• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Kansas Gov Sam Brownback strips LGBT state employees of non-discrimination protection

Tony Stark

Philosopher
Tony Stark
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
9,626
Confronting a $344 million budget deficit following the failure of his supply side economic experiment, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback is a busy man these days, further slashing education in a state that had already imposed among the largest cuts in the nation, gutting the state’s pension system, and diverting funds from vital infrastructure programs in an effort to clean up the mess his tax cuts for the wealthy created. But amid all this, the governor still has time to deal with other matters, as he demonstrated today, with a quintessentially Brownbackian assault on the civil rights of LGBT Kansans.

In a development that falls somewhere between “I can’t believe he hadn’t done this already” and “My God, what a monumental prick,” Brownback issued an executive order Tuesday removing gender identity and sexual orientation from the classes of protected Kansas government employees, which include race, color, gender, religion, national origin, ancestry or age.
Click to expand...


http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/sam..._employees_of_non_discrimination_protections/

Great guy.
 
What does the list of offenses in the first paragraph have to do with the second? Will removing discrimination protection save the state money somehow?

I feel like this is another of those "connect the dots" things, where the specific offense doesn't mean much to the writer, so long as it can be included on the dot list.

Isn't it enough that he took those protections away? Does it matter if he was Saintly otherwise - or Mr. Nasty-gram?
 
marplots said:
What does the list of offenses in the first paragraph have to do with the second? Will removing discrimination protection save the state money somehow?

I feel like this is another of those "connect the dots" things, where the specific offense doesn't mean much to the writer, so long as it can be included on the dot list.

Isn't it enough that he took those protections away? Does it matter if he was Saintly otherwise - or Mr. Nasty-gram?
Click to expand...

They both show what a terrible governor he is.
 
It's popular to have "attitude" in coverage these days but sometimes I long for media outlets to play it straight. I don't need to be clobbered over the head with Salon's take on the information. It's damning enough without the buzzwords. Pet peeve of mine, maybe no one else cares.
 
He's just demonstrating his party's support for small government and personal freedom.
 
Tony Stark said:
They both show what a terrible governor he is.
Click to expand...

Yes. The technique allows one to write an opinion piece in the guise of "straight news." You list a certain set of facts that all (mysteriously) point to the conclusion you want the reader to draw.

If it were an opinion piece, one could write about the new policy and give all the reasons it was bad. But when you spin it using straight news, you can't do it that way.

As a writer myself, I object to this style of front-loading. The master of the technique is our dear conservative friend Sean Hannity. If he were telling you Obama bought new shoes, you wouldn't get to that bit until you'd suffered two minutes of front-loading about religious appeasement, killing American healthcare, and letting Mexican murderers into the country.

If I may be so bold (and I may), I'd suggest that the Brownback policy change is strong enough to stand on it's own - with a few quotes from concerned parties to give it a bit of heft and framing. But of course, that might entail calling a few sources and taking a few notes, neither of which adds to the writer's bottom line.

Here is a much better version: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/sam-brownback-lgbt-discrimination_n_6656620.html
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
Yes. The technique allows one to write an opinion piece in the guise of "straight news." You list a certain set of facts that all (mysteriously) point to the conclusion you want the reader to draw.

If it were an opinion piece, one could write about the new policy and give all the reasons it was bad. But when you spin it using straight news, you can't do it that way.

As a writer myself, I object to this style of front-loading. The master of the technique is our dear conservative friend Sean Hannity. If he were telling you Obama bought new shoes, you wouldn't get to that bit until you'd suffered two minutes of front-loading about religious appeasement, killing American healthcare, and letting Mexican murderers into the country.

If I may be so bold (and I may), I'd suggest that the Brownback policy change is strong enough to stand on it's own - with a few quotes from concerned parties to give it a bit of heft and framing. But of course, that might entail calling a few sources and taking a few notes, neither of which adds to the writer's bottom line.

Here is a much better version: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/sam-brownback-lgbt-discrimination_n_6656620.html
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that the policy change is strong enough by itself. But if the writer also wants to list other facts to show how terrible Brownback is, I have no objection.

The difference between Hannity is that has to lie when he tells everybody how terrible Obama is.
 
Tony Stark said:
I don't disagree that the policy change is strong enough by itself. But if the writer also wants to list other facts to show how terrible Brownback is, I have no objection.

