When Judges play God

In 2008, American Atheists filed a lawsuit against the state claiming they suffered sleeping disorders and "mental pain and anguish" because the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security recognized "the safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."
Well, they can finally get some rest. Last Wednesday, Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate struck down the part about relying on God, which leaves legislators and the rest of us wondering who we should now rely on.
"This is the very reason the Establishment Clause was created: to protect the minority from the oppression of the majority," Wingate wrote in his 18-page opinion.
Even if this was true, who is to protect the majority from the tyranny of the minority?
The trouble with Wingate's ruling is that it has no basis in our history. According to our founding political document, the Declaration of Independence, our nation is predicated on the idea that law comes from God. Law does not originate in people. Nor does it reside with special groups who clothe themselves in black robes, even if they might confuse themselves with the Almighty.
Like the Office of Homeland Security, the Declaration states, "With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." So if it was good enough for Thomas Jefferson and the other 55 signers to firmly rely on God, why is it so wrong with Kentucky acknowledging that our protection comes from God as well?
To be consistent, atheists and sympathetic judges ought to take on the preamble to the Kentucky Constitution and the Latin motto which was enacted in 2002. Then again, consistency seems to be in short supply these days. The official Latin motto is "Deo gratiam habeamus." It means "Let us be grateful to God" and finds its basis in the Preamble of the State Constitution which says, "We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution."
Wingate justifies his ruling by applying the First Amendment to this case, but such application is foreign to our history. The First Amendment was enacted to keep Congress from imposing a national church. It was not originally applied to states; some had state-sponsored churches into the early 19th century. It was not until the 1947 Everson ruling that the First Amendment was applied to individual states.
Sponsor of the Homeland Security provision, State. Rep. Tom Riner (D-Louisville), responded to the charge that the language establishes a religion. "They make the argument ... that it has to do with a religion, and promoting a religion," Riner said. "God is not a religion. God is God."
At a very basic level, Wingate's actions violate the separation of powers and usurp legislative authority. Legislators legislate. Judges are supposed to apply the law. Legislators hammer out public policy openly and consider public input. Judges render decisions privately with or without regard to public input. By striking down the legislature's action without a firm basis in history or precedent, Wingate shifted the balance of power in his favor as other unaccountable judges have done for decades. This judicial activism is an undemocratic way of going about the Commonwealth's business. By the way, when was the last time the legislature told a court it was wrong?
There are 32 references to God in state statutes and the constitution. The question is: who should decide how and when we acknowledge God – the people through their legislators, or judges who sometimes confuse themselves with God?

Another report from one of our higher reeducation camps (a. k. a. our colleges and universities)

Mary Grabar describes her experience as an adjunct English professor trying to teach, like, English--which is now apparently declasse in our higher re-education camps:

I’m an adjunct English professor. When the subject of adjunct faculty comes up, the predictable calls for unionization and “social justice” are often voiced by my tenured colleagues enjoying light teaching loads and by administrators enjoying comfortable salaries overseeing “multicultural” programs. But I know that I would not be among their intended beneficiaries were they made aware of my political views.

It’s not that I sought to be political when I returned to school in the 1990s to earn my Ph.D. I soon discovered, however, that political neutrality—even in literary studies—is suspect. In the academic world, the belief that great literature conveys universal, timeless themes is generally taken as evidence of an imperialistic outlook. The same holds for history, where the reliance on factual evidence and focus on major events are deemed offensive to women and those from non-Western cultures.

My fellow graduate students tailored their programs for the job market: studying African-American and gay writers, and applying the trendy postmodern, deconstructivist literary theories. Since 2002, when I earned my Ph.D. in English, the field has gotten even stranger, with such additions to the ideological postcolonial, African-American, and critical theory courses as “fat studies” and “trauma studies.” An upperclassman can enroll in “Introduction to Visual Rhetoric”—and then presumably in “Advanced Visual Rhetoric.” But how does my study of Plato and Cicero prepare me to teach these classes? ...

Read the rest here.

University of Kentucky scores a "C" on its core curriculum in national report

For Immediate Release
August 24, 2009

The University of Kentucky received a grade of "C" from a national organization that monitors what colleges and universities teach. In its report, "What Will They Learn?" the American Council of Trustees and Alumni gave it a mediocre rating on its general education requirements, and specifically criticized its natural science requirement because it could be met my taking courses which didn't teach natural or physical sciences.

"That a school attempting to be a 'Top Twenty Research School' would have a weak general education requirement in science is pretty pitiful," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky.

"No credit given for Natural or Physical Science," said the report of UK, "because the Natural Sciences requirement may be satisfied by courses from anthropology, political science, and psychology; and the College Laboratory or Field Work Experience requirement includes courses from the social sciences."

While crediting UK for its requirements in composition, language, and math, the report docked the state's flagship educational institution for week requirements in literature, U. S. government/history, economics, and science.

The report evaluated whether 100 major institutions require seven key subjects. "What we found is alarming," said the report's authors. "Even as our students need broad-based skills and knowledge to succeed in the global marketplace, our colleges and universities are failing to deliver."

The report comes during the same month that UK earned a lower ranking in the U. S. News and World Report national university rankings for the third straight year, falling from 112 in 2007, to 122nd in 2008, to 128th in 2009.

