January 2007

Bambenek Claims Creationism Isn’t a Part of His Platform

And really that fits with every campaign for school board by creationists. The point is to run below the radar and then institute changes once in power. See Kansas ad nauseum.

But the larger point isn’t what his platform is, it’s that he views creationism as reasonable science. It’s simply not even if you call it intelligent design and that sort of judgment on curriculum matters is a significant reason voters should be aware of people pushing junk science. School boards review curriculum and someone reviewing curriculum without a basic understanding of science–science degree or not–is a problem.

That is, unless John thinks intelligent design should be in the University of Illinois’ curriculum, but not Unit 4’s. It’s the kind of candidates like Bambenek who create the problem. All of a sudden there is a proposal before the board to include creationism in the curriculum and people get treated to idiotic choices that cost the District a bunch in court costs.

Beyond that other warning signs are John’s comparison of premarital sex to slavery. I have some sense he’ll be an advocate, whether it’s in his ‘platform’ or not, for abstinence only education instead of a comprehensive program based on medically accurate information. Abstinence only has shown virtually no promise in reducing teen pregnancy and STD prevalence, but yet many still insist on it instead of abstinence plus medically accurate information about contraception and safe sex.

Because He Rants Better

Crooks and Liars has Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment. Go watch. Perhaps cry. Get angry.

John Cole has been a must read for several months since he realized the Emperor has no clothes. One of his recent is quite good and fits with the above.

John and I both supported the war though I think I can say I didn’t criticize those who disagreed much and in fact thought they made good points. John and I both realize how wrong we were and while I’ve been a Democrat, his disillusionment with the GOP has been interesting to watch. While I have lost much of my faith in the ability of government by reasonable people compromising, he’s watched an entire party he was a part of fall apart and become a cult of personality.

All that is for nothing though, as it has no serious effect other than to bruise our egos while we continue to throw soldiers into harms way with no purpose other than to assuage Dear Leader’s delicate ego.

When GM Asks for A Government Bail Out

Remember this genius move

In a story published by Reuters last week, Lutz argued that raising fuel economy standards would unfairly burden Detroit, and alleges (rather cluelessly) that Americans don’t care — they just want their big, powerful trucks and SUVs. Really Bob? Then why do the latest polls indicate that Americans are prioritizing fuel economy and safety more and more – something GM’s giant SUVs don’t provide? Why has Toyota just surpassed GM as the number one auto seller in the world? Why are sales of the largest SUVs continuing to plummet as consumers discover their wallets emptying when volatile gas prices peak?

We’ll still bail them out because GM going belly up would send horrible shockwaves through the economy, but we don’t have to be happy about it when it happens. Ford hasn’t always made good decisions, but they at least have some sense beyond the next quarter.

Getting Your Organizing On

Because net neutrality is about to hit Illinois bigtime. Don’t believe me?

Leo has the goods on the first bit of the fight with AT & T laying the astroturf down
.

The original article:

In the course of our earlier reporting on AT&T’s attempt to deploy IPTV to the Chicago suburbs, we discussed the Advanced Technology Alliance. It’s an interest group that pushes the AT&T agenda hard through letters to the editor and a giant chicken, but local critics have charged it with being an “astroturf” (that is, a fake “grassroots” effort) group funded by AT&T. Ars has now learned more details about the relationship between the two companies.

The ATA’s domain name, www.iltechalliance.org, is currently registered to Domains by Proxy, an Arizona business that helps obscure the true owner of a web site. A source tells us that the organization’s registration had not initially been through Domains by Proxy, though, but through a prominent Chicago public relations firm. Ars Technica has now been able to verify that information independently.

Earlier this year, the WHOIS record for iltechalliance.org pointed to Jasculca/Terman and Associates of Chicago, a PR firm that specializes in “bringing the tactics and discipline of political campaign work to the management of issues and events for private, public and institutional clients.”

Jasculca/Terman’s services include “grassroots outreach and coalition building” for their clients. Significantly, AT&T is listed among those clients.

For an example of how the firm works, consider the campaign it ran on behalf of the Illinois Casino Gaming Association, a group that wanted to raise “additional tax revenues” (read: expand gambling in Illinois). Jasculca/Terman helped them to stage a massive letter-writing campaign by organizing meetings with casino employees, mailings to casino customers, a website, and “action stations” at casinos. They managed to sign on more than 6,000 people.

For the Illinois bloggers I’m starting an e-mail list for those interested in the coming net neutrality fight. E-mail me and I’ll put you on it. We haven’t done a ton of lobbying or organizing, this seems to be the issue to break out of that pattern.

Part of the Problem with American Democracy

I’m usually cynical enough to not worry about these things, but a search of John Edwards (without quote marks) turns up the psychic before the Presidential Candidate. Please google bomb this and restore my faith in democracy. So John Edwards

Hell, I wouldn’t mind if it was the 18th Century Preacher even

Here’s the full announcement by Edwards:

As I’ve said, I like John Edwards a lot, but the cheap shot about hope was particularly annoying given his history versus Obama’s.

Sirota covers the quote here:

“Identifying the problem and talking about hope is waiting for tomorrow.”

