Letters to the editor for July 30

Branson drag ordinance ripe for legal challenges

Branson's new ordinance restricting "drag shows" to a particular district, along with permits and other onerous provisions (e.g. six-foot masonry walls around properties, minimum 100 feet of street frontage, etc.) seems ripe on its face for legal challenges. Branson might have considered that a judge (Trump appointed!) already determined a similar law in Tennessee was unconstitutional. While Branson's Board of Aldermen made efforts to seem unambiguous in its own anti-drag bill, a closer look reveals some rather shaky legal concepts. Which is odd, since its religion-inspired authors should know they were enjoined by Jesus to build on a rock rather than sand.

They begin with a definition. The ordinance states a "drag show" is a "performance in which characteristics of men or women are exaggerated by an in-person adult or group of adults who impersonate male or female characters while wearing extravagant costumes" and which impersonation is "intended to subvert gender stereotypes" including "jokes, references, dancing, singing, or any other conduct that depicts, describes, or relates to specified sexual activities, as defined herein".

What exactly, one might ask, is a "gender stereotype," what does it mean to "exaggerate" said stereotype, and just what is this "subversion" they speak of? Is Superman, dressed in a skin-hugging tights, incredibly well-muscled torso and what looks like a protruding cod-piece beneath his blue briefs an "exaggerated gender stereotype"? Is that well-defined crotch sexually provocative? Which leads to the "depiction and description" of "specified sexual activities" which are supposedly "defined herein." But wait. The authors apparently forgot to specify these sexual activities, at least in the copy of the ordinance I'm reading.

Furthermore, where does the "male stereotype" begin, and the "female" end? Earrings, trousers, wigs, gowns, combat boots, tube socks? Are those frilly dresses and purple wigs an exaggeration you wouldn't see at any fancy Halloween party? Do they "subvert" so-called "family values"? It's not that modes of dress have only recently become flexible, because drag in many forms has a long history (think 1932 Marlene Dietrich, or 1955 Milton Berle — right up Branson's alley!).

Who are the aldermen to question this time-honored tradition? Besides, there's that pesky issue of protected free speech, one of our most cherished American ideals. Yes, artistic performances are speech, according to the Supreme Court. Would Branson demand rigid conformity to one particular view of wholesome entertainment? Apparently, yes. But it's sure ain't American. You could say it's something more at home in a "wholesome" totalitarian dictatorship. We'll see what a court decides.

Tom Kara, Norwood

Time to ban lotteries, more a scam than a game

Somebody in California just won the Power Ball jackpot of 1+ billion dollars. Yet, how many millions of people lost how many hundreds of millions of dollars for that single winning ticket? Lottery officials tell us their lotteries are a "game." In reality they're far less a game and much more a scam. People who buy their tickets are being "played."

That's why the US needs a federal ban on multi-state lotteries. They bilk our money with their 1 in 300+ million odds. That's not a game, it's a scam. If states like Missouri want a state lotto under state law, it's acceptable if most citizens agree. But once multiple states enter into a binding, financial lottery-agreement it falls under federal jurisdiction. Power Ball, Mega Millions, and any others need to be abolished at the federal level.

I hope both President Biden and the U.S. House & Senate will consider banning these greedy "games" soon. Though poor folks don't pay out most of the monies wasted, they certainly pay out a much higher percentage of their incomes than other classes. Please act. It's time to "Stop the Steal."

Kevin Corbin, Springfield

Good bipartisan legislation in the works

Unless you have been living under a hot rock, you may have noticed that this summer has been a bit warm, with Springfield getting a heat wave in early July. An article by Kate Perez on July 18 that ran in the News-Leader noted how heat records are being broken all over the country. Millions of Americans have been issued heat advisories. For the short-term we need to stay hydrated and go swimming, but for the long-term we need to use cleaner energy to stop driving temperatures up, according to NASA and other scientific organizations.

