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.

During 2007, in San Jose, CA, a battle raged within the community over what name should be assigned to the Vietnamese business district: “Little Saigon,” “Vietnamese Business district,” ”New Saigon…” and after the City Council selected the name “Saigon Business District” as a compromise among the many factions who had certain names in mind, those who favored the name “Little Saigon” were so enraged that they attempted a recalled of the councilwoman who suggested the compromise.   The recall was defeated only when the City Council rescinded the name (but opted not to select a new one).

Where places were not entirely renamed, most Native American placenames in use today as the formal names of cities, rivers, and other places in the Americas have been severely bastardized - in part, due to the inability of the new arrivals to master native grammar and pronunciation- but undoubtedly illustrating the power that European colonists exerted over the newly conquered land.

So, in short, unless you’re one of those talk show conservatives bashing the West Coast liberal regime purportedly headquartered in what those of us who live here know as SF, The City, or just plain old San Francisco, give St. Francis props… don’t call it Frisco.

No related posts.

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.

The majority of television advertisements supporting Proposition 8 do not directly address the issue of same-sex marriage -instead they fallaciously imply that the law will force schools to teach children that they can marry individuals of the same sex.  According to the California Superintendent of Schools,

“Our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage.”

“There is nothing in California state law that would require the teaching of marriage in any of its forms.”

- California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell

Come on, Proposition 8 supporters: just say it.  Come right out and say why why marriage must be redefined… to legalize discrimination and eliminate the rights of some Americans. Some Americans, not all.  Proposition 8 wouldn’t eliminate my rights, and perhaps not yours… but the governmentally sanctioned, discriminatory elimination of rights to some but not others is most certainly not what My America is about.  

And if you’re really concerned that students will be taught that they can marry members of their same sex, I look forward to seeing that proposition on the 2009 California General Election Ballot.

No related posts.

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.’

- Boston Globe, 10/04/2006

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…

Here are the applicable definitions for the state of Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. Granted, the particulars may vary from state to state, but the gist remains the same. Point being, these are the laws Hastert clearly knew how to abide by in the state of Illinois.

Sexual Abuse occurs when a person responsible for the child’s welfare commits any of the following acts:

• sexually transmitted diseases are by DCFS definition “diseases which were acquired originally as a result of sexual penetration or conduct with an individual who was afflicted”
• sexual penetration includes any contact between the sex organ of one person and the sex organ, mouth, or anus of another person. Typical acts include vaginal, oral and anal sex.
• sexual exploitation is defined by DCFS as “sexual use of a child for sexual arousal, gratification, advantage, or profit”. This includes such acts as explicit verbal enticements, child pornography, self masturbation in the child’s presence, and forcing a child to watch sex acts.
• sexual molestation is defined by DCFS as “sexual conduct with a child when such contact, touching, or interaction is used for arousal or gratification of sexual needs or desires”. Examples include fondling a child or having the child touch the perpetrator sexually. (DCFS Procedures 300.Appendix B)

For both physical and sexual abuse, parents and caretakers are charged with the responsibility to take reasonable steps to stop abuse. If they do not, they may be charged with abuse themselves. (ANCRA Sec.3)

In order for Family Services to become involved in suspected cases of child abuse or neglect:

1. the victim must be under the age of 18;
2. the alleged perpetrator (the person alleged to have committed the abuse/neglect) must be a parent, step-parent, paramour of the natural parent, guardian, foster parent, immediate family member (siblings and grandparents), any person living in the home of the child, a person who came to know the child through an official capacity or position of trust (such as a teacher, health care professional, or volunteer in a youth program), or a person who is responsible for the welfare of the child (such as a babysitter, day care facility, or residential facility);
3. there must be a specific incident of abuse or neglect or a specific set of circumstances involving suspected abuse or neglect; and
4. there must be either demonstrated harm or a substantial risk of physical or sexual injury to the child

During an investigation, the DCFS child protection investigators gather information about the specific allegation(s) of harm to the child. At the end of that process, the worker must determine if the report is “indicated” or “unfounded”. The standard of proof is “credible evidence”, a lower standard than that required for any judicial procedure. The lower standard of proof allows DCFS to serve families and protect children in many situations that could not be proven using the higher law enforcement or judicial standards. DCFS can indicate the case if the investigator finds that there is credible evidence that the perpetrator committed the abuse or neglect. If credible evidence is lacking, the case will be unfounded.

No related posts.