I don’t begrudge Edwards being a trial lawyer–I think it’s great and think it’s a great service. However, Obama spent five years as a community organizer in the 1980s and directed Illinois Project Vote in 1992. He’s been doing it for a long time and he devoted several years of his life to it when he could have been doing work as a lawyer and making a lot more money.

Dierker Embarrassment

I wish to welcome the rest of the world to the wacky world of Robert Dierker

Dierker is incredibly well educated, but still a complete moron. In his recent book he decried femifascists. Benen wrote:

In a disclaimer at the end of the book, Dierker writes that the views in the book are “personal, and should not be construed as any indication of how I would rule on any case coming before me.” No, of course not. Just because he spent nearly 300 pages explaining his beliefs that liberals and “femifascists” are wrong about everything is certainly no reason to question his judicial independence, temperament, and impartiality, right?

Certainly women in St. Louis bringing a case about, say, sexual harassment, can take comfort in knowing that Dierker will be fair and evenhanded, right?

Please.

TBogg put it succinctly

Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.will now hear the case of The People vs. The Bitch Had It Coming.

What they didn’t know, is they were closer to the truth than they knew:

The case landed in the courtroom of then-Presiding Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr., of the 22nd Circuit Court in St. Louis, who issued his controversial 16-page order on Oct 5. Before tackling the woman’s specific allegations, Dierker engaged in a lecture about the sexual politics of the late 20th century:

“From Anita Hill to Monica Lewinsky, the cry of ‘sexual harassment’ has been selectively raised to advance certain groups’ political agendas under the guise of promoting equal opportunity in the workplace, or under the banner of ‘equality’ in academe,” the opening paragraph of Dierker’s order reads, citing chapter and verse from Slouching Towards Gomorrah, a book written by failed Supreme Court nominee and ultraconservative Robert Bork.

“Spawned in the protean atmosphere of federal employment discrimination litigation … the theories of the ‘sexual harassment’ police have stretched their tentacles from college facilities to Supreme Court confirmation hearings to legal and judicial ethics … and now seek to ensnare the common law of torts,” Dierker continues. “The Court concludes that the common law does not enact Cardinal Newman’s definition of a gentleman, nor Catherine (sic) MacKinnon’s vapid maunderings, and that Plaintiff’s petition at present fails to state a claim.”

Dierker moves on to the two counts filed by the woman: Count I, alleging “intentional infliction of emotional distress;” and Count II, which “alleges the same facts, but attempts to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.”

According to law, Dierker states, intentional infliction of emotional distress must contain the following elements: “defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; the conduct caused severe emotional distress; and the conduct was intended only to cause extreme emotional distress to the victim.”

Dierker states: “Indeed, as pleaded, the facts alleged at most show that Defendant was seeking to gratify his own sexual urges despite rejection by Plaintiff.

” ….it seems clear that, except for the denizens of the cloud-cuckoo-land of radical feminism, no court has held that sexual advances are ipso facto actionable. More is required to establish a tort than a rejected advance.”

“The pleaded facts must show outrageous conduct, i.e., conduct which is regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society,” Dierker continues. “Mere solicitation to begin, or renew, a sexual relationship is not such conduct. There must be more.” In essence, says the judge, the doctor was not intentionally trying to inflict emotional harm but simply seeking sex.

“Plaintiff would seek to have the Court impose a duty of care on persons inviting others to engage in sexual relationships,” the judge continues. “Plaintiff’s attempts to inveigle the Court into a realm which is best left to church and family is supported by neither reason nor authority. Absent outrageous intentional conduct, resulting in substantial, objective injury — or legislation imposing a standard representing the will of the people — the courts cannot and should not attempt to regulate behavior in this peculiarly private area.”

Dierker concludes by suggesting that “the sexual harassment police seem oblivious to the First Amendment as they eagerly enlist the courts as censors of words and literature in the workplace.”

Dierker granted the doctor’s motion to dismiss the case on both counts but allowed the woman to file an amended petition “restating Count I consistent with this opinion.”

The woman in question had been the patient of a psychiatrist who was transferred to be his secretary and a sexual relationship occurred. So this assclown was a psychiatrist and boss of woman he was sleeping with and then he harassed her to continue the affair.

Why would anyone think his outside writing would affect his positions?

The Non-Response

Fran Eaton doesn’t respond instead thinking that the most important criticism is that of her spelling of the word busing.

She considers the rest non-substantive which is bizarre to say the least. Let’s start with she cites an Obama critic as evidence that Obama is being compared to all sorts of religious figures, but she never answers the point in that:

As a word of advice, when writing a column, you might try and actually find someone who says Obama is like Jesus, or a savior, or a deity, a possessor of infinite potential, a king, the second coming, or the almighty. Instead, we get treated to another guy who said something without really pointing out an example of someone actually making such comparisons.

You might get the infinite potential bit in some column, but it would be fascinating to find anyone who seriously argues Obama is like Jesus, or a savior, or a deity, a king, the second coming, or the almighty. Sirota is being sarcastic and critical of Obama so it might be a good idea to actually point to people making such comparisons.

