« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »
April 29, 2006
Expose state corruption... get sued...
I recently have been made a full member of the Media Bloggers Association and they sent along this story of a blogger in Maine being sued in federal court for exposing the incestous relationship between the state and it's contractors.
Lucky for him he's got tons of support. Go get 'em!
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 26, 2006
DI Column Up: Pro-Choice Education
You can read it here. It is in response to this and this. Essentially, cops are being put in the schools in Champaign.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 24, 2006
Gay Marriage Debate Talk: My Opening Statement
The following was my opening statement at the gay marriage panel discussion that took place last week on campus. One thing to note, the words "form" and "matter" are also terms used theologically to determine the validity of sacraments and they have a particular meaning in the Sacrament of Matrimony. I, however, define these terms differently for the purpose of the debate to construct a secular and social institution. In sort, those who are theologically minded might notice I'm making these words mean something else but the reality is that I'm talking about marriage as a social institution instead of the Sacramental event. Hope this makes sense. I explicitly avoided the religious angle because I think it would have just been a discussion stopper, for one. "Seperation of Church and State" and all that. I stick with a philosophic view, so I try to form philosophic structures to defend it where people can't hide behind the wall of seperation. That, and I think, that if the law is going to recognize something and provide benefits, there should be some public good involved. The difference is, I think marriage properly constructed provides that public good, whereas what we have now does not.
The intention of setting this up the way I did was to get people to think. It seems Libertarian, but it's not. In short, I played a gamble. By saying that we either need to enunciate a public good or get rid of the institution, I'm banking the most people intuitively think we need to keep the institution, so they look for a public good. I think from the response, the thought experiment worked and got a few people thinking.
======
I would first like to take this opportunity to thank you for coming tonight. So often in political discourse, warring camps spend so much time attacking each other that rarely do they listen to what others have to say. I believe a free society requires open and free discussion so that when we inevitably disagree on issues, we know what we are disagreeing with. I hope tonight's civil discourse will help bridge the gap between these ideas so that even though we may disagree, we can still appreciate that we all are essential components of this free society.
From the perspective of the intellectuals opposed to gay marriage, this issue is not really about gay marriage. This issue is about the state of marriage, in general, and we've been discontent for a long time. While it certainly may appear that the pushback started with the gay marriage debate, it has been brewing for a long time. Earlier debates on covenant marriage largely reflect this.
What we historically call marriage is an organic, primeval, and pre-political institution. It is most emphatically not a creation of the state or a so-called "legal institution". Despite brief periods of social experimentation, marriage has always constituted a particular form. Philosophically, we can describe marriage in terms of its "form" (or its participants) and its "matter" (or the nature of the relationship between the participants).
The matter of marriage, until very recently historically speaking, has been a life-long, committed, exclusive, procreative, and sexual change of state. It is hard to view marriage through the lenses of our current experience of disposable relationships as a change of state. Marriage wasn't viewed as simply a relationship back then. Being married was primary something you were, I change in the very substance of your identity. As our modern experience of the last century has whittled away at the matter of marriage, the idea that marriage constituted a state change has been lost.
The deconstruction of marriage began, I would argue, in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference when the Anglican Communion changed their religious teaching to permit contraception. This began the process of legitimizing the separation between sex and procreation, and namely, has lead most in this country to not only remove procreativity from the matter of marriage, but to view fertility as a disease to be cured. It is not difficult to point to the variety of social ills caused by this separation that makes the bold, yet over-estimated presumption, that sex and procreation are somehow separate activities and that safe sex will somehow completely exclude children.
There were many people who criticized this mainstreaming of contraception and the harm it would eventually visit upon society, children and women in particular. Children are harmed by the notion that they are inconveniences to be avoided and shackles to adult freedom. This notion is not lost on those children and this plays out in the great number of psychopathologies we see in our children today. Women are harmed by this by suffering from poverty in greater proportions, being subjected to a series of unsatisfying relationships, and forced to live in a world of male-centered sexuality.
