He Makes a Good Point

Ramsin Canon at the Gaper's Block blog Mechanics aruges that we really don't have a good idea of what constitutes a 'good' Democrat, and this lack is a major problem when it comes to defining what the party is for and how we are to judge it.

There is a flaw in the motto "Elect More, and Better, Democrats." This motto of the liberal netroots--as a handy shorthand for the current generation of liberal activists--was laid out originally by Markos Moulitsas and adopted to various degrees by the other major netroots networks and organizations.

The flaw is the word "better". With no real left ideology (and therefore, no attendant analysis of the current political and economic situation) there is no real way to gauge what makes a "better" Democrat. With no definition of "better" in this context, we are left with "Elect more Democrats;" not only this, but without an ideology--an analysis--we can't gauge legislative progress--meaning we will never know when we have "enough" Democrats. Electing more Democrats is not a worthwhile goal until we know what makes a politician a "good" or "better" Democrat.

That is to say, without a party-independent movement capable of providing analysis of current political and social crises, we'll end up with a constant tension between those who think espousal of particular issues, versus partisan loyalty, define "progress", "the left" or "progressivism".

It's worth a full read, which you should go give it.

I Question Your Underlying Assertion

Archpundit recently picked apart an editorial on the Equal Rights Amendment by Fran Eaton (who my readers may remember as the author of an exercise in incoherency that attempted to defend John Bambenek's misreading of Michigan state statues). I'll be the first to admit that I know little about the legal ins and outs of the ERA, but a couple grafs that Archpundit highlighted caught my eye:

But not only will the ERA's passage stir the hackles of little old ladies and helpless widows, 18-year-old college women may be up in arms.

No longer will military registration be required of just males, it also will be required of females - again, no discrimination based on sex. While more and more young women are choosing the military as a career option, if the draft were to be enacted in a stepped-up defense in the war on terror, our 18-year-old women would be forced into service along with our 18-year-old men.

Now, maybe this just comes from my recently having been in the prime age groups to be drafted, but I don't see how subjecting women to the draft would be a bad thing. Our society has made great strides over the past half-century in recognizing that in the vast majority of circumstances, women are just as capable as men, if not more so. To deprive our nation of half its available pool of recruits in a time of national emergency based solely on outdated social ideas is absurd. I don't know why calling upon women to defend with their lives the rights that are due them is the bad thing Fran makes it out to be.

Then again, based on our previous encounter, I get the distinct impression that I would have no idea why Fran thinks most of the things she does.

Posts From Blogs You Should be Reading

Jonathon at Analog Periphery has a post up on the lowering of Army recruitment standards. Remember all those stories that were batted about in 2001-2003 about newly-elected Presidents calling their predecessors and thanking them about the wonderful military they were handed? The next guy (or gal) is not going to be saying that to Dubya.

Daily Kos diarist indigo5 has apparently set hirself up a blog titled John Bambenek Truth Squad and posts there as Interloper. While I admire anyone with a cluestick for Bambi (the site's slogan, or at least its blogspot URL) I have my doubts on how well it will be administered. Interloper/indigo5 already has a history of committing the same sin as Bambenek - he didn't check his definitions and went on a rather idiotic rant based on his mistaken understanding. Even so, I wish him well - reading that much of John's stuff has to be bad for one's health.

Lastly we have Jim Macdonald over at Making Light, who has up a post on how the cast of Cloverfield would have acted if they were sane, sensible people. Jim has an extensive Emergency Management background, and uses the post as a means to link together a large number of his previous posts on how to be prepared for offal striking the rotary ventilation device. He also takes the opportunity to link to Cloverfield in Fifteen Minutes, which is a hilarious summary of the movie.

...But Isn't That the Point?

One of the common complaints one hears from Illinipundit and other conservatives is that the lament over politicians who think that "the federal government can and should solve everyone's problems for them." They even have a nickname for people espousing such views, "nannystaters".

Last I checked, the entire point of government was to solve the people's problems and to work for the public good. So, why are conservatives complaining about government doing its job?

Bambenek Implosion Roundup

It might not be the most charitable characteristic of mine, but I really enjoy watching willfully stupid people receive the consequences of their actions. John Bambenek, who decided to make a frivolous complaint against DailyKos to the Michigan AG, received his consequences starting at just before 3pm, when diarist Adam B at DailyKos [who is apparently DailyKos' lawyer - you learn something every day -ed.] posted a takedown of John's arguments for the benefit of his fellow Kossaks. Up until then, John was being schooled in his choices of Federal Case Law to cite by another local blogger, Prairie Biker, but after the diary went up an influx of Kossaks came over to see the stupid that Mr. Bambenek posted, with quite a few leaving comments. At about that time, John went into hiding, and he has not, to my knowledge, posted anything since - other than to repost his original announcement onto his own blog, presumably to fend off the vile nasty Kossaks who are even less nice than I am about pointing out the flaws of his argument.

