A Tribute Only a Methodologist Could Do
ArchPundit
Charles Franklin plots and lists those soldiers who have died in Iraq.
Not to be confused with a Methodist in any way, shape, or form.
2007
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.
“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.
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.
The Second 100 Hours
Should start with the Prevention First Act.
Please, veto it, Mr. President. Pretty please.
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.
Unit 4: The next battle over creationism
John Bambenek has decided to run for the Unit 4 School Board.
That’s the same Bambenek who argued for the inclusion of intelligent design in the University of Illinois’ curriculum.
It’s hard to tell whether his support for intelligent design in the curriculum or his stunning dishonesty about evolutionary theory is more disqualifying.
I would imagine Narciblog, Running from the Thought Police, and It’s Matt’s World, will be covering the trainwreck in some detail.
Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan
The US NPS refuses to comment on the age of the Grand Canyon.
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology
Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”
In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.
In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.
According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.
Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book.
Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on “Interpretation and Education (Director’s Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the “history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.”
“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,” Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. “We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.”
Oh, let me count the ways this administration denies reality.
New Blog
There are always a ton of them in my inbox, but this is one I ran across from comments. Jen, who has commented here many times, has a pro-life liberal site called Turn the Clock Forward. I’ll get it added to the blogroll eventually.
Who Says Only Romney is Getting Flack for His Church?
Fran Eaton does it with Obama.
First, she takes Sirota out of context suggesting that Sirota is one who worships Obama
Political commentators compare Obama to Jesus and breathlessly proclaim him as a savior, a deity, a possessor of infinite potential, someone special, a king, the second coming of the almighty and, well, the almighty himself.
Internet blogger David Sirota wrote recently that Obama is “all the Founding Fathers, the Greek philosophers, Mother Theresa, the pope and every biblical prophet rolled into one man who can personally connect with every living organism in the universe at the very same moment.”
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.
Most eye-opening is a 12-point doctrine to which Trinity members are required to adhere.
Called the “black value system,” the church’s doctrine calls on its members to be committed to God, to self-discipline and self-respect and to pursue education and excellence — all honorable, mainstream community standards.
But Trinity is unique among UCC churches nationwide in its black value system which requires commitment to the black community and family, adherence to the “black work ethic” and disavowal of the pursuit of “middleclassness.” It also states members must make a pledge to gift the black community with members’ learned skills and personal resources. They also must pledge allegiance to “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the black value system.”
I’ve never heard Barack Obama talk about this black value system. It’s not specifically mentioned in his book. Perhaps the doctrine is not meant for public discussion. But because he holds his religious beliefs so dear, Trinity’s black value system may be key to understanding a little more just how Obama looks at the world and what kind of president he would be.
Here are the 12 precepts and covenental statements:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
back to Eaton:
But at the same time Obama is a longtime, active participant in a church that prides itself in its African heritage and color of skin. It is troubling that his church’s doctrine may demand he promote affirmative action, racial quotas, reparations, bussing and more government programs dependent upon skin color.
If so, it would be disheartening to the progress we’ve made as a society, and our attempts to fulfill Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream that some day our children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Hmmmm…looking at the 12 values it doesn’t require any of the suggestions by Eaton though bussing is a term for kissing in England, not desegregation in America.
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.