s claim that forcing the business to photograph the same-sex ceremony against its conscientious objections constituted “compelled speech” in violation of the owners’ federal and state rights. It also rejected the Huguenins’ claims to protection under the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause and the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

I believe in gay marriage. And I also believe in a First Amendment that lets conservative Christians complain about gay marriage—which is why I suspect that this ruling will be struck down, although somebody more familiar with the law on "public accommodations" might be able to educate me further on that. Is there a good reason to require Elane Photography to take these photos?

One reason that some Christians vociferously oppose gay civil marriage is because they don't think they'll be left alone—they suspect that they'll be forced in some fashion to endorse those marriages against their conscience. Mostly, I think that's wrong: No law is going to require a Catholic priest perform gay commitment ceremonies, now or ever. But stuff like this is going to make it harder for gays and their allies to win and secure that right to civil marriage. If rights are treated as a zero-sum affair, then somebody has to lose something. And in that case, it seems unlikely the losers will be heterosexual conservative Christians.

Atrios is wrong about California's HSR and liberal spending priorities

I think Atrios is right to keep pounding away at the idea that our elites love to bail out banks and leave austerity to the poor masses. But I think he's wrong that liberals should love California's High-Speed Rail project, even though there are massive cost overruns and questions about its utility: "My point is, on the rare occasion that the government is considering giving us some nice things, we should probably just stand up and applaud, even if we can imagine even nicer things that the government should give us but won't. The choice isn't between HSR in California and What Atrios Wants To Spend Money On, the choice is between HSR and, you know, more high tech killing machines, money for war contractors, and tax cuts for rich people."

Not really. There will always be money for high-tech killing machines, war contractors, and tax cuts for the rich. So liberals really need to prioritize what they want to do with a not-limitless pot of resources—particularly if we want to have credibility with that taxpayers providing those resources. "Spending lots of money is awesome!" isn't going to win many political campaigns. Unfair? Maybe, but also reality.

'Mad Men' and the infantilization of America, continued

Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner kinda-sorta confirms my theorizing about how Depression-era generation helped create the never-grow-up culture that followed it: "One of my things is that human behavior doesn't change, but certainly the manners change, and what you're watching is the manners changing.

And I use it in every aspect of the storytelling. And it's a very fine gradation, and it's hard to do, but I think the audience felt that there was this kind of precipice, and Don feels it, too. It's not just about people saying exactly what they want. When Megan's going to follow her dreams, because that's what she wants to do, and Roger says, "My father told me what to do," and Don says, "I grew up in the '30s; my dream was indoor plumbing." We take it for granted that you can choose what you want to do. That's all part of a new generation, and very soon there's going to be a generation doing whatever it wants, and they're completely supported by the generation before them. In the Rolling Stones episode, when Don's backstage with that girl, she says, "You don't want us to have fun because none of you did." It's actually the opposite: a lot of parents really indulged their kids because of that very thing, because they grew up in the Depression."

Emphasis added. I meant to mention Don's line about "indoor plumbing" in my previous post—it's a thought that stuck with me through the rest of the season.

Death of Football Watch: Pop Warner makes changes

The kiddie football league limits full-speed collisions—but only in practice. In games, it'll still be legal to watch your child get his block knocked off: "Dr. Matt Grady, a pediatric sports medicine specialist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the new rules, while a good start, did not go far enough, and that the emphasis in football for players who have not yet reached high school should be on developing skill and technique, not learning how to tackle. “Playing tackle football at 10 years old doesn’t translate to being a pro athlete,” he said. “I think the ability to catch and run and throw translates to being a pro athlete. Players should develop these skills, and then we can add in the collisions later.”"

As I think I've said before, it's going to be increasingly untenable for most parents to let their kids play tackle football as it becomes more and more clear that the game takes a huge toll on their bodies. That'll dry up the supply of players over time. Football is going into decline.

