May 3, 2006
DI Column up: Academic Serfdom
You can read it here. For the record, I booked this topic a month ahead of time, so it's not to jump on the Billy Joe bandwagon.
I eagerly await the response of the unofficial John Bambenek fanclub.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:50 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
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 5, 2006
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
March 15, 2006
Column up: The Politics of Belligerance
You can read it here.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:11 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 7, 2006
Are more protests planned?
I wonder if there will be any huge protests on the quad about this, or if Chancellor Herman will be making any comments...
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:41 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 1, 2006
DI Column Up: Lent and the Carnival
ATTENTION Dawn Patrol Readers: This is the article Dawn is referring to.
You can read it here. I'll have some pictures from Sex Out Loud later today probably.
UPDATE:
There really weren't any pictures worth taking. Table of condoms and genital shaped chocolates really. Everything else was just stupid.
UPDATE 2:
Thanks for the link and kind words, Dawn Eden!
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:11 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 26, 2006
My Column Next Week: Sex Out Loud
Here's a heads-up to what I'm writing on this week, the annual festival of debauchery, Sex Out Loud. Below is the email they sent out, read for yourself.
===
Dear Organizational Representative,
Please forward this to your organization, coworkers,
friends, classes, staff or faculty:
The Fourth Annual Sex Out Loud! Sexual Health Awareness Fair
will be taking place on Wednesday, March 1, from 9a - 3p in
the Union rooms A, B, and C.
This exciting, free event provides an open and safe
environment for people to learn about, discuss, and explore
sexual health information and resources. This year's event
will feature a live DJ, a teen dating violence skit
performed by the Teen Awareness Group, an excerpt
performance of the Vagina Monologues, interactive games and
activities, prizes, and information on topics including:
Abortion
Abstinence
BDSM
Birth Control
Body Image
Body Modification
Emergency Contraception
Healthy Relationships
HIV/AIDS
International Women's Rights
Intersexed People and Sexuality
LGBT Issues
Men's Health
People with Disabilities and Sexuality
Sex Toys
Sexual Myths and Facts
Sexually Transmissible Infections
Violence Against Women
Women's Health
And Much More!
Sex Out Loud! is cosponsored by:
Annie Hopkins, Rehabilitation/Disability Studies Student
Champaign County Health Care Consumers
CIL-KY
Greater Community AIDS Project
Fantasy's
Feminist Majority
Interfaith Religious Leaders
Kim Rice, Sexuality Educator at McKinley Health Center
Lamba Pi Upsilon
Men Against Sexual Violence
New Life Tattoos
NOW, UIUC Chapter
Office of Women's Programs/CARE
Planned Parenthood of East Central Illinois
PRIDE
Pure Romance
Rape Crisis Services/A Woman's Fund
Reverend Karen Bush, United Church of Christ
Sexual Health Peers
Sexual Orientation Diversity Ally Committee, Counseling
Center
TAG
Tim Shea, McKinley Church
Help support sexual health awareness and come to the Fourth
Annual Sex Out Loud! Sexual Health Awareness Fair on March 1
in the Union.
Thank You!
Megan Kough
President Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance at the
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 15, 2006
Campus Parking Now Tried to Ruin My Day... Comes Up Short
They didn't learn the lesson the first time.
They wrote me a ticket at 4:53 pm for not feeding the meter. One problem, you don't have to feed the meter afte 4pm. Good game, guys.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:08 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
DI Column Up: False Religion
Oh yeah, I have a column up,False Religion. Take a look.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:30 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 23, 2006
Campus Survey on Political and Religious Discrimination
I've created a survey trying to gauge any campus religious or political discrimination. It'll be interesting to see the results. When I'm done I hope to have something to present to the BOT on it. (Sorry, only University of Illinois people can participate).
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 29, 2005
Job Opportunity - Should I apply?
Just saw this... maybe I should apply :) (Inside joke... I sued University parking in federal court a few years ago).
--
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Associate Director of Parking
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) seeks an experienced professional for the position of Associate Director of Parking. As the flagship public institution in the State of Illinois, the University serves over 35,000 students, and offers degrees in a wide variety of fields. The Facilities & Services Parking Department is committed to customer service and excellence in meeting the parking needs of the faculty, staff, students, and visitors of the UIUC campus. With a total daily campus population of nearly 50,000, efficient parking and mass transit services are crucial elements in sustaining campus growth and meeting the goals of the University. In order to manage the needs of various user groups, the department maintains approximately 15,000 parking spaces in five parking structures and 123 surface parking lots, and works closely with the cities of Champaign and Urbana to meet University District parking needs.