The difference between Hannity is that has to lie when he tells everybody how terrible Obama is.
Click to expand...

Would you have supported the article if it were done the other way though? Showing how great Brownback was by listing his support of conservation issues, higher immigration quotas, stem cell research, and renewable energy?

Brownback is a turd, no doubt. It's just that I don't like the manipulative way the article was written when the policy change speaks for itself.
 
marplots said:
Would you have supported the article if it were done the other way though? Showing how great Brownback was by listing his support of conservation issues, higher immigration quotas, stem cell research, and renewable energy?

Brownback is a turd, no doubt. It's just that I don't like the manipulative way the article was written when the policy change speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

As long as they are telling the truth, I don't care what reporters write.
 
Minoosh said:
It's popular to have "attitude" in coverage these days but sometimes I long for media outlets to play it straight. I don't need to be clobbered over the head with Salon's take on the information. It's damning enough without the buzzwords. Pet peeve of mine, maybe no one else cares.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of news sites that present the news in a straight forward way. Salon is a niche news site crafted to appeal to a particular demographic that share a common outlook, values and attitude.

My pet peeve is people complaining about 'slanted' news or 'sensational' journalism but who ignore outlets like PBS, Associated Press, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune -- all of which report news in the standard "unbiased" way -- and instead go to sites like Salon or any Fox News outlet and then use them to justify attacking journalists and journalism in general.

However, as for the OP, I think it's a predictable tactic by a pandering bully like Brownback. Do the gay employees have any legal recourse? If they do Brownback may wind up being sorry he started this.
 
newyorkguy said:
However, as for the OP, I think it's a predictable tactic by a pandering bully like Brownback. Do the gay employees have any legal recourse? If they do Brownback may wind up being sorry he started this.
Click to expand...

Since he was reversing the executive order of a previous (Democratic) governor, I sadly don't think so.
 
newyorkguy said:
<snip>
However, as for the OP, I think it's a predictable tactic by a pandering bully like Brownback. Do the gay employees have any legal recourse? If they do Brownback may wind up being sorry he started this.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that he promised not to allow gay marriage in spite of the court ruling. When that failed and gay marriages were allowed last month, by law, he went to his petty bag of tricks. (This post is not a neutral news site.)

As to legal recourse? I'm afraid not. Brownback was essentially rescinding a previous executive order by a Dem governor. As there's no such protection under federal law, he has every right to do so. It becomes an issue for the legislature to decide as executive orders cannot override acts of the legislature, but there's about the chance of a snowball in hell of Kansas passing an LGBT rights bill and there's little hope the the US congress would, either.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Y As there's no such protection under federal law, he has every right to do so. It becomes an issue for the legislature to decide as executive orders cannot override acts of the legislature, but there's about the chance of a snowball in hell of Kansas passing an LGBT rights bill and there's little hope the the US congress would, either.
Click to expand...

Could Obama institute LGBT rights for fed employees by way of executive order?
 
marplots said:
Brownback is a turd, no doubt. It's just that I don't like the manipulative way the article was written when the policy change speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Well it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. In his re-election campaign he boasted of his increased funding for education, leaving out the bit about being forced to change the funding due to a Kansas Supreme Court ruling.
 
My understanding is, the reason for the executive orders is:

The fundamental fairness of protecting workers from being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation is compelling to say the least. However, it's a controversial issue that prompts extreme opposition. Many legislators might feel privately it's the decent thing to do but are afraid to support it publicly. They're afraid come election time an opponent will capitalize on it and use their support to attack them. It's a well-founded fear too.

By extending protection by executive order the chief executives are doing everybody a favor. Except for the people who are dead set against it.
 
I'm afraid I have to agree with marplots on this one. As low as Brownback scores on any scale of human decency, part of the responsibilities of a skeptic is to choose an objective source as possible. One: partisan hackery will already preset many reader's opinion before weighing the merits of the main topic; and Two: the most dangerous materials to critical thinking are those that play heavily to your biases outside of discussing and presenting the facts.
 
Mitchell314 said:
I'm afraid I have to agree with marplots on this one. As low as Brownback scores on any scale of human decency, part of the responsibilities of a skeptic is to choose an objective source as possible. One: partisan hackery will already preset many reader's opinion before weighing the merits of the main topic; and Two: the most dangerous materials to critical thinking are those that play heavily to your biases outside of discussing and presenting the facts.
Click to expand...

Reality has a liberal bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom