July 21, 2006
DI Column Up: How to End Catch-22 Voting
My latest column is up over at the DI. Basically on why Illinois needs an open primary system.
--
Column: How to end Catch-22 voting
John Bambenek
Posted: 7/21/06
Is anyone truly happy with their parties' candidate for governor this year? Both Rod Blagojevich and Judy Baar Topinka have approval ratings that rival the president's for the gutter. How these unpopular candidates got on the ballot deserves a good look. What's more disturbing is that the only difference between the candidates is the letter after their name. They are almost identical when it comes to policy and they are both just about as transparently corrupt.One of the biggest reasons that low quality candidates end up on the ballot is because of the low turnout for primaries. Primary elections require voters to pick what party they belong to, then vote for which candidate should represent their party during the November elections. The problem is that most voters don't consider themselves as belonging to a political party.
This is further exacerbated by the fact that once you declare which party you are voting for, that fact becomes a public record. Some people do not vote in primaries for fear of public reprisal for picking up a ballot for an unpopular party. Others don't want to be harassed by that party for donations. The principle of private voting is violated by the primary system.
The result is that only the party-faithful vote in large enough numbers to matter during a primary, which generally means the party ends up anointing the victor before the election even takes place. Most Republicans despise Topinka, but her victory was a forgone conclusion, so they didn't bother.
The second problem is that there are only two parties to choice from. While third parties can get on the ballot, the system makes it much harder for them to do so. Many Democrats aren't fond of Blagojevich (or Governor Smith if you prefer) but they feared if they split ranks with him, they'd lose control in 2006. Party over principle.
While Topinka may be despised, she was viewed as the only "electable" candidate. As a result, the parties held their nose and picked those candidates, and now the voters get to choose between corrupt candidate A or corrupt candidate B.
Some view the solution as having a viable third party. The result, in a state that has brought political corruption to an art form, would likely be having three despised candidates to choose from. Having easy ballot access for third parties and independents is nevertheless a good step.
The solution begins with an open primary where voters can pick from the entire field of candidates regardless of party. This would keep what happens in the ballot box private and alleviate the concerns of those who don't want to show their political cards. Political party membership had relevancy about 50 years ago. It has no real practical implications anymore.
An open primary would allow candidates to have relatively free access to the ballot and with increased participation that would likely follow, two truly representative candidates would be chosen to compete against each other in November. Voters should never have to face the choice between bad and worse in general elections.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 8, 2006
DI Column Up: Mass Taxing District
My weekly DI column is up at the DI.
Despite claims to the contrary, I'm not a libertarian. The CU-MTD is just a waste of money.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 30, 2006
Letter for the College Dems
You know, this letter actually made me regret taking out one of the original punch lines in the article... I was going to make reference to this campus' College Dem chapter as the "Donkey Punch" chapter. Last semester they wore shirts that said "Donkey Punching our way to victory". If you don't know what a Donkey Punch is, look it up, it isn't good. The College Repubs had a field day in the paper and on campus with it. But in short, I figured not to include it because I'd be sinking to their level. I still think that was the best idea, despite their flailing letter to accuse me of misinformation for not presenting their spin. How exactly is a pension system made stronger by not funding it again? Dare we talk about Rod wh is under federal investigation (probably several)?
===
If you want to talk about indiscretions, we should talk about your clubs fetish with deviant sexual assault by glorfying donkey punches...
And the Republican party is not "mine", I don't identify them. There is no misinformation in my article, you just take pause with me not buying into the DNC party juice. If you want to talk about extortion, you do know Rod is on Fitzgerald's hitlist after he wraps up the Plame Non-Crime prosecution, don't you?
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 9, 2006
Number of Cases of Child Rape Covered Up by Planned Parenthood in Illinois Remains Steady in 2004
The latest set of abortion statistics have come out for Illinois that indicate that Planned Parenthood and friends have covered up at least 290 cases of child rape during the year 2004. Local media in the state seemed to miss this during their coverage of the latest statistics.