The over-estimate of "safe sex" necessarily allowed those to behave in sexual ways that were previously prevented if not by ethics or law, by the natural consequence of children resulting from sex. This directly led to premarital sex and extramarital sex in much greater proportions than history has seen. By removing procreativity, exclusivity was eventually removed.
In part, arising from this new idea on sexuality, and in part, arising out of other causes, divorce became and increasing problem. While the law previously made it difficult to get a divorce, this has lead to many couples simply lying or gaming the courts to get what they want. Starting in 1969, California adopted so-called no-fault divorces in which couples could separate without proving someone at "fault" (for instance, adultery, abuse, etc). By 1985, all states had such laws.
It is common in this debate to refer to marriage as a contract. However, marriage as it is currently practiced it is something quite less than a contract. If the marriage "contract" can be, without penalty, unilaterally breached by one party, often with the party gaining in the transaction, it can hardly be considered a contract. Contracts are binding; marriage as it is practiced is at best a short-term economic gentlemen's agreement. (Show divorce packet). This is the form to petition for divorce, in many cases, this is all it takes in this county. 7 pages. It is easier to get divorced in some ways than it is to get married. If all it takes is one seven page packet of paper to get divorced, how can marriage be considered committed? Much less life-long?
With all of these innovations, the matter of marriage has become essentially non-existent. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on gay marriage, no one blinked when they suggested that sex was no longer even an essential part of marriage. What is left of marriage after being ravaged by these innovations is little more than a temporary property sharing arrangement. Society behaves as if this is true, yet all the sudden "finds" meaning when gay marriage is involved. This arbitrariness is discrimination.
The question we are faced with now is not whether to allow gay marriage or not, but why we publicly recognize marriage in the first place. If it is merely a private organization of property, there is no reason to exclude gay couples from it. However, there is also no reason to recognize it at all. If a public good cannot be enunciated from what marriage has become, it should not be publicly supported.
Marriages have had public benefit in the past precisely because of their procreativity. Well-adjusted and well-reared children are of immense value to any society, without them we simply become articles of interest to historians and anthropologists, not a living and thriving society. While the matter may be drained from marriage, it can still be restored. By draining the form from marriage also, making marriage "anything you want it to be", it deconstructs marriage irrevocably. It turns a social institution into a meaningless title leaving people wondering why they bother with it. Something that means anything in effect means nothing. If sex and procreation are merely private relationships, why can't friends be married for the sake of economics? I've never heard any explanation why polygamy won't be legitimized after gay marriage, and I've heard more than one supporter of gay marriage concede that it would. I challenge anyone here who will dispute the previous statement to explain to me how we can have gay marriage and not implicitly be forced to accept polygamy or other "forms" of marriage. I sincerely would like to know.
I have not come here to give voice to Fred Phelps of God Hates Fags infamy. I think society's mistreatment and demonization of homosexuals is discrimination. In a society of strip joints, adultery, porn, and cheap sex, it is absurd to cherry-pick one "Sex crime" while exonerating the others. You can't insist sex has meaning and then act as if it does not. I think it's pretty absurd to make attempts at "keeping score" on which practice is more wrong, while erasing our "favorite vices" out of the ledger.
My opposition is not based solely on the matter of gay marriage in a vacuum, but to the series of acts that have tried to remove any meaning from marriage. I hold we shouldn't even maintain what we have but instead to return to a relationship that does have meaning, a meaning that is best for men, women, children, and society.
The one thing I hope our society can learn is that disagreeing with an idea does not require dehumanization of political opponents. It is possible to disagree and still treat those with whom you disagree with the full measure of human dignity which they are entitled to. I may disagree with gay marriage, but I would gladly, whole-heartedly, and without reservation man the walls against any who would visit physical harm on a fellow citizen simply because of those disagreements. That was the oath I took when trained as a military officer, an oath which I don't view myself as released from today.