Fran is trying to make two points in the list of twelve controversial, but it isn’t clear why they are controversial:

I’m especially interested in learning more about how one adheres to the “Black Work Ethic” and disavows the pursuit of “Middleclassness.”

Of course, I pointed out that middleclassness is the notion that African-Americans who achieve economic mobility often adopt the notion they are superior to those who do not. It doesn’t suggest one should not strive, it means when one is successful one should not judge others who do not succeed. How do I know this? I have actually read source that reference it before. One in particular is a quick google away. It’s the fifth response to the words Obama and Middleclassness in google and would have been the third before Eaton’s postings.

Of course, the list is not a serious list since affirmative action shouldn’t trouble anyone. Enlarging the applicant pool is generally a good thing for all. Racial quotas are illegal and always have been other than in instances to redress specific instances of discrimination. Reparations aren’t mentioned by the list. Busing was used often to move black kids out of white schools yet was only controversial to people like Fran when it was used to reduce geographic isolation. And there aren’t many government programs dependent upon skin color–notice she didn’t mention any, but I’m sure she has tons of examples for us.

Taken in full, it is a rather uncontroversial 12 statements with the only one confusing to most whites being the issue of middleclassness which isn’t about not being middle class, but about looking down at those who aren’t. The Protestant Work Ethic doesn’t quite translate in black churches the same way. Go figure.

As with most religious statements, the political ramifications are quite unclear. While I’d bet most of Trinity’s members are a liberal lot, there is plenty in that value system any conservative could feel argues for less government. This sort of out of context claptrap is only going to increase as this campaign continues

Fran isn’t really interested in learning about or thinking or she might have also read the bit on Trinity’s web site about Black Work Ethic

Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
“It is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago” Whether this is true
or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for
deserting the Chicago area. We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate
transportation and reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry. We are
in competition with other cities, states, and nations for jobs. High productivity must be a
goal of the Black workforce.

and for the disavowal of middleclassness:

Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive
ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system. Also, the captors
must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who
show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

Black churches have a history in abolition and resistance to discrimination, hence the language is steeped in the language of those two movements even if most conservatives seem to have only heard one line ever–that being MLK’s one line in a long speech.

The values in Trinity’s statement are non-controversial to both Christians and to Americans.

But don’t let that stop Eaton from trying to draw dark inferences about them.

So to wrap this up for Fran, who is a little slow:

1) where are all these references to Obama as God or other religious figure?

2) You misrepresented policy domains around black politics including affirmative action, quotas, desegregation and busing, reparations, and some amorphous group of government policies.

3) Where is anything in the twelve points requiring support of reparations? Quotas? Busing?

4) They certainly would call for affirmative action which is the point of the idea in middleclassness–African-Americans in the church have a responsibility to address the economic advancement of other African-Americans less well off for them. Affirmative action is just that, taking action to ensure traditionally underrepresented minorities are actually given a chance to compete for jobs. Instead of simply recruiting at magnet schools, recruitment should be done at all schools for colleges is a very basic example.

5) Desegregation is hardly controversial—is anyone suggesting white and black students should be in separate systems? Busing is a rather amorphous term that a good proponent of vouchers such as Eaton might want to think about if she wants a working system of vouchers. It helps to have a plan of how students get to schools they are choosing with vouchers.

6) In terms of a whole host of government programs dependent upon the color of one’s skin, what programs is she even talking about?

Anyone reading the first post of mine would have noticed these objections to Eaton, but she concentrated on a joke about busing. Typical.

Science: It’s all relative

Not to be outdone by the National Park Service, we must remember that the Department of Health and Human Services has an appointee who is in charge of family planning, but opposed to contraception. He also refers to premarital sex as modern germ warfare and thinks that it leads to people not being able to form bonds in later relationships despite no evidence involving humans.

Planned Parenthood is trying to get his guy removed and is announcing a new initiative:

In paid print and online advertisements, PPFA has demanded that Keroack be replaced by a qualified health care professional to oversee Title X. In addition, PPFA has outlined priorities for the 110th Congress that focus on promoting commonsense health care policies like the protection and funding of Title X, expanded access to prevention services through Medicaid, and protecting teens through medically accurate sex education. The January 4, 2007, edition of Roll Call will include PPFA’s print advertisement, and online ads will run on thehill.com and blogs including dailykos.com, thecarpetbaggerreport.com, pandagon.net, and feministing.com.

Planned Parenthood supporters will wear buttons to events on Capitol Hill during the week of January 2, 2007, calling for “Health Care Facts, Not Keroack.” The campaign is aimed at raising awareness among new and returning members of Congress and their staff to the threats to women’s health posed by Keroack’s appointment, and the urgent need for prevention-first legislation that protects women’s health.

“The Bush administration’s approach to health care has given this Congress the perfect example of what not to do. Americans want commonsense policies that put women and families first,” added Richards. “Keroack should be replaced immediately with a respected reproductive health expert who recognizes family planning is good medicine.”

Of course, some would compare premarital sex to slavery.

I’m not really sure why America has been plagued with this level of idiocy, but the karmic payback is a bitch.