In Illinois, as in most of the civilized world, the age of consent means that girls under a certain age cannot legally consent to sex, and hence, any intercourse with them is rape. Illinois requires that medical professionals report any cases of child abuse to DCFS. While in this case they tried to make a distinction between a medical professional and someone answering the phone, in this case it is obvious that a medical professional was involved, knew the girls age, and choose not to follow their obligations under the law to report. Contrary to their claims, no investigation is required by Planned Parenthood, they simply have to recognize the girl's age and make a phone call so their can be an appropriate investigation. Instead, they choose to make money on the deal by charging for the abortion and then concealing the fact that there was a crime. This is what Planned Parenthood's apparent business model is.
At the same time they are making a profit by covering up the rape of little girls by dirty old men, they insist that parents should not be allowed to interfere and have no right to know that their children are getting abortions. In fact, in a case of clear kidnapping, rape, and fraud by a child rapists mother, Planned Parenthood had the mother of the daughter who was raped arrested for trying to prevent the abortion. Planned Parenthood will even write prescriptions to non-existent minors they have never seen in what they even admit is against the law.
If you think Dr. Waldyke should not be writing prescriptions to underage girls she hasn't met and encouraging her to share the pills with others so their older rapist boyfriends can get off scot-free, I encourage you to contact her at waldyke@uiuc.edu or by phone at (217) 333-2711. This doctor works for the state (and even used the University's clinic prescription pads to write the order), knew and admitted what she did was illegal and has not been held to account.
Planned Parenthood can proudly boast on their own website that they cover up cases of child rape. The irony of this portion of the pro-choice debate is that the only who gets a choice is the rapist who can choose to cover his tracks.
(ht: Dawn Eden)
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:52 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
September 16, 2005
Blago Under Federal Investigation?
Illinois Leader just broke that two gulity pleas have put Blagojevich in the cross-hairs of the over-worked and under-paid US Attorney Peter Fitzherald.
Today, in the guilty pleas entered in federal court by attorneys Steve Loren and Joseph Cari for participating in a an extortion scheme designed to direct investment firms managing tens of millions of dollars of state Teacher Retirement System (TRS) pension funds to hire particular consultants and make specified campaign contributions.
What is it about Illinois and governors demanding campaign contributions for business? This threatens to break open the 2006 race for governor, perhaps pushing the Dems to put someone up in the primary to avoid losing the governor's mansion to the Republicans, who will undoubtedly be thrown out in one term for the same kind of corruption that got them booted in 2002.
Say hi to The Political Teen
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 26, 2005
A Victory for Free Association at SIU
The Seventh Circuit of Appeals issued an order on August 22nd requiring SIU to restore a Christian group's organization status after the University revoked it because of the groups requirement that the leaders of the Christian group actually be Christian. The ruling also clarifies that nothing in state or federal law requires religious groups to not require members be part of the religion.
Many universities, including the University of Illinois have similar rules that which are just as unconstitutional yet continue to exist out of fear of students not wanting to rock the boat. These rules which are a part of "antidiscrimination policies" go far beyond and cognizable interest in maintaining order on campus. Having a group of Christians who get together and talk about the Bible is a far cry from race riots.
Universities routinely try to pre-restrict certain kinds of speech based on (usually) religious content. The University of Illinois has the same rules that prevent free association and also adds in that speech that is "evangelical" in nature cannot be funded. Talks are routinely had on why religion is a bad thing, but the religious are unable to respond because those views are not allowed on campus. This is called "viewpoint" discrimination. This is the campus that brings you "Sex Out Loud" each year, but the mere positive mention of religion apparently threatens the University to its core.
