One of the best [blogs] is Commonwealth Commonsense, which is found at commonwealthcommonsense.typepad.com.

A Democrat from Northern Virginia, Bob Grindling, runs that blog, which last week contained some intelligent commentary about Kilgore’s accent.

“The flap over how Jerry Kilgore talks and what he says is penetrating the mainstream media after flying around the blogosphere for several weeks,” Grindling noted.

Other recent posts include his thoughts and those of others about whether America is a “Christian nation,” about the Kilgore campaign’s strategy of branding Kaine with the liberal label and the ever-present dish on Chapman.

Since Bob Gibson of the Charlottesville Daily Progress got the URL right, I’m willing to forgive the misspelling of my name. After all, I’ve been called worse.

Define racism. One could certainly make the argument that the cable networks that continually focus on these missing white women, to the virtual exclusion of minority women, are practicing a form of racism. The racism in this case, however, while predicated on color, does not concern itself with the color of one’s skin. Rather, it is based on the color of money, ratings points and competition. Would an African-American woman who went missing days before her wedding receive the same (or any) coverage as that of Wilbanks? Not likely.

More on missing white girls here.

The final of today’s moral trifecta is the case of the Kansas board of education. Basically, proponents of intelligent design say an almighty force (not necessarily God, they say) explains how we got here and not evolution. They want ID to be taught in the schools along with evolution. I guess you could do that by saying “some folks say we got here by Christian magic” and then move on to evolution. I mean, what else do you say after saying God did it?

Of course, I always thought God designed evolution. Evolution itself is a miracle to me, so I can’t see why evolution is a threat to Christianity. But The Washington Post gives ID a hard uppercut.

NEARLY FIVE YEARS into the 21st century, the Kansas State Board of Education has begun an earnest discussion of whether schools in that state should teach science that was obsolete by the end of the 19th century. The board is holding hearings into proposed changes to its model science standards, changes intended to cast doubt on conventional evolutionary biology and inject into classrooms the notion of “intelligent design” — the idea that the complexity of life can be explained only by some conscious creator’s having designed it.

Intelligent design is not your parents’ creationism. It’s a slick set of talking points that are not based on biblical inerrancy but framed, rather, in the language of science: molecular biology, the structure of DNA and holes in the fossil record. Moreover, the ostensible justification for the changes is a seductive one. Proponents say they mean merely to ensure that schoolchildren are given a full sense of the scientific controversy over evolution so that they can make up their own minds. Who can object to that?

But there is no serious scientific controversy over whether Darwinian evolution takes place. Intelligent design is not science. Whatever its rhetoric, the public questioning of evolution is fundamentally religious, not scientific, in nature.

Groups protesting the Kansas curriculum, sex education and the separation of church and state form the nexus of American Taliban movement. Say that, of course, and someone will accuse you of being against people of Christian faith. No, people of strong faith are those who understand that faith is a private matter, and they practice it by setting an example. There are many good people of faith who are legitimately upset by our moral waywardness. But most of them are toiling away in the vineyards. The American Taliban, on the other hand, is using those people and their beliefs to sell an agenda that is reminiscent of the McCarthy era. They want to squash dissent and impose their moral relativism. (Life is sacred but capital punishment is cool, for example.)

Again, we find the battleground to be the classroom. I welcome that, if for no other reason than it will engage kids to get involved in the issues of the day. If curriculum changes the Taliban wants in sex-ed or science class is accompanied by a freewheeling discussion in the classroom, then maybe it’s worth it. Progressives shouldn’t be afraid of “former gays” or ID proponents. But I suspect that a discussion of the issues is not what the Taliban want. We need to force it.

While regressives cast aside church members who don’t agree with their voting habits (see post below), just across the river from Virginia, the American Taliban attacked a sex education program and succeeded in killing it — at least for this year.

As The Washington Post noted in an editorial, there is at least one valid objection.

School officials need to remove some of the inappropriate “teacher resource” material accompanying the curriculum, particularly documents that praise some religious denom inations and criticize others; it’s no wonder some parents were upset about that. Though students don’t see this material, it shouldn’t have been deemed acceptable as the basis for teachers to plan lessons, and it shouldn’t have taken a court case for [School Superintendent] Mr. Weast to learn of it.