Archbishop Chaput pleads for a state bailout

The leader of Philadelphia Catholics urges Harrisburg to pass vouchers, or he'll have to close schools: "What I noted in February is even more pressing today: Without new scholarship tax credits and school vouchers to relieve costs, more archdiocesan schools will close soon, and more of the financial burden of educating young people will fall on the public."

But even under Chaput's solution, more of the financial burden of educating young people will fall on the public. Students whose education isn't currently publicly subsidized would be for the first time, a likely hit to taxpayer wallets over time.

Conservatives who balk at auto industry bailouts will be amenable to Chaput's proposal. But it's worth considering the idea that Catholic schools are failing of their own accord: Philadelphia church pews aren't as full as they used to be, certainly, so it makes sense that the population of students for church schools would also be in decline. Chaput is blaming the closure of schools on financial challenges, but it might also be true that market forces are working as they do—and that Philadelphia families are voting with their feet.

Hey, I think he's talking about me!

At least he managed to get the link right.

Richard Arenberg is wrong about the filibuster

A scholar writes in defense of filibusters: "But those seeking to end the filibuster would rue the day. We need only recall how overzealous majorities in the Wisconsin legislature attacked collective bargaining, or in Virginia sought to impose mandatory vaginal probes on women seeking abortions. We can easily imagine efforts to overturn health reform, repeal financial reforms, cripple environmental regulation, scale back Medicare, privatize Social Security, or drill for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. If Mitt Romney is elected with a Republican Congress, without the historic protections in the Senate rules, where could a Democratic minority turn?"

I'm fine with rewriting the rules, as Arenberg suggests—my own suggestion would be that filibusters actually be filibusters, and to make Mitch McConnell stand in the Senate well for 50 hours at a stretch if he really wants to block President Obama's appointments to the judiciary. It might simply be easier, though, just to scrap the filibuster entirely.

Yes, that means that legislative minorities might be brushed aside in crafting legislation. But it also means that legislative minorities could scrap that legislation once they became the majority again. (There is no such thing as a permanent majority in American politics.) Wise senators would hopefully take that into consideration and craft legislation that would be politically difficult to undo at the next change in power. Right now, the filibuster isn't used to protect Social Security—it's often used for no better reason than to make the president's life a living hell. I can't get misty-eyed about that. Scrap the filibuster and let the chips fall where they may.

Are scoops the entirety of journalism?

Stephen Silver seems to think so: "In the end, I don’t see the Inquirer‘s Banner scoop as a reason to see salvation in newspapers, but rather, I view the very rarity of such an event as an indication of the medium’s doom."

Only if "the medium" is composed entirely of scoops. Of course print can't compete on that basis—and, of course, it keeps trying to compete on that basis. Look at today's front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer at right: All but two stories are recaps of events that happened yesterday—events that anybody with a decent RSS or Twitter feed already knew about.

Print is going to be diminished. It will be a very long time before it goes away, I think. To the extent that it can thrive in a downsized state, it will do so because it offers depth, analysis, and thoughtfulness. It can't be about the business of scoops—and the longer we keep measuring its impact by scoops, as Silver does, the harder and faster the fall will be.

Kansas' anti-Sharia law is an assault on religious liberty

A tremendous takedown of Kansas' new anti-Sharia law in (wait for it) National Review: "It is particularly disappointing to see Sam Brownback — a committed Catholic with deep ties to the evangelical-Protestant community and a strong record on religious-liberty matters — signing an anti-Sharia bill. Addressing the 2006 Religious Liberty Dinner in Washington, D.C., Brownback said that people denied religious liberty “deserve our efforts” to vindicate their rights. He cited the Epistle to the Hebrews in calling on those who possess liberty to remember “those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.” Brownback’s point is as true today as ever: American Christians must stand for the religious liberty of Muslims if they are to argue persuasively for their own."