Liberty demands that people be allowed to say what they want and organize how they want unless there is a very significant reason to regulate. Only on campuses do these attempts to regulate free associate and free speech exist and finally the courts are starting to put an end to it.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Eugenics at Carle Foundation Hospital
(Note: Thanks to Pro-Life Blogs for hosting the PDF)
Eugenics is the sterilizing of the "unfit" so that only the fit can breed. This was all the rage in the 30s until Hitler took it to its logical extension and it fell out of style. Many states allowed courts to order sterilization of criminals or others that those in power deemed not fit to procreate. The laws were eventually overturned.
That brings me to this story. On March 10th, 2005 a woman was admitted to Carle Foundation hospital. She was several months pregnant and was admitted for complications to her pregnancy and for apparent drug abuse. At admission, the staff identified "Communication Barriers" on a form even though the patient speaks fluent English (Page 1 in the linked PDF document below). Page 2 is an authorization form for sterilization "signed" on March 12th. Page 3 and 4 are the nursing charts that show on 3/11 the "pt (patient) would not wake up", on 3/12 that the nurses could not do a consultation with her because the drugs (which included the ones given by the hospital at this point) have not worn off, and that on 3/13 says the "pt (patient) finally 'waking up'". The patient was admitted on the 11th but unable to communicate until the 13th, yet signed a form authorizing sterilization on the 12th. How precisely can a patient unable to communicate and unable to "wake up" sign a consent form to have her tubes tied? The law in Illinois for medical treatment is "informed consent" and based on the nurse's own statements, this patient was in no position to consent to anything and certainly not do so in an informed matter.
Here are the excerpts of the medical records which have had identifying information redacted except the patient number so Carle can verify these records should they so choose.
After receiving this information I tried to see if this has happened to other women. I received 2 reports that women were pressured into signing these forms and refused but nothing quite on the level of this. This could be one nurse who took matters into her own hands or an institutional policy, I just don't know that right now and I have been unable to successfully dig deeper. I'm of the opinion that if this has happened once in such a flagrant manner, what's to say it hasn't happened before or won't happen again. Only some public prying will be able to determine it which is the intention of this post.
One may argue that sterilization of women with drug problems is a good thing, to them I say why not wait until she is awake and convince her? Sure, I'm against sterilization but it is legal in this country. Why not deal with the drug problem instead of sterilizing the woman and dropping her back into her bad situation? What happens when the woman breaks free of her drug problem and later wants to have children when she's clean? What happened here was a hospital staffer trying to slip through this sterilization because they wanted to impose it on her. Luckily, this time they got caught and the authorization was revoked. The courts and legislatures have decided that they have no place controlling who should breed; certainly nurses in hospitals shouldn't be making those decisions either.
CLARIFICATION:
Apparently I was less than clear... once she "came to" she told asked the nurses about this thing she signed, they told her, and she eventually (with difficulty) got the permission revoked. They just got the form signed so when she delivered, they would be able to "take care of it" with no questions asked.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:38 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
June 30, 2005
First Convictions in Voter Fraud Scandal
Today, 5 individuals were found guilty of election fraud.
As far as known, these 5 are the first charged and convicted of election fraud from the 2004 election. One of the individuals was a party poss for the area in which the fraud took place.
With all the talk of Ohio, one wonders if the Democrats will talk about their PARTY LEADERSHIP in East Saint Louis being CONVICTED of trying to rig elections. Next time a Democrat talks about stealing elections, it may be just because they know best on how to do it.
Hat Tip: Capitol Fax
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 28, 2005
At Least SOMEONE Is Sticking Up For the Illinois Pension System
But, he's leaving the job anyway
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 17, 2005
A Compromise on Illinois Attacking Pensions
So Illinois decided to divert 2.2 Billion from the pension system that they underfund to plug gaps in the budget which cost ultimately around 22 Billion. The beneficiaries of the pensions complain because their contracts establish those pensions as well as the Constitution of the state says "the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired." (Article X Section 5). When presented with this, lawmakers threaten an amendment to the Constitution instead.
Here is a compromise I think will work. Lawmakers, the governor and other executive officers get pensions too. I propse that before a single dollar in benefits gets taken out of a public employee's pension, that all legislators and executive officers have to have completely drained THEIR pension benefits first. i.e. until their benefits get reduced to zero, they can't touch anyone else's. Seems fair to me, they're breaking it to begin with, they should suffer first.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 19, 2005
The Great Illinoisian Tax Swap
Cal Skinner sent me a link to this calculator that will show you based on where you live how much the average tax payer with an average home will pay in taxes compared to the old system. Here's the catch... don't own a home? You will pay 60-67% MORE in Illinois income tax. You do own a home? The offset in property tax relief will be less than the income tax relief except in very specific circumstances.
So here you have doublespeak at its finest where there is a 60-67% income tax hike, a 30% rate cut for ONE PART of property taxes, almost everyone pays more, and our Illinois politicians call it a TAX CUT. Hint... when you pay more, it's not a tax cut.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 27, 2005
CPAs Gone Wild: State Auditor audits CMS... Hillarity Ensues
I haven't gotten anything out on this because I've been either working on COTV or my paper, but this is absolutely hillarious...
The State Auditor issued his audit of CMS (the central purchasing and contracting agency for the state of Illinois) and ranked the agency at "slightly above sinister". Massive corruption, fraud, missing paperwork, conflict of interest, money grabbing, and other tomfoolery was found, pointing straight up to Rod.
Capitol Fax (articles all over the place), Peoria Pundit, ArchPundit, ILPundit and others are all over it.
The hillarity includes CMS trying to audit the auditor, trying to impugn the integrity of the auditors office and accuse them of being partisan (note: the auditor is a Democrat, the same party as the Governor. The auditor is about the only Illinois politician that has an integrity and is KNOWN for it, and CMS went after him anyway), making claims that aren't true because the people involved weren't there.
For best quote in an audit (Runman is the Director of CMS):
We’re puzzled as to how Director Rumman could have had a discussion with the auditors at the entrance conference about unsubstantiated media allegations when, in fact, Director Rumman did not attend the entrance conference. Furthermore, no auditor in attendance could have been “slightly embarrassed” by a point that was not made by a person who was not there.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 11, 2005
These are the Kind of Politicians the IL GOP Can't Beat
Blame Chief Illiniwek for losing championship, says senate president
I'll leave the conclusions to you.
Hat Tip: IlliniPundit
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 14, 2005
Open Letter to the Illinois Republican Party
For the past few years I've watched the Illinois Republican Party fall into complete disarray. First, there was the defeat of Jim Ryan. A Chicago Democrat ran on the platform to clean up Springfield and the voters bought it. That should have rang with earth shattering result in the IL GOP, but it didn't. Then came along with the 2004 race with the Jack Ryan / Alan Keyes fiasco. Going into the 2006 election with a very defeatable incumbent governor, the IL GOP seems to be rudderless and unable to rally any direction to beat him. The only thing keeping Democrats from running someone else against Rod is the fact that could be the only possible chance Republican have to take the office at this point.
I was hoping with a new chairman there would be a change. There hasn't been. How am I, a voter, supposed to know what the IL GOP stands for and what they think on issues? A look at the website doesn't show their solutions, it complains about "Rod Fee Increases", has a section on "Dem Watch", and otherwise just picks a part Democrats. Sure, there are things to criticize but without a direction and a platform what is the point. What is the IL GOP going to change or do differently? You can talk about getting special interest money out of politics, but it is the party of "Licenses for Bribes". There is simply nothing I can find on the website that indicated what the Republican ideas are to fix the problems of this state.
Does the IL GOP support school vouchers? We have a first-world nation with an educational system that rivals the third world. It's about time we break the back of the public school monarchy of mediocrity. Even Mayor Daley of Chicago sees that need. Will the IL GOP start cutting and closing ineffective, duplicative, or useless state agencies? Which ones? There are two ways to deal with a budget problem, get more income or cut spending. Can we, for once, talk about cutting spending? And I don't mean cutting services that do have some use, how about we just cut the pork instead.