I absolutely agree that mentioning certain denominations is exactly what we don’t want schools to engage in. If we don’t want regressives to bring religion into the schools, then why would progressive educators do the same?

Still, this is an issue that I hope progressive Montgomery parents rally around, though I happen to favor at least allowing an appropriate opportunity for “reformed gays” to present their case. I’m willing to be corrected on this, but maybe because I would love to hear their arguments, I think high school students should, too.

I have three teenagers of my own and dozens more who pass through our doors on a regular basis. They’re not all liberals — in fact, they sometimes seem too apolitical — but on the issue of sex, they strike me a more knowledgeable and sophisticated than I was at their age. Where they stand on homosexuality, however, is another issue.

While I wouldn’t be surprised to find them more tolerant of gays than their parents, a recent school event gave me pause. It was the annual Mr. Woodson contest where about a dozen guys compete for the title by producing skits and answering a question, modeled after Miss America. A few of the skits this year made reference to gays that were not necessarily malicious but were gratuitous. One featured a straight guy being turned off by a homosexual proposition that had nothing to do with the theme of the skit. Another featured an effeminate music video director.

At the same time, my son, who did a stand-up comedy routine, was told he couldn’t use a joke that referred to sperm because it was “inappropriate.” He was to make light of a trainer’s instructions to keep a cold pack on his pulled groin by saying that it was proven that sperm couldn’t survive at that temperature. But making fun of gays was apparently appropriate.

Homosexuality wasn’t the only objections raised by a couple of groups in Montgomery County. They apparently didn’t want instruction on how to use a condom or a curriculum that acknowledged abstinence as only one way to avoid diseases and pregnancy.

Schools may be the arena where progressives can rally the troops. Parents who might be turned off by the American Taliban’s agenda can simply ignore it. But just like the regressives, they want to protect their kids from zealots who seek to indoctrinate the little tykes.

Vote Kerry? Get kicked out of church.

That’s the latest from the American Taliban movement. The pastor of a Waynesville, N.C. church led the effort to expel nine members for voting for John Kerry. Forty others in the 400-member church “resigned in protest.”

“This is very disturbing,” said Pastor Robert Prince III, who leads the congregation at the nearby First Baptist Church. “I’ve been a pastor for more than 25 years, and I have never seen church members voted out for something like this.”

…”It’s just an outrage for something like this to happen in America,” said Heidi Jenkins, 52, as she held a garage sale at her home down the street from the church.

Prince said he noticed during the presidential campaign that more pastors made endorsements _ although not from the pulpit _ than in past years.

“It used to be that pastors would speak about the issues and not specific candidates,” he said. “I think that line is being crossed.”

This doesn’t just happen in rural North Carolina towns. It’s happening, perhaps not so blatantly, in Loudoun County, Va., where, according to one parishioner, the pastor for Our Lady of Good Hope openly encourages the congregation to vote for Va. Del. Dick Black. You might think that he’s just promoting one of his own. Well, in the last election when Black ran against Patty Morrissey, the pastor actually preached against her — and she too is a member of the church.

Unfortunately, members of the church are reluctant to protest as did the members of the Waynesville, N.C. church, afraid, according to one member, of being ostracized by the pastor.

After reading about Pastor Chandler, one can appreciate their apprehension.

The remaining members [after those voted out left a meeting] decided that if another church wrote for the letters of those who left, East Waynesville would reply saying they had left in bad standing. Members also discussed changing the church bylaws to state that all members had to sign a statement saying they supported the pastor’s political views, [church member Bill] Rash said.

Sounds like a blacklist to me. No reports whether the church voted to stone to death women — but not men — who commit adultery.

The pastor is now trying to backtrack. A church meeting will be held tomorrow, perhoaps to discuss the issue.

What role Christianity should play in American governments is the provocative question of the day. It’s a question NPR is addressing in a series, the first part of which aired this morning with the second part this afternoon on “All Things Considered.”

The report cites the claims of many, I think with much justification, that this movement is prompted by a “longing for a culturally simpler time.” Many of us who are not religious or conservative worry about the tenor of public debate and the coarseness of our culture, but what concerns me more is what appears to be an American Taliban movement to make religion the basis for our government. How is longing for Christianity to be the guiding light of our public institutions any different from what the Taliban want?