It has also been brought to my attention that this is not the first time that John has engaged in legal stupidity against DailyKos. The same Adam B emailed me early this morning (sorry, but I usually don't check that email address at work) and linked to commentary on the last stunt Mr. Bambenek pulled - arguing to the FEC that DailyKos was a political entity. This was quite rightly smacked down by the FEC, and though he swore he'd appeal once he was over his hissy-fit he apparently decided not to follow up on it.

Myself, I wonder what, if any, response the Michigan AG's office will have to this sorry mess. My guess is that they'll send John a nice letter that effectively says, "Um, no, what are you smoking?" and that John will refuse to post the letter for all to see.

UPDATE: For those who wish to see the Kossaks pile on John even more, you can do so here.

Taking Law School Classes Does Not a Lawyer Make

John Bambenek is a local blogger who tries oh-so-very-hard to be like Limbaugh, Savage, O'Reilly, and other conservative talk show hosts. John's problem is that his chosen medium is the written word, both newspaper columns and blog posts, which, as slower-paced media, allow for fact-checking. Unlike those he chooses to emulate, John is not in a position to make remarks backed up by squat and then move on to the next thing without being challenged. He tries to anyway, and what usually happens is this:

1. John writes something that is, at first pass, clever, but is really very stupid and not based in what the rest of us call reality.
   
2. Someone or some group of people call John on how specious his reasoning is.
3. John backpedals and choses one of two options:

• He responds, "That's not what I said/meant," when any informed observer can see otherwise.
• He finds things that are related to what he is talking about, cites them as if they actually back him up, and claims victory.

As one might surmise, John and I have crossed pens before, on one of my favorite topics. While for that exchange he took the first option under point 3, Mr. Bambenek has gotten himself into yet another spot and gone for the second option. It seems that John, based upon his having taken a couple Law School classes, thinks himself qualified to write letters to state Attorney Generals interpreting their state's laws without making an ass out of himself.

More specifically, this bout of poor legal logic started when John announced that he had filed a complaint against Markos Moulitsas, the "Kos" of DailyKos for encouraging Democrats to take advantage of the Open Primary in Michigan and vote for Mitt Romney. The gist of John's argument is this:

Moulitsas' call could be felonious. Michigan state law clearly indicates that unqualified electors voting in elections is a felony. It also specifies that counseling or aiding someone to vote in an election they are unqualified for is also a felony. Election law clearly specifies that to vote in a party's primary, one must actually belong to that party.

Compromising the power of the vote in this country is a direct attack on the very foundation of our freedom. While much can be said about the closed primary system of which I am no fan, it is the law of the land and undermining that system for partisan gain is an invidious attempt to disenfranchise voters, and simply cannot be allowed to stand.

The parties do have free association rights which allow them the constitutional right to declare who are and are not members and, by extension, those who cannot interfere in the workings of that political organization. Republicans alone should choose Republican candidates. Democrats alone should choose Democrat candidates. The same goes for third parties.

In the comments on that post, a number of commenters bring up various arguments based on state statutes, which John then misreads or cherry-picks from to promote his own position. However, what I find most illustrative is the actual complaint he sent to the Michigan Attorney General. In it, we find the following deliciously wrong sentence:

Michigan state law 168.534 specifies who qualified electors for primary elections are, and not surprisingly, qualified electors may only vote in primaries for the party in which they are members of.

Michigan AG Mike Cox (or one of his staffers) will likely be surprised when he reads this letter, as 168.234 in fact says this:

A general primary of all political parties except as provided in sections 532 and 685 shall be held in every election precinct in this state on the Tuesday after the first Monday in August before every general November election, at which time the qualified and registered voters of each political party may vote for party candidates for the office of governor, United States senator, representative in congress, state senator, representative in the legislature, county executive, prosecuting attorney, sheriff, county clerk, county treasurer, register of deeds, county auditor, drain commissioner, public works commissioner, county road commissioner, county mine inspector, surveyor, and candidates for office in townships. A nomination for an office shall be made only if the official is to be elected at the next succeeding general November election.

Note that the wording is different - there is no limitation of electors (what MI state statute calls voters) to vote for their own party's candidates, the law only states that they may vote for party candidates. Further, this statute does not apply to Presidential primaries, as that office is omitted.