Emphasis added. This isn't nice to say, but I'll say it: There are a fair number of folks who regularly sound the alarm about "religious liberty," but really only mean "religious liberty for Christians." They're chauvinists, and nobody should think they're particularly principled.

Philadelphia workers who live out of town

Maybe it's illegal for Philadelphia's City Hall to require workers to live in town, but it's kind of a bad idea if they do so—and it's bad for them. I've got some thoughts about public unions I'll be noodling over the next few weeks—I'm for 'em, but they're not without flaws, and those flaws must be addressed—but civic workers who make their money off the taxes of Philadelphia but don't want to live among Philadelphians probably shouldn't expect much sympathy with the politicians come after their pensions.

'Mad Men' and the infantilization of American culture

A perfect image.

When 'Mad Men' premiered a few years back, one of the things that its fans celebrated was the show's old-fashioned sense of adulthood: Don Draper smoked, drank, dressed well, and only occasionally seemed to notice that his children existed. "Remember when men were men!" we barked, and if nobody actually said those words, well, that's what a lot of people seemed to mean.

We've all expected the show to depict the rise of youth culture as the '60s wore on, and that theme was indeed explicit in the just-finished Season Five. We witness Don being out of his element at a Rolling Stones concert, befuddled by a Beatles record, chafing at his wife's out-of-office ambitions. It's in his marriage to Meagan, though, that we see something that doesn't get talked about a lot: Yes, the older generation hated the Peter Pan frivolousness of the Baby Boomers. But that older generation really helped create and nurture that frivolousness, as well.

Don's job, after all, is to create fantasies. And fantasies are often, in the end, the realm of childhood—a way of dreaming about "someday" and "what could be" instead of what actually is. (In some ways, too, Draper is a fantasy, dreamed up by a guy named Dick Whitman.) And the younger generation finds itself increasingly unable to tear itself away from those fantasies.

Take Meagan. When we saw her at the end of Season Four she was young, yes, but clearly a woman, even maternal with Don's kids. That's why he asked her to marry him. But as Season Five progressed, Meagan seemed to regress—from an adult who worked and dressed like an adult, back into a teen whose fashion choices were barely discernible from that of Don's adolescent daughter, till finally she ended up dressed like a princess, playing make-believe in her final scene of the season. This, after she pouted at her mother for not getting everything she wants.

And Meagan was playing princess, incidentally, in a commercial—a fantasy—constructed by Don Draper.

It was, in some ways, the saddest and most melancholy scene of the season—ranking right up there with Lane Pryce's suicide. (Er, spoiler.) Contrast that with one of the most joyful and fun scenes of the season: Don and Joan's trip to a local bar. (Giving us the near-perfect pop-cultural image above.)

Yes, there's an element of fantasy there, too. But what makes the scene satisfying is not that two incredibly sexy people flirt. It's that they don't do anything about it. They have responsibilities, to their business, to their loved ones, and they behave—ultimately—like self-possessed adults.

Maybe that's the fantasy these days, that we can all act like grownups. God knows, I'm about Don Draper's age, yet I feel adolescent next to him. But if Don's generation is grumpy with the immaturity of the kids who came after, they shouldn't feel too self-righteous. They created the fantasies, and made the promises they couldn't keep.

I love Rod Dreher. I am terrified of Rod Dreher.

Dreher celebrates a Texas father who beat his child's molester to death: "[Insert pro forma regret that the alleged molester was not captured and handed over to the proper authorities.] It’s at times like this that I’m glad we have Texas, where he needed killin’ is an affirmative defense against homicide charges."

I follow Dreher because I think he's mostly thoughtful, even if I don't agree with him in his vociferous opposition to gay marriage. But sometimes his instincts elude my understanding. Don't get me wrong: I'm not shedding any tears over a dead sex offender. Reacting gleefully, though, disturbs me a little bit: It suggests that civilization is little more than a game, to be abandoned when it feels good. I don't think Dreher actually thinks that, but his joy at vigilantism creates some doubts. It's just kind of ugly.