The Position
The Associate Director holds the senior parking position at UIUC. The Parking Department provides a well-planned and orderly system of parking that is fair, convenient, and cost effective to all utilizing it. The department maintains safe, well-designed facilities and oversees land acquisition pursuant to long-term parking strategies. The Associate Director coordinates efforts to identify, design, and construct new facilities, including the long-range financial planning for parking structures. Through technology and education, Parking Services employs business and communication systems to address and improve customer service. The position oversees 30 civil service employees and manages a $10M budget. The Associate Director manages three primary operational programs: Enforcement: oversight of parking rules and regulations, motorist assistance, and coordination of conference and special event parking; Construction and Maintenance: monitor construction and repair of parking str!
uctures, install and maintain parking meters and signage, collect meter revenue and fine box citations, audit meters, and install/remove special bagged meters; Customer Service: sell and monitor department permits and products, answer inquiries from customers, monitor T2 parking database, collect citation payments, maintain waitlist spaces, hear citation appeals, and monitor payroll deduction program.
Qualifications
The successful candidate will have a bachelor's degree with progressively responsible experience, including supervision, in parking and/or transportation services (preference given to candidates having a professional degree/certification in planning, engineering or facilities management); excellent oral/written communication and presentation skills; strong experience in customer service with a broad array of constituents; experience in program assessment and strategic planning; ability to manage change while working in a collaborative environment; expertise in conflict management and negotiation skills; demonstrated ability to manage and supervise multiple projects concurrently; an understanding of the parking industry, including current trends; proven ability to work with civil service and union employees; demonstrated effectiveness managing an auxiliary enterprise; experience developing and managing budgets; strong technology skills; adaptability and flexibility; and the a!
bility to lead, motivate, and supervise staff.
Application and Nomination
To ensure full consideration, applications must be received by December 16, 2005. A resume with accompanying cover letter, or a nomination of an individual for this position, may be submitted by e-mail attachment to apply@spelmanandjohnson.com. If you are unable to submit materials electronically, please call Peter Rosenberg at 413-529-2895. This is a full-time, academic professional appointment with a proposed starting date of February 16, 2006 or negotiable. Salary is competitive and includes a comprehensive benefit package.
The Spelman & Johnson Group
UIUC - Associate Director of Parking (C) Peter W. Rosenberg, Search Associate
Visit the UIUC Parking Services website at www.parking.uiuc.edu The University of Illinois is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 18, 2005
Column Posted: "Menial Concerns"
You can read my latest column, this time on the Chief Illiniwek controversy, here.
One minor correction, somewhere in the process of editing, the third paragraph talks of the US Department of Civil Rights. What I intended to refer to was the Campus Dialogue on the Chief, but that part of the editing I wasn't involved with and they thought I refered to a US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights investigation (not US Department of Civil Rights).
Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 28, 2005
What is it with Anti-semites?
David Green, local anti-semite, writes in to the DailyIllini on the occasion of Simon Wiesenthal's death to spew his hateful diatribe. He has nothing against Wiesenthal, he just can't stand to let them man pass in peace without taking a swipe at the Jews and the US for being evil regimes. He much prefers us to be happier and more just regimes like Soviet Russia, Saddam's Iraq, the Taliban's Afghanistan, Hitler's Germany, or some other of the joyous left-wing paradises out there.
For reference, this was the column he was writing in response to.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 23, 2005
DI Column Posted: Don't Get Stuck on Stupid
You can read it here.
You can see my the snippet of the e-mail Kagan sent here about the alleged racial cleansing on New Orleans.
If you'd like to read about the many conservatives who have been silenced or discriminated against nationwide, I encourage you to check out FIRE
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:36 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 21, 2005
National Conservative Coming Out Day - Summary and Pics
Well the National Conservative Coming Out Day has come and gone. For about the ten or so conservatives that were there, there were about 100 or so protesters. Most of the time they sat there with their backs turned, held up signs, and were quiet. There were members of I-Resist (who isn't a legitimate organization anymore apparenlty) with a megaphone that kept making noise. One picture below is a guy who yelled "stop being a dick". PRIDE was there trying to say they didn't like the stereotyping but in their press release they stereotype conservatives as wanting women in the kitchen.
My article in the DI on Friday will have most of my opinions, but here are some parting pictures of the event which was, all in all, uneventful. Pictures are in the full entry, click on it. My favorite is the 5th picture of the girl protesting intolerance and bigotry by wearing a shirt that has a racial slur on it.