More evidence of the openness of the Michigan primary is seen in 168.575:

After the polls are opened at a primary election, any elector who is legally registered and qualified shall, before entering the booth or voting compartment, be furnished a party ballot, together with any other ballot or ballots to be voted at that primary election.

Here, too, the article "a" is used, rather than any posessive adjective, leaving an elector the legal option of choosing any party ballot, not necessarily his own.

Both Sections 534 and 575, as well as many other sections throughout the election code, make use of the phrase "registered and qualified", or variations thereof, to describe electors. This phrase is defined in section 492, which lays out the qualifications for registering as an elector:

Every person who has the following qualifications of an elector, or who will have those qualifications at the next election or primary election, shall be entitled to be registered as an elector in the township, city, or village in which he or she resides. The person shall be a citizen of the United States; not less than 18 years of age; a resident of the state for not less than 30 days; and a resident of the township, city, or village on or before the thirtieth day before the next regular or special election or primary election.

One will note that party status has nothing to do with the qualifications of an elector - so John's assertion that "qualified electors may only vote in primaries for the party in which they are members of" seems odd in that, by its inclusion, he highlights the adjective "qualified" as if it means something beyond the basic requirements for voting in the state of Michigan.

Further nails in John's argument are hammered home by Section 615c, of which subsections 1 and 2 read as:

(1) In order to vote at a presidential primary, an elector shall indicate in writing, on a form prescribed by the secretary of state, which participating political party ballot he or she wishes to vote when appearing to vote at a presidential primary. In fulfilling the requirements of this subsection, the secretary of state shall prescribe procedures intended to protect or safeguard the confidentiality of the participating political party ballot selected by an elector consistent with this section.

(2) An elector shall not be challenged at a presidential primary based upon the participating political party ballot selected by the elector. An elector may be challenged only to the extent authorized under section 727.

Not only is the elector merely stating what ballot he or she wants, but challenges to that choice are explicitly stated to be illegal. The legal bases for challenges are listed under section 727, subsection 1:

(1) An election inspector shall challenge an applicant applying for a ballot if the inspector knows or has good reason to suspect that the applicant is not a qualified and registered elector of the precinct, or if a challenge appears in connection with the applicant's name in the registration book. A registered elector of the precinct present in the polling place may challenge the right of anyone attempting to vote if the elector knows or has good reason to suspect that individual is not a registered elector in that precinct. An election inspector or other qualified challenger may challenge the right of an individual attempting to vote who has previously applied for an absent voter ballot and who on election day is claiming to have never received the absent voter ballot or to have lost or destroyed the absent voter ballot.

Your eyes do not deceive you, there is no reference to party affiliation in that statute either. Neither is there in any other election statute that I could find, though I encourage everyone to look for themselves.

At this point, it seems rather certain to a person (such as myself) doing a plain reading of these statutes that, as far as Michigan state law is concerned, Michigan's open primary is precisely that, open. Although I readily admit that open primaries are stupid, it is the choice of the people of the State of Michigan, and their elected representatives, to have such a system. While cross-over voting does violate the spirit of the primary, there is no legal barrier to it, and both parties have engaged in such activities in Michigan in the past with no legal repercussions.

This brings us to the allegation that John brings against Kos, that Markos has committed a felony by violating 168.932a, subsection c:

(c) A person who is not a qualified and registered elector shall not willfully offer to vote or attempt to vote at an election held in this state. A person shall not aid or counsel a person who is not a qualified and registered elector to vote or offer to vote at the place where the vote is given during an election.

Again, this law rests upon the definition of a "qualified and registered elector". As we saw in section 492, this merely deals with age, citizenship, and residency, with nothing to do with party status or affiliation at all. As Kos has not encouraged anyone to fraudulently vote under section 492, he has not violated section 932a.

Having demonstrated that John Bambenek is quite blatantly wrong, one wonders why he engaged in this little stunt at all. While I have no doubt that John will see fit to enlighten us as to his logic (or lack thereof), I can think of a few scenarios.

1. John was alarmed by what he read at DailyKos, checked the MI statutes, did not read section 492, projected his own preconceptions onto the text of sections 234 and 932a, and then filed his complaint in good faith.
2. John saw what Kos had posted, wanted to score some quick political points, read sections 234 and 932a as confirming his thoughts, did not bother to find and read section 492, and sent off his letter thinking to cause Kos some legal problems at the expense of the state of Michigan.
3. John saw what Kos had posted, read all applicable laws including section 492, and decided to send off his letter to the Michigan Attorney General anyway and post about such on his blog in the hope of creating some bad press for DailyKos - discrediting the site and discouraging people from engaging in crossover voting.