Michael Kinsley's 'full disclosure' paragraph is my favorite in the history of the genre

He writes about Mayor Bloomberg's proposed soda rules:

The basic case in favor of Bloomberg’s proposal is in some ways even more compelling: Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News’s parent, Bloomberg LP, and therefore my boss. In all likelihood, therefore, he is right about soft drinks and sugar, just as he is right about almost everything. (And even that “almost” is only there as a sop to my dignity.)

Do Philadelphia cops hate Philadelphia?

That's what I said last week in a column at The Philly Post—a column that, coincidentally, published the same day I started a weeklong out-of-state vacation. In the meantime, the column was picked up at Reason.com's blog—they shared my interest in FOP president John McNesby's letter to the Police Advisory Commission, and I received a few letters. I'll excerpt three of them: One correspondent took issue with my contention that police officers are wrong to want to live outside the city they serve:

Most of my career was spent in shift rotations of six days of 4X12, followed by six days of 8X4 and then a big one day off and the next evening you had to report for six days of 12amX8am. Included in this mess was last minute court notices and the average sleep was about two hours a day on that midnight to eight shift. Most officers were in a constant state of sleep deprivation, sometimes reporting for court at 10am and spending all day there until 5PM and were expected back for work in the evening at around 11PM. Sleep? Apparently the city did not account for it. Much work was spent by our union to adjust this situation and eventually a compromise schedule was implemented. During my entire career, I was a captive of the city. The reason the city wanted to keep you localized was to contact you when they wanted.(To the point of sending a patrol car to your door with a note to come in to work) Even when you are on vacation, if there is a perceived “emergency” they call you back from where you are. Only overseas vacations were exempt. I lived in a typical NE row, kept a low profile, acted in several off duty arrests, etc. I had two desires. One was to return to school to acquire the B.A. that I should have had but never had a chance to complete. (I had an old Associate Degree, so two years were left). The other was the idea of moving out of the city to a suburban area just like the Philadelphia TEACHERS were allotted in their contract since the time of Wilson Goode (who rewarded the teacher’s union liberally, and was employed by them as a “consultant” after his terms as Mayor). The Degree could not be worked out despite several attempts, until I was retired. The other was never realized either, until I retired. I should have had the same rights back then as the teacher’s union, why was there discrimination in this capacity? The reason they now have the ability to leave is because a majority of the higher ranking personnel live on the extreme edge of the city. In order to prevent experienced officers from a mass exodus, they needed to have this right to live outside the city or they would lose most of their experienced personnel. That is the real reason why it was granted in the contract.

Another responded to my suggestion that Philadelphia police have "palpable" contempt for the residents they serve:

really? can you blame them? head into any area other than center city (where i happily and safely reside) and see what the hell the cops have to deal with every single day.... not many cats stuck up in trees or crossing little old ladies... just nonstop violence, no witnesses, zero cooperation, NO stop to the cycle of reproducing generations of criminals.....so, should they be dropping "stay in school" to the kids or try to dodge the bullets so one of those kids doesn't get shot? or better yet, run over by an ATV doing 90mph wheelies down allegheny ave? so, the parenting and coddling is up to the po-po, not the mom with the neck tattoos who is on her 5th kid with 5th babydaddy before her 26th birthday? c'mon, cuz..... the problem is DEEP but it ain't the cops fault.... also - so, the people shooting - they're not the fatherless kids (now 18) OF the women in the same neighborhoods that they're shooting up???")... you want to write a cutting piece, expose that saga.....