One way to promote cleaner energy is to have a border adjustment mechanism that charges border fees on certain products from countries that use dirtier energy. This approach also has the benefit of promoting US businesses at the same time. There is currently a bipartisan bill called the Prove It Act which does this, and it deserves our support. It was introduced in the senate in June, sponsored by four Republicans, three Democrats, and one Independent. Now is a good time to ask Senators Hawley and Schmitt, and our representative Eric Burlison, to cosponsor or support this good piece of legislation. The EU is already guarding their borders this way on some products. America can do the same.

The Prove It Act does not yet establish a border adjustment mechanism, but it gets the ball rolling by compiling a product database and paving the way. The Prove It Act is a long-term solution. It won't solve current heatwaves, so in the meantime reach for cold drinks this summer.

John Webster, Springfield

Placing investor return over everything else will lead to many problems, including recession

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft says that the duty of maximizing investor return trumps all others for money managers of all types. But I think other duties such as the duty of care for our whole world and society are much stronger. However, even if we accept that the monetary outcome is of sole importance, Ashcroft ignores the long term. If companies, investors and their agents ignore environmental, social and governance considerations, just a few of the consequences will be so expensive that all the profits of such a strategy and more will be eradicated.

First, we will lose millions of acres of low lying land, there will be a mass exodus from the lowlands, and storms, droughts, fires and plague will cause devastation nearly everywhere. Because of these, markets, banks and companies will collapse.

Secondly, without punishment for gross malpractice in management, stockholders will watch helplessly as Ponzi schemes, self-dealing managements and abuse of employees go unchecked. In case Mr. Ashcroft did not notice, we had a crash in 2007 and 2008 when the government had to come in and bail out the economy, especially the banks. The taxpayers were on the hook for that. The national deficit soared, so many investments that could have been made in infrastructure and health were not possible.

Third, when management tramples on the health and solvency of most of the working class, you do not have a strong or happy country, and people become cynical and disengaged. Crime of all kinds goes up, including, eventually, sabotage.

But the Republican Party is now promoting laws to let all these long term consequences unroll unhindered, Mr. Ashcroft in the vanguard. Beware, Missourians.

Gary Wright M.D., Springfield

Do as I say, not as I do

On July 20, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that AG Bailey had zero authority to reject fiscal notes which are required to certify ballot titles for eleven initiative petitions. In the court’s scathing opinion, they asserted that the AG had undertaken methods not granted to him by constitutional or statutory authority. Byexceeding the bounds of his authority, AG Bailey attempted to establish a precedent that would allow his office to single-handedly take the entire initiative process hostage. Granting him the ability to quash any future initiatives.

Since 1907, the initiative process has been a treasured pillar of lawmaking in Missouri, one of only 16 states that allow for direct legislating by the people. It has allowed for some of Missouri’s greatest achievements including the Hancock Amendment, term limits, campaign finance reform, and most notably the Missouri Plan. Constitutional Initiatives have become the single most used tool in the citizen’s toolbox since the General Assembly trampled over statutory referendums in 2011. That was when the General Assembly reversed a referendum to limit puppy mills in the state. That reversal bill being introduced by nonother than, then Senator Mike Parson. This betrayal is whatled Missourians to seek enshrinement of issues in the state constitution to limit the General Assembly’s tampering.

With the recent passage of several constitutional initiatives, the process has been placed in the crosshairs of the General Assembly. Earlier this year we saw the House pass a plan to make the process much harder by raising the required number of signatures. The plan was only stopped by infighting in the Senate GOP Caucus. While it may be delayed for now, you can rest assured the issue will be brought to the voters and when that time comes, I urge you to stand up for your right to the initiative process. As we’ve seen, the initiative process has no friends in the legislative and executive branches, meaning we must be the ones to defend it. Regardless of how you may feel about the initiatives that have and will be presented to the voters, to sacrifice the rights of others is to sacrificeyour own rights. We must remain vigilant against these attacks on our collective rights.

Garret Schmidt, Clever

This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Letters to the editor for July 30