Don’t call it ‘Frisco.
March 24, 2009 at 1:06 pm Filed in:Culture 2 Comments
Think: if a town (or, I suppose, a new apartment complex) were named to honor Muir, Thoreau, or god forbid, Rachel Carson, would you expect to find a gaggle of neo-cons flocking to sign leases? Placenames play, almost subconsciously, on our self-identity. Although most American cities were named long ago, they still stir up passionate reactions.
As an example, in ”Speaker,” the autobiography of former republican speaker of the house Dennis Hastert, he goes on a page-long tirade about the renaming of the county we both shared as home: Kendall County in Illinois.
According to Hastert, Kendall County was originally named Orange County in honor of the east coast origin of some early settlers, and was renamed after “that liberal Jackson Administration” refused to provide the county with a post office until it was renamed after the Postmaster General… or something like that. Point being, Hastert points to this story of the placename as the reason he’s the staunch conservative he is today.
Power over a place can be achieved, in part, by controlling the name of the place. The act of naming a place can be both a source and an outcome of a struggle for power, and a mechanism of social control.
Proposition 8: Unfair. Discriminatory. Un-American.
October 23, 2008 at 8:06 am Filed in:Politics No Comments
California Proposition 8 is a statewide ballot initiative entitled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.
Eliminates Right. Unequally eliminating rights for some individuals is the precise intent of proposition 8. To eliminate the rights extended by the state of California’s constitution to those deemed… you know what? It doesn’t matter for whom those inalienable rights would be eliminated.
Eliminates Right. To obfuscate (hide) the fact that this states precisely what passage of Proposition 8 would achieve, the originators of the proposition submitted it with the title “California Marriage Protection Act.” Who must marriage be protected from?
There should never be any law or constitutional amendment passed that selectively eliminates the rights of some, but not others. That’s un-American.
What Dennis Hastert knew about the Foley scandal… and how he broke the law.
October 23, 2006 at 11:54 am Filed in:Politics No Comments
For most of the past year, I served as a substitute teacher in Aurora, IL. When applying for that position, one of the first forms I was required to fill out was the Child Abuse Mandated Reporter form. Essentially, the form stated that as a classroom teacher, I was legally required to report any suspected abuse of a child, be it emotional, sexual, or physical in nature. Every K-12 teacher in the state of Illinois is required to fill out this form, acknowledging that they recognize their legal responsibility to report any potential child abuse, should there be what is deemed
reasonable cause to believe that a child known to them in their professional or official capacity may be an abused or neglected child. (emphasis added)
In only one year as an educator, I was personally obligated to report several cases of suspected abuse to state authorities.
As a long-time educator, Dennis Hastert would have undoubtedly been familiar with this process. As an educator, Hastert was undoubtedly trained to recognize when abuse was occurring. And as an educator in the state of Illinois, he would have been guilty of committing a Class A Misdemeanor for neglecting to report any such situation. In fact,
willful failure to report suspected incidents of child abuse or neglect is a misdemeanor (first violation) or a class 4 felony (second or subsequent violation).”
According to the Boston Globe,
Hastert has said he did not see until recent days sexually explicit e-mails between Foley and congressional pages — only ones that seemed `over-friendly.’
However, any knowledge of “inappropriate emails,” as referred to by Rep. Boehner, or even simply knowledge of “over-friendly” interactions provides sufficient reasonable cause to invite professional investigation.
Let’s investigate the term “over-friendly.” Use of the prefix “over-” does not mean the same as “very;” it is used to show that an action is done to too great an extent, or excessively. For example, look at the words overwork, oversleep, and overeat. Do these words imply an acceptable workload? Sleeping and eating normally? No. The use of the term “over-friendly” in and of itself implies that something is abnormal… someone’s being a bit more friendly than they should be.
In recent interviews, such as with the Boston Globe, Dennis Hastert indeed indicated that he did see those emails that he characterized as “over-friendly”… indicating that Hastert himself knew something was off. Even if Hastert did not know how to proceed with an investigation the situation, he undoubtedly knew that he could contact the local Children’s Services department and ask them to handle the investigation. But he didn’t. Why? Because there wasn’t enough evidence? As an educator, you know not to wait. Children’s services will investigate, and if they can’t make a case, it’s over. Easy. It’s always better to look into suspected abuse earlier than face additional consequences later.
It’s abundantly clear that Mr. Hastert chose not to err on the side of caution.
“Would have, should have, could have.” Mr. Speaker, It’s clear that you knew how to take action… you definitely “could have.” It’s blatantly obvious that you “should have.” But if you “would have,” you probably wouldn’t be embroiled in the midst of this scandal today. You may have once been a teacher and a coach, but it’s your lackadaisical reluctance to standing up for what’s right when political power is at stake, and your utter negligence towards protecting the children under your care that have gotten you where you are today.
Information about Illinois state laws from the state of Illinois Department of Children and Family Services below the cut…