###

UK drops for 3rd straight year in national rankings

For Immediate Release
August 21, 2009

Contact: Martin Cothran
Phone: 859-329-1919

The University of Kentucky dropped in the U. S. News and World Report ranking for the third time in three years according to the magazine's newly released national rankings. "The three-year slide is bad enough," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst for the Family Foundation of Kentucky. "This report points out some problems the University of Kentucky needs to address."

The university went from 112th in the nation in 2007 to 122nd in 2008. This year it dropped further to 128th in the nation. Cothran pointed to a simple comparison with other SEC schools (excluding Vanderbilt), a comparison many Kentuckians would find familiar, that showed where the university needed to put its attention:

• Diversity Index Rank: Worst
• Average Freshman Retention Rate Rank: Lowest
• Average Alumni Giving: 2nd lowest
• Fall 2008 Acceptance Rate: 2nd highest
• Average high school GPA: 2nd worst
• Cost of room & board: Worst
• Classes with fewer than 20 students: 2nd lowest
• Classes with 50 students or more: 3rd highest
• 6-year graduation rate: 2nd lowest

"Two years ago, the university argued that implementing domestic partner benefits would help it become a top 20 research school," said Cothran. "We argued then that the university needed to drop the political correctness and get its priorities straight. This report is further evidence that it hasn't done that."

###

Debunking the Myths perpetrated by the Gambling Lobby

Myth #1 - There are 100,000 horse racing jobs in Kentucky:



Myth #2 - Kentucky's Horse Industry is dying due to lower purses:



Myth #3 - The Gambling Industry just wants to help Kentucky:



Myth #4 - Gambling is just entertainment:



Myth #5 - "Slots for Tots" - Gambling is great for children and their education. (Gambling opponents in another state posted this video and the similarities to Kentucky are striking.):

The Gambling "Revolution" in today's C-J

Family Foundation's Policy Analyst David Edmunds in today's Courier-Journal:

Third World Gambling Revolution

At a recent expanded gambling rally, a former governor referred to Senate President David Williams as a third world dictator and incited the crowd to “revolution.”

But even though the first shots heard in this revolution were heard in Lexington, they bear little resemblance to the first shots heard in the other Battle of Lexington over 200 years ago. The first battle culminated in the writing of a constitution. This battle is about overturning one.

The angry slots mob is rallying to change Kentucky government into a one-party machine. Through political intimidation and big-time donations from casino interests, pro-gambling Democrats currently have control of the Governor’s office and the State House. Now they want control over the Senate.

Rep. Carl Rollins (D) upped the rally rhetoric saying, “[Sen.] Kathy Stein had her two dogs here. That was in case David Williams showed up. She was going to chase his sorry ass all the way home.”

Apparently it’s not just dogs foaming at the mouth.

Like revolutionary rallies in some other countries, these rallies feature bussed-in workers in their horse track uniforms, who, after undoubtedly clocking in for the purpose, dutifully cheer on the speakers.

It’s a spectacle of which Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro would be proud.

One-party revolutions often benefit those at the top to the detriment of common laborers. If track-owners really wanted to help the rank and file, why not consider the Senate plan to boost purses and breeding incentives without slots? Tracks have refused because they are coveting a much bigger pay-off than just improved racing from enhanced purses. Making slot machines legal is the ultimate jackpot in separating a gambler from his money without the overhead of hay farmers, horse farmers, farriers, jockeys, or grooms.

One-party revolutions also need a complicit media. WHAS radio host Francene has been happy to oblige, filling the airwaves daily with pro-slots propaganda. When asked whether the opponents of slots could articulate the other side of the issue, she responded “There aren’t two sides of the issue.” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with his penchant for authoritarian control of media would be smiling. As a Fox News affiliate, WHAS may have to change their tag line to “Fair and Balanced- except for Francene.”

Absent from media discussion of the issue is that the Senate allowed for a fair committee hearing on the slots bill, allowing both sides to testify. It was defeated on its merits. Williams did not employ procedural obstruction, yet the C-J, filled with the spirit of revolution, perpetuates this myth of Williams as dictator, calling him: “Ayatollah Williams.”

Legislators voting against slots will lose bags of cash from gambling interests, will likely face racino-financed opponents, and will certainly not get the kind of perks slots supporters can expect, like school building funds and Derby box seats.

The pro-slots revolutionaries don’t want Kentuckians to know there is no payoff for a legislator voting “no” on slots other than a clear conscience and the support of anti-gambling voters.

Legislators voting “yes” on slots are turning over the reigns of state government to gambling interests. To achieve the slot revenue of $796 million at a pay-out rate competitive with Indiana’s, gambling operators would control or “handle” over 9 billion dollars—more money than all of state government handles! With this type of financial stranglehold, the gambling revolutionaries can manipulate every aspect of state government.

Citizens have always feared the power gambling operators could wield in manipulating legislators. House members who voted “yes” on slots, have given ammunition to this one-party revolution and have been fooled if they believe that a Kentucky, led by only pro-gambling Democrats will advocate for the values that Kentuckians hold dear. This revolution will result in a quagmire of bloated government controlled by gambling bosses.

Remove the propaganda, personal attacks, and strong-arm tactics and the slot machine revolution is left with little more than poor public policy rooted in greed.

Slots for Tots can add Pot

If Kentuckians follow the "Slots for Tots" idea to its logical conclusion, the road will lead them to California with the push to legalize marijuana to help education. After all, if people are already doing it anyway, just legalize it and tax it.

This will teach the children!