I hope this helps explains my position and look forward to your questions.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Guard the Borders Blogburst: 10 Facts
By Heidi at Euphoric Reality
Facts are a funny thing. They are conveniently forgotten if they don't uphold one's point-of-view, and they're easily overlooked if they are randomly scattered about. But when solid facts are brought together in one place, the pattern is difficult to ignore. The facts I'm about to provide below are just such a case. People may be able to overlook a single fact, but the weight of their significance cannot be denied when they come together in one place. That is the purpose of this week's Blogburst - to look at some hard facts.
I think it's important to study the problems of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas as instructive for the rest of the states. It may be that others can write off the doom of California by saying, "Well, that's just California, a loony state of fruits and nuts - that would never happen here." But while California is tipping head-first into ruin, it is highly indicative of the chain of events the rest of us are blindly bumbling through. Arizona and New Mexico have declared official states of emergency because they are completely unable to handle the burden of the influx of illegals into their communities. Texas is not far behind with mass hospital closings, an overwhelmed and declining school system, and a climbing crime rate. Just because one lives in Idaho or Nebraska or Maine does not mean that it won't happen to you! You're just a few years behind the curve.
The following 10 facts have been pulled from the LA Times. We've posted them all at one time or another at ER or in the Blogburst.
1. L.A. County has 10 million people. 40% of all workers in L.A. County are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.2. Of the 10 million people in L.A. County, 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak only Spanish.
3. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
4. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
5. Over two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
6. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
7. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
8. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
9. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
10. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish language only.
We need to look at the experience of California as inevitable for the rest of us - if we don't, we're only burying our heads in the sand and bequeathing that future to our children! After all, if we keep merrily careening down the road to California, we can't be dumbfounded when we actually end up in California, can we?!
Here are a few more facts on a national scale:
1. Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 36% are on welfare.2. Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.
3. The United States receives more immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.
4. The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].
5. The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.
6. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
The problems of illegal immigration are not solely "border state" problems. They impact everyone. California and Texas are the two biggest economic engines in the United States - and they are teetering on bankruptcy on a catastrophic scale. If they go bust, guess who picks up the pieces? Indiana, New Hampshire, South Dakota, West Virginia, and all the rest. Illegal immigration is not - I repeat, NOT - a border state problem. It's a burden we're all bearing and a risk we're all sharing.
We are way past the point of half-way measures and temporary fixes. As a nation, we must demand a definitive, decisive, no-nonsense solution. We cannot be placated by smarmy speeches from self-interested politicians, or fooled by spin semantics ("it's a guest worker program - not amnesty"), or lulled into apathy by the drone of our everyday lives.
We cannot leave this crisis to our children. Do something! Get out of your comfort zone and get involved. There are bigger issues at stake than the price of lettuce! The time is critical. And it's NOW.
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
On responding to the critics
Of all the columns I've ever written, the column on Intelligent Design (where I say ID is not science, that evolution might be sufficient to explain to origins of life, and so on) has generated, by far, the most response. The response largely confirms my thesis, that at the mere mention of Intelligent Design, minds snap shut. In this case, they snapped shut so fast, they didn't even get to the part where I said ID isn't science and insist that is what I was saying.
That aside, I think I've learned a valuable lesson, to not waste time on the knee-jerk reactionaries in the blogosphere. The gay marriage debate has shown me that it is still possible to disagree with one another and still have an intelligent discussion. However, it is pointless to try to argue with the zealots that troll the fever swamp of prefabricated thought. If they want to comment here, fine. For my part, I'm done with them.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 21, 2006
Gay Marriage Debate on Campus
By and large, I think it went well. There is a marked difference between the people that attended and those who tend to write in or run off their mouth on the internet, and that was an unexpected surprise. One such comment from someone not even in the state any more was:
This is why the only proper confrontation with Bambi should involve him on the business end of something no smaller than .40 S&W.Someday, God willing, that will be legal.
Luckily people like that aren't the ones contributing and making society, the kind of people that were at the debate were. And by and large they were thoughtful, intelligent, and reasonable people.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 19, 2006
MT problems
Apparently, sometimes when I create a post it creates 0 byte HTML files instead of the post, so some things have been broken lately.
Sorry about that.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
2 DI Columns Up: "Public Good?" and "Social Justice for Immigrants"
Today, the opinions page is the John and Brian Pierce show, with two columns each from both of us. Public Good? is a point-counterpoint on gay marriage as a prelude to the panel discussion on gay marriage Brian and I will be on Thursday, April 20th at 7pm in the Union - Illini Room A.
The second article, Social Justice for Immigrants is an article defending enforcement of immigration laws from a social justice perspective.
I'm sure the hate mail will be flowing freely as apparently I generate the most letters of any other writer for the DI.
UPDATE:
For instance, hate mail like this. Oh wait, that's really warm and compassionate... my bad.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
DI Letter Fun
There were two amusing letters the past few days. This one continues to attack me for a position I don't hold and tries to make an attempt to call me a heretic at that. This amuses me.
First, the Church has authority to declare teachings that require obedience in the areas of faith and morals... only. Even if the documents in question were meant to authoritatively establish evolution as a theory of creation, they would still not be binding under the authority of the Church.
Two, I never, at any point, stated I (1) believe in Intelligent Design or (2) that evolution was wrong, or (3) that Intelligent Design is scientific. In fact, for the later two, I said the exact opposite.
Three, the talk I reference in my column was held at a Catholic Church, and for that matter, not one that is known for heterodoxy.
Once again, illiteracy seems to reign.
The second letter criticized an earlier editorial for the various anti-war groups hording annual township meetings to get impeachment and anti-war referenda on the ballot. The idea that the DI (who ran out Acton for publishing politically incorrect cartoons) is the ideological soulmate of the OBO is amusing.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 17, 2006
Thought-blocking Pettiness
When I wrote on intelligent design last week, I knew I was in for some fan-mail. The interesting part about the fan-mail is that instead of effectively criticizing my article, it actually proves my point.
The column takes no position on intelligent design, namely it does not defend it as science (and, in fact, outright says it isn't science) but suggests that it should not be treated as a forbidden question to ask. There is no indication to the intelligent reader that the position is to remove evolution and replace it with ID. That is, unless the reader is encumbered by thought-blocking pettiness.
In fact, the column even goes so far to suggest that evolution as a theory of creation may be proven true over time. However, the search for truth is not aided by insisting assumptions go unchallenged and that certain questions must not be asked.
However, when the responses came in through the blogosphere or through e-mail or the paper it became clear why many people are concerned about the level of literacy among undergrads, the the common citizens, and for that matter the PhD holders.
Skipping past the absurdity of making an "intelligent defense" of science using ad hominems, it is clear that those authors are not actually responding to what was said in the column but engaging in trench warfare at the mere mention of intelligent design. It demonstrates not that science is defensible, but that the modern state of "science" militantly demands certain questions and fields on inquiry should be banned. ID may or may not be science… but is it true?
The behavior exhibited by those who man the trenches at the moment ID is mentioned is not that of a free, open, and inquiring mind, but the behavior of a mind that snaps shut like a steel trap when their assumptions are challenged.
And now, there's even a T-shirt to commemorate the event....
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:52 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 13, 2006
DI Column up: "Unchallenged Assumptions"
You can read it here on the restriction of discussing intelligent design in the University because it challenges established orthodoxies. It so far has torqued 4 grad students into sending letters.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 9, 2006
Read this : The Dummification of Politics
Taking a break from my usual rule of no posting on Sundays to share this because I think it's great.
Joe Klein and I probably don't agree on much in the way of politics, but this is spot on.
Read it.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 6, 2006
General Strike Called to Support Illegal Immigrants
You can read the details on the flyer below but just intercepted this from the local communist group. Even the current plan isn't enough for them which lets everyone here more than 2 years (as if you can prove that) have a path to citizenship no questions asked.
UPDATE: (5:29pm CDT)
Here's an activity taking place on campus to mark the event.
What: National Day of Action to Defend Immigrant Rights (Rally)
Economic Boycott to protest anti-immigrant bills and support fair
comprehensive immigration reform
When: APRIL 10th, 2006 @ 11AM
Where: Begins on Neil St & Green St
On April 10, 2006, citizens across America will be organizing to
demonstrate their displeasure with the status quo. Comprehensive
immigration reform and a path to citizenship for the hardworking
documented and undocumented workers has long long been on the
political slate, but little action has been taking to remedy this
undesirable situation. At this point in time, Congress is still
discussing HR4437 which is a misdirected attempt at resolving this
complicated issue and whose main focus is to build a wall between
Mexico and the US. We are asking you to STAND-UP for all of the hard
working people who simply cannot afford to speak out for themselves.
There is a broad coalition of individuals/groups from the community,
academic and professional realm who are participating, but WE NEED
YOUR SUPPORT. Please join us.
If you are forwarding this e-mail to any groups, then we would like to
know which groups and approximately how many will be attending. We are
asking for this information for logistical purposes to ensure that we
have the right number of signs and coordinators to direct people. Any
questions, comments or concerns should be directed to Miranda Jimenez
UPDATE 2: 5:47 CDT
They also have a website. And another here.
Other posts linking here that tb's can't find:
Texas Rainmaker
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 5, 2006
Another John Bambenek?
It's true, there is another John Bambenek out there writing a blog called Bench Points on sports. If you're into sports, check it out. But the dude isn't me, I've got nothing interesting to say about sports except Sox rule and the Cubs suck.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
A Solution to Illegal Immigration?
The immigration debate has exposed a sore issue on all sides. Much of the country is upset that the government is doing nothing about illegal immigration and is simply proposing to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in lieu of not enforcing the laws. The illegal immigrants believe this to be a racist attack designed to purge the country of Hispanics. Both sides have a point but there still needs to be a solution before the issue becomes too contentious.
The immigration enforcement position
Those who favor immigration enforcement argue that these people entered the country illegally and should not be rewarded for breaking the law. They state that the porous border makes it easy for the enemies of the United States to enter the country and undermine us from within. There is the argument that illegal immigrants inflate the welfare roles causing taxpayers to pay for people who sneak across the border. Lastly, the situation has led to open armed conflict on the border with Mexico.
The immigrants' position
Living in poverty with no hope of a better life for oneself or one's children isn't a fun thing. If you lived in Mexico and saw the prosperity in the US you'd want to come here too. With the Mexican government and the United States government making it so easy to come here it hardly seems like it is really illegal. Companies are ready and willing to not only hire you, but help you "doctor" the paperwork so it appears legit. If your child is born in the US they'll automatically have US citizenship.
It's a win-win.
Analysis
This problem has been caused by the government of the United States not only spending decades not enforcing the law but broadcasting that we have no intention of enforcing the law. When Mexico started producing pamphlets on how to sneak across the border, our government did nothing. While it is tempting to blame the illegal immigrants, we can hardly blame them for wanting a better life, being told by their government they can come to the US for a good life, and the US saying they won't enforce the laws. Making it a felony to be an illegal immigrant starts to get dangerously close to an ex post facto kind of situation.
One could make the argument that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I'd like to take this opportunity to point to this law. In Illinois, premarital sex is illegal. No one expects the government to enforce this law and it hasn't for a good long time now. If one day they decided to break up the shack-up fest at the nearest meat market people would cry foul. Skipping past the constitutional considerations, something is fundamentally unfair about telling people you aren't going to enforce a criminal statute for decades and then suddenly changing your mind.
A government has the right to and ought to regulate the flow of immigration to that level which is most beneficial to the economy. It has a right to not take another country's poor to only become permanent beneficiaries of the welfare system. Lastly, the transparent lack of enforcement on the border has only emboldened criminal elements to operate there with impunity.
Solution
All immigrants would be required to register with the government and undergo some simple tests including a background check. If they have caused no problems here, they will be required to briefly return home, check-in, and then be allowed to return.
The number of legal immigrants we give visas to should be greatly increased and the process to get here simplified to those steps which are necessary to maintain security. The easier it is for legitimate people to get here (while keeping the bad guys out) will prevent the "black market" immigrant transport problem we have now.
When they return they'll be required to use legitimate information for any job they have and provide that information to the government. The situation of forty million people using the social security number of 000-00-0000 needs to end.
They'll have very limited access to welfare programs. In short, they'll be expected to support themselves like every other immigrant that comes here legally has to do. We should not allow the government of Mexico to treat the US as if it were responsible for its own poverty problem and welfare programs. If Mexico insists on the US providing social services for it, then it is time we consider whether Mexico should become the 51st state.
Because the government has shown that it cannot be trusted to properly enforce the laws, a "qui tam" provision must be included which allows private citizens to sue on behalf of the government those employers who employ illegal immigrants. These laws have worked well in cases of government fraud and Medicare fraud, and this would allow interested private parties to do the enforcing with the help of a court. Take away the jobs and a large incentive to sneak across the border goes away.
Two tracks of legal immigration should be adopted, an irrevocable path to citizenship and a guest worker program. Guest workers will be allowed to work for 10 years and have no eligibility for welfare. The path to citizenship will require a renunciation of Mexican (or other relevant nation's) citizenship and classes in English will be provided. Guest workers cannot be hired if there are willing and capable legal residents or citizens applying to do the work.
Congressional seats will be apportioned by the number of legal residents in the state and not merely the number of people in the state. Having a high proportion of illegal immigrants should not afford a state with extra House seats.
Any illegal immigrants captured or otherwise discovered in the United State will be permanently banned from legal immigration.
A border wall will be constructed to eliminate the flow of people into the United States in an undocumented fashion.
Summary
This should suffice in getting all the legitimate workers documented, isolate the criminal element as they would not likely walk into a government office to get fingerprinted, and create a regime that allows for enforcement (even when government officials want to weasel out). It will stem the incentives that cause people to sneak across the border and the incentives to hire such people. It will also allow for the compassion and fairness of liberal immigration that has been beneficial to our society. Lastly, it will emphasize assimilation by requiring a permanent irrevocable choice to become a US citizen. It is a difficult issue to arrive at a compromise on because of the failure of the government which made this the huge issue it has become.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Impeach Bush Train Stops in Champaign
You can hear the position of Rothschild here. It comes down to the fact that he hasn't read the Geneva Conventions, the Downing Street Memo, believes that Bush committed a crime when a mechanic in Baghdad became a pervert, and that he is unaware that FISA court judges have gone on record saying Bush's wiretaps were legal.
Here's the contents of the poster.
==
Friday, April 7
4PM
Matthew Rothschild
Editor, The Progressive Magazine
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT:
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BUSH RECORD AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR U.S. POLITICS
With an introduction by Prof. Robert McChesney
319 Gregory Hall
All Are Welcome
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
DI Column Up: We Still Don't Need a Weatherman
You can read it here.
I'll be going to their meeting on academic freedom this afternoon because they are scared silly about Horowitz's campaign and how it is going to "silence" their voices.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 4, 2006
Comment Policy
I've changed my comment policy due to spam because I'm tired of posting maybe once a week and getting 50 spam comments. You have to sign up for an account either here or through typekey in order to comment. It isn't hard, and I'm sure people can figure it out.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