A similar response from a man identifying himself as a retired police officer:

In the past 20 plus years, respect for any authority, be it the Police, the Clergy, or even Parents and Grand Parents has all but eroded… the mentality is that you can do whatever you want, to whomever you want, with complete impunity. We I grew up if an Officer told you to get off of a corner, you did! If an Officer ever brought me home to my parents, no matter what, I was in trouble. We were taught to respect our elders, now all you ever hear is “not my Johnny, or not my little angel… Parents don’t want to take responsibility for their children’s actions, for the most part, all they want the kids to do is go out and bother ANYONE ELSE but them. Are Police Officers perfect, no, but then again, no one else is perfect; we all make mistakes, But just because you wear a Blue Uniform, and agree to be a target for anyone who wants to strike out at authority, and just because you give up most of your family life to work long hours in all weather, doesn’t automatically make you a bad guy. My challenge to you would be to put on that same Blue Uniform, and go out and drive a police car on Philly’s streets, and see if your attitude changes. But I’ve made that challenge before, and so far, not one journalist has had the stones to take up my challenge. And for the record, all during the time I was a Philadelphia Police Officer, I served as a Boy Scout Leader in my neighborhood for 15 years, served on two Civic Groups, and served in my Church as a member of our Parish’s Music Ministry and on the Parish Council… but then, according to you, I must have hated Philadelphia.

For what it's worth, I have some sympathy for some of what I find in these letters. Philadelphia Police could do everything right, and this town would still be an incredible, and often-dangerous, challenge to those officers.

On the other hand, I think plenty of officers—led by FOP president John McNesby—use those challenges as a shield to deflect criticism and avoid introspection about how they might do better, much less examine their own (partial) culpability in creating the culture they despise. "It's tough out there! You can't possibly understand!" I can acknowledge those challenges are considerable, but still expect better from my police department. And I do.

Kansas and sharia law

In this week's column, Ben and I tackle Kansas' new law banning sharia law. My take:

Sam Brownback and Kansas Republicans are hypocrites, through and through. In 2008, then-U.S. Sen. Brownback introduced a resolution in the Senate that designated the first weekend of May as "Ten Commandments Weekend." A few years before that, Brownback was out front urging that the Pledge of Allegiance retain its mention of "one nation under God," saying: "There is nothing more American than the Pledge of Allegiance and an acknowledgement of God is at the heart of our founding principles and is our nation's motto." The examples don't end there. Along with former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Brownback has been one of America's most aggressive and unapologetic politicians in advocating for religion's role in America's public and governmental life. Islam is the exception to this rule. Brownback and Kansas Republicans are vigorous defenders of the separation of church and state only when non-Christians are involved. Supporters of the law point to places like Europe, where "hate speech" codes can make it illegal -- or, at least, inadvisable -- to criticize Islam. "That could happen here!" they cry, but no, it probably couldn't: Europe doesn't have America's First Amendment traditions or law that vigorously defend freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The bill's supporters never showed that Islamic law actually was distorting or affecting Kansas jurisprudence. They never had evidence on their side, only demagoguery and fear. So the law is a solution in search of a problem -- the kind of thing conservatives disdain, unless Muslims are involved. All the law really does, then, is signal to the state's Muslims that they are second-class citizens. Kansas has a proud civil rights history. It fought to be a free state before the Civil War; it was where the Brown v. Board of Education ruling delivered the first stunning blow against desegregation. The new law betrays that heritage. But it does highlight Sam Brownback's hypocrisy.

Ben, on the other hand, warns of the dangers of "creeping sharia":

Examples of "creeping Shariah" abound. A few years ago, Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis refused to pick up passengers carrying alcohol or dogs, even service dogs for the disabled. Islamic law says dogs and booze are unclean and forbidden, anti-discrimination laws notwithstanding. A judge in New Jersey in 2010 accepted a Muslim man's defense against sexual assault, saying his supposed religious beliefs mitigated his crime. (That ruling was later overturned.)

The second example shows how weak the "threat" is: A bad court decision was overturned, after all. And the former example is very interesting. Conservatives fight all the time for pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control in the name of "religious freedom." I'm not sure how it's different from cabbies refusing to carry alcohol, except for simple chauvinism. Which is, really, what the Kansas' new law is all about.