Cities and the state have faced a continued budget crisis. Instead of cutting the fat, there just seems to be more cuts to services that actually do provide some benefit to the state. Even in my home town here, they complain of not having enough money. They don't cut the pork spending, they just stop plowing the streets. Can we have a serious discussion how to resolve these problems and stop wasting all our time calling a Chicago Democrat corrupt? Of course he's corrupt, he's a Chicago Democrat.
Getting special interest money out of politics is a step, but a small step. The only real way to curb political corruption is to end the lifetime tenure of politicians in office throughout the state. In 2008, there is a golden opportunity to have a Constitutional Convention. Can we have a serious discussion on term limits (the only real way to slow the flow of special interest money)? The desire to serve the public is commendable, but power corrupts and everyone knows the incumbency advantage.
Instead of relying on Springfield lawmakers to do what's right, can we add the ability to put binding citizen referendum on the ballots? If we can be trusted enough to put you in office in the first place, we should be trusted enough to vote on big enough issues that are covered by citizen referenda in such a way as that they are truly democratic and out of the hands of politicians who sometimes aren't acting in the best interests of the voters.
Can we have some more accountability of public officials? The state does have a Freedom of Information Act but provides no penalty for when officials violate it. An officer can simply refuse to release information requiring the individual to go to court for an order. This can tie up that individual's money and time for months if not years and when the judge finally tells the official to pony up he is never truly held accountable. It is time penalties were added to the FOIA law.
Speaking of accountability, it is about time the citizens have the ability to recall public officials. This worked with incredible success in California. A corrupt and ineffective governor was thrown out of office by the citizens as they realized he was no longer acting in their best interests. The best defense against a corrupt government is more accountability and the ability of the voters to throw the bums out.
One way or the other, I'd like to see a Constitutional Convention. I would hope the party of conservatism and limited government would be behind this. If the Republicans in this state want any chance for a state-wide office they need to provide the voters with a clear vision. Conservative voters are craving for something for the state party. Give us something. Give us a reason to go out to the polls and put you people into office.
Sincerely,
John Bambenek
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 9, 2005
On Stereotyping
On Feb. 8th, Bridget Sharkey put up her weekly column in the Daily Illini that included divisive and demeaning comments about Christian men. Quote:
Virgin O'Christ: This species of male can commonly be identified by his "Abreadcrumb and Fish" T-shirt and "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned" bumper sticker. This boy loves God, and, boy, does God love him. In theory, this guy sounds like a very spiritual and enlightened young man. In practice, he is a twenty-two year-old virgin with an axe to grind...a very horny axe. Because he only listens to country and gospel, he tends to use antiquated phrases like "a woman's place is in the home" and "my wife better know how to cook." If you aren't looking to be married the day after tomorrow, you should probably let this Lazarus lie.
Now, this statement that essentially all Christian men are sex-crazed hypocrits that seek to oppress women is typical banter that is passed off as the core curriculum at the University of Illinois. It's unremarkable, except that it provides a nice double standard that can be exposed.
On Nov 5th, the Daily Illini published the following comic by Matt Vroom in his strip "I Hate Pam":
If you can't read it, here is what it says:
I had a really good jew joke for today's comic, but I decided not to run it.
What, was it too offensive?
Yeah, I don't want Isaiah down at the bank to beat me with his nose.
This comic released a shit storm on campus, with the Chancellor himself going down to the Daily Illini and demanding they take sensitivity training.
The Chicago Sun-Times reported Thursday that Interim Chancellor Richard Herman would look into starting a competing, University-sponsored newspaper if we don't train our staff better and undergo sensitivity training. From here)
I'm not going to defend the comic, it was in poor taste. There is, however, a difference between this comic which stereotypes the occupation and nose size of Jews, with this column that attacks the character of all Christian men. If we are going to enforce these kind of speech codes on campus, why is it that Christians never seem to be protected by them?
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