The all of about 6 conservatives up there, outnumbers by probably even the number of cops on the scene.
Can't have a coming out without a closet door, I guess.
Some of the hundred some odd protesters.
One of their signs.
Nothing like protesting bigotry and intolerance while wearing a T-shirt with racial slurs.
This was megaphone, stop being a dick, guy.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
National Conservative Coming Out Day
Today is National Conservative Coming Out day which will be celebrated on campus. The entire progressive coalition of groups apparently is going to be out and protesting wearing black shirts because they can't stand it when conservatives talk. I'll be there with a camera (I just got a new digital camera) and get some stuff up on it later today.
Oh, and it's complete with a gun raffle. Go figure.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 19, 2005
DI Responses: I am amused
I make points, the lefties bring ad hominems. I'm amused.
Another column kinda in response
and
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 16, 2005
DailyIllini Column up: The War on Free Speech
You can read it here...
Or you can comment below.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:04 PM | Comments (0) | 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
August 5, 2005
The Final Death Penalty for Chief Illiniwek
How did a loud and vocal minority eventually find a path to victory in killing off Chief Illiniwek? Polls indicate 86% of Illinois resident support the Chief, an overwhelming majority of the alumni who give money to the University surely do, and every government agency every to rule on the issue says the Chief is not offensive. In the end, they won by getting to the people with power and making them impose their will. They get people without jobs to show up at rallies and be enraged and tell stories about how the Chief has destroyed their lives. And at the end of the day, the people who support the Chief will do little but complain when the minority finally carries out the death sentence ordered by the NCAA. Are the alumni going to stop giving the University money if the NCAA whacks the Chief? Will they stop going to games?
Let’s be realistic for a moment. If a team called their mascot the “racist, inbred, incestuous, redneck, cracker, mother f*cker Christians” it wouldn’t affect my life one bit. (In fact, it would be refreshing to see the honesty of people who actually believe that to come out and say it and stop pretending to be “tolerant”.) I’m sure they may be sincerely offended, but they have left no room for negotiation. They continue to say the Board has to deal with this issue when they really mean the Board has to get rid of the Chief. The Board has decided this issue repeatedly, just not in favor of the minority. Now the NCAA has come down to do it for them. Sure, they can keep the Chief; they just can’t play in tournaments and have to deal with the NCAA pressuring other schools not to schedule games against Illinois.
The rallying call for those anti-Chief people is “What if it was your religion?” I’m Catholic, let’s talk about how my religion is portrayed and dealt with in far more important things. How about the John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court with quarters of this country saying he should be excluded on the bases he is Catholic? Or how about the Rocco Buttiglione treatment out of the EU, where the entire EU government could not be installed because Buttiglione was a devout Catholic making him unfit for ANY OFFICE within the EU, including the Energy Ministry. We could also talk about the de facto policy that Chancellor Richard Herman took part in establishing that says even though there are speech codes non-discrimination policies on campus, those policies do not protect Christians and that complaints from Christians are to be discarded? It’s one thing to have an offensive mascot; it’s much more malicious to exclude an entire class of people from public life on the basis of their religious affiliation. However, the same crowd that fights against the Chief is silent or in support of shutting up and shutting out Christians.
I don’t really have strong opinions on the Chief issue, honestly. I find the complaints without merit, but if the Chief went away it wouldn’t matter. A Cherokee being upset about how the Illini are represented is ludicrous. They were different nations with different religions and practices 2 centuries ago and only naïve racist white men can’t tell the difference between Indian tribes. I don’t think the violent occupations of campus buildings should merit anything but immediate expulsions and prison sentences. In the end, this is just another instance of a loud and vocal minority who happens to get lots of media time imposing another facet of their theology on an unwilling population.
I have on my desk a quote from Stephen Balch, “Our colleges have become less marketplaces of ideas than churches in which you have to be a true believer to get a seat in the pews.” This is more proof he’s right.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 11, 2005
The "Can Freedom of the Press Survive Media Consolidation" Conference
On May 10th and 11th, the Institute of Communications Research (www.iimpr.org) hosted a conference named “Can Freedom of the Press Survive Media Consolidation?” The conference featured Seymour Hersh, Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman, and Danny Goldberg. I went to this conference ready to witness outrageous examples of bias, partisanship, and carping. As I expected, there was not one conservative on the panel, and it seemed that everyone there was a socialist. They discussed free press, limited debate, and media bias. I had planned to write about these issues directly, but something else happened.