Myself, I currently lean towards the second explanation, as it is suggested by John's consistent misreading of the law. I am open to being convinced that either of the other scenarios, or even ones I did not think of, are actually the case.

If you go John's original post, I posted a rough version of the legal analysis section post as a comment.

A major kudos goes out to the anonymous commenter on an earlier thread that pointed out this whole mess to me.

Also - brownie points go out to any/all readers of mine who can find out what John was saying when Laurel Prussing was running in the Democratic primary for Mayor of Urbana and all the local Republicans were up in arms about Prussing's people enforcing the closed primary.

UPDATE: Wow, this exploded, with the mess landing on John. Now we wait and see how toxic the fallout will be for him.

Chief Logo Shenannigans

I didn't catch Saturday's News-Gazette, but Illinipundit did, and he caught the story on the Chief logo's creator suing the university to get the rights back from the Board of Trustees. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but what's interesting about the article is actually what it says on the UofI's plans for the logo:

[U]niversity officials and lawyers have been working with Collegiate Licensing Company to add the Chief logo to the company's College Vault program. College Vault licenses vintage collegiate logos, emblems and other images.

"We have not made final decisions on specific products or volume going forward, but we will continue to offer merchandise in select apparel, non-apparel and headwear categories," Kaler said.

-snip-

Kaufman also said such marketing would violate the UI Board of Trustees March 13, 2007, resolution calling for the elimination of the Chief and it would violate the NCAA policy prohibiting schools with "hostile or abusive" imagery from hosting postseason competitions or displaying the nicknames, logos or mascots at those events.

-snip-

If the university signs an agreement with College Vault to license the Chief Illiniwek merchandise, the Chief items would be sold online only. Such use is in accordance with NCAA and university policies, Kaler said.

Calls left for NCAA officials were not immediately returned Friday.

Last February, after UI Board Chairman Lawrence Eppley announced the end of Chief Illiniwek, the NCAA issued a release stating that if the university no longer used Chief Illiniwek and related American Indian imagery in athletics, the university would be in full compliance with the NCAA's policy.

What everyone is waiting on is for the NCAA to respond and say whether or not UofI's continued sale of Chief merchandise online really is in accordance with NCAA policy. If it is, I'd be disappointed in the NCAA. How is allowing online sales substantially different from allowing sales in meatspace? We all know that the die-hard Chief fans will flock to the online site to buy the most-likely overpriced "vintage" apparel just to get their fix of racist clothing, and since the University - and the NCAA! - would be sponsoring it, the University would still be fostering a Hostile and Abusive atmosphere. My own view is that, given enough time without a white guy jumping around in a costume down on the field, the student body itself will get over the loss of its mascot - but allowing a source of Chief memorabilia to remain will, just like the Marching Illini's continued use of the Three-in-One, contribute to and extend the rather pathetic hanging-on to the Chief that his supporters currently exhibit.

Caucus Funness

So it looks like Obama was everyone and their mother's Second Choice candidate in Iowa, as he pulled out ahead of Edwards and Clinton. Edwards squeeked out into second place, and Clinton less than a percentage point behind - which, according to Chris Matthews, apparently means that two-thirds of the party is specifically against her, but not against Edwards. And conservatives wonder why we libs bitch about the media - I'm not pulling for Clinton in the primaries, but even that reeks of stupid to me.

Meanwhile, Huckabee is scaring the crap out of the GOP elite as the Proles start standing up and doing what they want instead of being manipulated into doing what the monied interests want...

UPDATE: For a blow-by-blow, Matt of It's Matt's World took the time to liveblog the coverage of the caucuses.

UPDATE, Part Deux: Glock21 has some snarky comments on how Ron Paul fared in Iowa.

Out of Curiosity

Has the ID of IlliniPundit been outed yet? I've been away from the blog scene for a while, so I haven't heard if he/she has or not.

Something I've Been Up To Recently

Back in early November, one of the News-Gazette's infrequently-posting bloggers, Rhonda Robinson, regurgitated a bunch of Discovery Institute talking points about the Ben Stein-narrated documentary, Expelled. A few commenters, including myself and Narci of Narciblog, take Rhonda and some other commenters to task. The thread's been silent for a couple weeks, though, so either she's decided not to follow/further the discussion on the topic, or has moved on to other things.

PS - What's the point of having a blog if you update it once every few months at best?