The report goes on to discuss why some feel religion deserves a greater role, though opponents call the intellectual basis for this to be based on a “secret history” of the U.S. The Declaration and Constitution make no mention of Christianity, and on the report’s web page you’ll find quotes from historical figures supporting or debunking the claim that religion, let alone Christianity, is central to our form of government. What’s fascinating is that the quotes on both sides of the issues are often from the same people.

As some in the report suggests, the real reason many are pushing for a greater role of Christianity in government is religion is fear that Protestants are “slipping into the minority.”

The fastest growing religion in America may be Islam. That scares the hell out of Christians. It also explains why the radical right is attempting to emulate the Taliban while many of its leaders most loudly condemn the religion.

The Christian Bible is the oft-cited source of many regressive’s beliefs. You can see it here in the comments section of some posts. The Bible was used to justify slavery by its leading proponents such as Congressman James Jackson of Georgia in the 1790s.

So nothing is really new, except maybe the “secret history” that we are now being coerced to learn.

That tried and true tactic of vapid conservatives everywhere is to call your opponent a liberal, as if that says it all. That says he or she has no values, cares little about working Americans and is a coward. Or I can only surmise. But Jerry Kilgore, under attack for avoiding debates with Kaine, prefers to stand to the side and call Kaine a liberal. Well, OK, the Neanderthals who couldn’t understand an argument if it hit them on the back of their red necks, might say, “That’s all I need to know.” But you’d think Kilgore would have something to point to as proof.

It seems all he has is Kaine’s support for tax increases last year and his work on two cases referred to him by that anti-American, commie-pinko, radical ACLU. Never mind that most Virginians supported the tax increase, meaning, I guess, that most Virginians are liberal. And how is it that a group that seeks “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States,” and who also seeks to “conserve America’s original civic values – the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” is liberal? Do liberals “conserve America’s original civic values”?

Kaine need only remind voters of the popularity of the tax hikes and of what preserving our rights mean in a post-9-11 Patriot Act world. And he might tell them of what the cases were that earned him this epithet. Kaine’s spokesman Delacey Skinner did that, but not before taking the bait.

“They like to say that Tim Kaine is an ACLU lawyer. But the truth is that Tim was never a member of the ACLU and has never worked for the ACLU,” Skinner said.

“The closest contact that he has had with the ACLU was his work on two cases that were referred to him by the ACLU. One of those was a housing-discrimination case in which the people that he was representing had been discriminated against on the basis of their race. Regardless of your political beliefs, it is hard to criticize Tim for offering his services on a case of that nature,” Skinner said.

The apology for the ACLU — in the form of a distancing statement — adds credibility to the charge. Why not defend this organization that regressives don’t like until their rights are trampled?

Steve Chapman, who is challenging Harry Parrish for the Republican nomination for the Manassas seat in the House of Delegates, said he expects to be charged today for filing false residency information. He says he’s lived in three places over the past six months, one of which is not in the district. He took the Washington Post reporter to one of the residences.

At the Manassas condominium on Richmond Avenue, Chapman said, “Welcome to ‘Pimp My Ride,’ ” as he opened the door — referring to an MTV show where skilled mechanics transform dilapidated vehicles into luxury cars.

The cluttered, one-story condominium was filled with dirty furniture. The walls were not painted. The kitchen had no refrigerator and a broken stove. The bathroom, he said, was “under renovation.”

In a bedroom, two old mattresses were stacked on top of each other and had no sheets. “It’s luxurious,” Chapman said sarcastically. “I have an ergonomic pillow so I get a good night’s sleep.”

A good conscious is reportedly also a way to get a good night’s sleep. If this is his legitimate residence, I say he’s unqualified because he’s a slob.

I think it’s a fair question as to why he has had three residences over the past six months. Does he still have the Woodbridge home that’s not in the district but in which he has lived for the last eight years? If he does, then believing this clap trap is his legitimate home is hard to swallow.

UPDATE: Democracy for Va. has more.

Know the numbers. (Thanks to Talking Points Memo.)

The folks in the Shenandoah Valley are getting hit by big tax hikes. In the city of Winchester and Frederick County, Republicans rule, whereas in Clarke County, the board of supervisors is split 2-2 and one independent.

Those tax and spend conservatives!