While it was clear that the free press and limited debate concerns pertained only to their viewpoints, I reflected on their arguments and realized that they had many of the same fundamental complaints as conservatives. Conservatives aren’t happy about the media either, though we complain of other biases. Largely speaking, the problem of the mainstream media trying to fit everything into a six-second sound-bite is one that I agree with. They complained of the stories the media doesn’t run and I agreed. I’ve broken and will be breaking stories that no one else is touching on my blog. Why am I, a system administrator with no journalism experience whatsoever, breaking these stories? The truth is, if you want the news report of the day, you can take 5 minutes to read the GOP website and 5 minutes to read the DNC website and you’ve got all the mainstream media is going to report. This is not a good thing.
I agree that only a few corporations owning media is bad. Media consolidation has led directly to the rise of blogs. People aren’t being served by the media. Take the Social Security debate. The Republicans say the system is going bankrupt and won’t be available to the young workers, and the Democrats say changing it would harm the elderly. But these talking points are not important right now. What we should be discussing is what we want Social Security to be. Partisan debate has made this into a war about who is the biggest victim. This means no compromise is available. We need to have a discussion on what Social Security should be before we talk about fixing anything.
I left this conference feeling that conservatives, at least this conservative, share many of the same basic complaints that progressives have about the media. More importantly, I left with a sense of disappointment. It seems to me neither progressives nor conservatives feel well served by the media, and for that matter, by the two major political parties. Why we as people don’t join together to demand better is beyond me. I have absolutely no problem with progressive Indy media; I think it is a great thing. But I left this conference with the impression that the feeling is not reciprocal and that’s a shame. Democracy is best served by debate where every side of the issue is represented, not just the side you think should be the winner.
(I'll have more to say about individual speakers later)
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 21, 2005
Conservative Professors at U of I
I went to a talk last night, well an open forum, "National Security v. Individual Freedom" by Illinois Campus Deliberations (a great idea I think, by the way. To join their mailing list send email to abogdan2@uiuc.edu). There were 4 panelists: Prof. Mark Leff, Prof. Steven Beckett, Tom Mackaman (Look at the very bottom), and Billy Joe Mills.
The first thing that struck me about this talk is that there were 2 professors, 1 graduate student, and one undergrad. Why is it they can't find one conservative professor to see on these discussions (and that's not a dig into Billy who does well at these things, but we should have to resort to getting undergrads from the College Republicans to go up against faculty in discussing ideas). Well, I heard the answer. There are some conservative professors on this campus, they are just tired of going up there and debating wackos. Prof. Leff, the man who brought you the failed Union of Professional Employees who thinks that the Patriot Act is horrible on par with internment also thinks that academic employees (some of which get tenure like professors, and others are just academic staff like me) who get 5 weeks vacataion and 5 weeks vacatoin and, for that matter, employees who are fired with cause (albeit there are exceptions for cases where the person really needs to be removed) can get up to 12 months notice before they actually have to leave. This is not a hostile working environment. There is no where you can get 10 paid weeks off a year. Certainly none that will give you a year notice that you are going to be laid off.
Steven Beckett is a leftie, but reasonable. He had some fair skepticism.
Tom Mackaman ran for the state legislature as a Socialist trying to stop the Iraq war. Being that the state legislature has nothing to do with federal military activities, I think this speaks for itself.
Leff and Mackaman suggested that the term "enemy combatants" was made up by the Bush administration to not give Geneva Conventions privileges and it has never before been used or even considered. Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions determines who is a Prisoner of War. Guess what? Bush is right. Al Queda didn't carry arms openly nor wear distinctive insigna nor have any respect for the laws and customs of war. Mercenaries are also not covered by the Geneva Conventions.
Mackaman seems to think that distribution of wealth in the US is without precedent. Might I suggest he look at Honduras where 17 families own EVERYTHING. Or how about Dark to Middle Ages when the King owned everything. Sure, there is an unequal distribution of wealth, but I don't care about being a billionaire. I care about being able to feed and shelter my family and that opportunity is most prevalent in the United States.
The point where I left was when someone in the audience suggested Al Queda was made up by Bush to rescind the Constitution or something crazy like that.
I can see what conservatives don't participate in these things.
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Quote About the University of Illinois
In discussions with others about CITES the central campus computing and telecommunications organization on campus, and widely despised as such I said this:
"The problem is not that CITES exists, the problems is that some of them act like !@#$%ing gangsters."
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:07 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
