Friday, September 04, 2009

More drum beats over the West Bend Library dust up.

Hi everyone,

I see now that Ginny and Owen are starting their own grass roots organization for prosperity in America. Wonder who gets to join. In the meantime, there's this reminder:

Book banning is alive and well in homophobic America


[[And a Mea Culpa. Whoops: badly spun info precipitated the unchecked meta-commentary... from me above. Apologies to the BSer's out there. What I meant to say is that Owen and Ginny and some of their fellow travelers have expressed pleasure at the new grassroots organization for prosperity in America. Etc.]]

hiho

16 comments:

Sarah said...

Now I could pull some horrible statements out of the bible that, when taken out context, would turn Revelation into pornography. However, taking small pieces out to create a biased argument without considering the whole is, in my mind, a blatant sign of chosen ignorance.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Indeed, what a dangerous course! Completion may have resulted in seeing the bigger picture.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what you're talking about and evidently neither do you. Please refrain from making up stuff about me in the future.

Regards,

Owen

Mpeterson said...

Sorry Owen, I assumed this was you:
http://www.cscwc.com/. That and the fawning cross linkage via Ginny led me to add 1 and 1 and get 3.

In any case, there is never any reason for me to make up anything about you and I promise never to do so.

Best,
Mark

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Is it ever OK for a public servant to ever call anyone "sanctimonious sows" when referring to constituents in a taxpayer funded email?

Why or why not?

Is that good government?

Kevin Scheunemann

Mpeterson said...

Sure.

Free Speech.

Not at all.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Free speech?

In a government funded email?

So I could start attaching bible passages to my government run email with full blessing from you under the "free speech" standard?

Even Prof. Peterson has limits on public servant behavior when it comes to "free speech" in a government funded email.

How far? Advocating tax cuts? Privatization of libraries? Privatization of education? Defunding of the child care fraud in Milwaukee?

"Free speech" is the only limit on a taxpayer funded email?

Now you have my interest peaked on this issue. I've been "under-utiltilizing" my government provided email. (I have only been using it to receive commentary from constituents.)

I appreciate you opening my eyes on this one.

wbneedssmartbloggers said...

Can't say that wasn't an easy mistake to make - the two sites tend to mirror each other at times, and there is an "echo" effect, and there is a certain consistency in positions & opinions (and misinformation disguised as opinions)between the two.

Bye & Bye, I guess Progress Works needs to reactivate and get more visible, no? Wasn't directly involved with that, but it seemed like Obama had pretty good showing in Washington County & the WB school referendums did pretty good (one passed, and the other one didn't get "slaughtered"). And the library issue certainly didn't go their way, either, but I attribute that to more intelligent/articulate members of the community putting their feet down. I guess when Ginny and Owen say "zag", the community needs to "zig".

Mpeterson said...

So, a sarcasm surplus this week? :^)

Why do you keep referring to me in the 3rd person -- I'm right here.


You don't think public servants (or do you mean elected representatives? these aren't necessarily the same) should be allowed to call their constituents bad names in government email. Why not? There's no law against it.

But if they do it too often, they'll probably get voted out of office.

And while there is some legal basis for separation of church and state for public servants qua public servants (no 10 Commandments on your office wall), there is no such separation between being an elected official and ruining your career by calling someone a sow.

Uh, but you surely understand this perfectly well. So, what are you really asking?

Mpeterson said...

Yeah, it's true. They all spend a lot of time licking each others faces. I'm not sure Owen lives in the city of West Bend or not, but lots of those subsidized townies have forgotten that the second referendum question only lost by 16 votes in the city of West Bend and that one out of 3 of their neighbors, county wide, is no longer in lock step with their rose-tinted view of "prosperity."

I also heard the rumor that these prosperity groups are aligned with the Klan down south and get some of their funding from Aryan Pride groups in other states. Swap out "prosperity" for "race" and they look pretty much identical. Social Darwinism works for them either way.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

The comment was from the West Bend Library director and came out in the Kewaskum open records request.

Its interesting that you raise the legal issue of religion being somewhat verboten in a public funded email and public square.

I'm particularly fascinated by the word "sanctimonious" in this context. The West Bend Library Director appears to use it as a clear public advocacy of and defense of all that is "non-sanctimonious".

Could we call that the "church of liberalism", "church of hedonism", or, perhaps, faith and worship of things that are deemed by the West Bend Librarian that are "non-sanctimonious"?

Isn't advocacy of such things its own religion?

(Given the article you linked to in this blog, I'm sure you will be "fair" in your denouncement of religious zealotry on the left side of the aisle as well.)

I just want to be clear:

I could use my public funded email to insult my constituents, but could not attach a bible passage?

I've never done either of those things,(at least I don't think I have) but I'm really fascinated by your take on this.

If you could provide a list of the "favored" vs. "disfavored" religions and religious ideas, I CAN OR CANNOT PUT IN MY PUBLIC FUNDED EMAIL.

(For instance: Would it be bad to talk about "sanctifying" the West Bend Library Director's public relations technique, in a public funded email?)

I don't want to be a future subject of the Motely-Cow blogspot by mentioning any disfavored religions or religious ideas in a public funded email!

Mpeterson said...

I'm afraid you're asking me a legal question so, I have no idea... but yeah, I can't imagine that you couldn't call a constituent a sanctimonious sow if you were of a mind to.

The question might be different for public servants, however, since recourse for the sow in question would be different from an elected official... and I suppose the sow would have to demonstrate that the description wasn't accurate.

I think you ought to check with the city attorney, assuming Kewaskum has such a thing, to find out about when you've crossed the line -- I actually have no idea when it would or wouldn't be legal, although surely there would be an issue with elected officials using their email to proselytize. The lawyers have worked out the lines, I'm sure. Why don't you go find out and we'll post up the results?

Hey, your Dairy Queen isn't a hangout for the local Wiccans or something is it? :^)

Kevin Scheunemann said...

(Not unless local farmers formed a secret Wiccan group or something.)

Mark Peterson said...
"...although surely there would be an issue with elected officials using their email to proselytize."

Proselytize (verb)-to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.

If you read the West Bend Librarian Director emails; its just that. An attempt to proselytize by religious advocation of all that is non-sanctimonious.

We could probably disagree on what is religious vs. non-religious, but the West Bend Library Director took a clear religious stance against sanctification. Sanctification is a long understood religious idea and concept(to make holy, sacred, to make pure from sin.)

For the West Bend Library Director to have faith and worship of all that is non-sanctimonious in his taxpayer funded email is equally deserving of your very important blogger (VIB); bad government denouncement.

After all, you would criticize bible passages attached to my public funded email.

Unless, of course, you are elevating hedonism as a more "favored" religion than Christianity, or Judiasm, or Islam.

That's why I was looking for full disclosure on the current and evolving philisophical trend of "favored" vs. "non-favored" religions in terms of government official advocacy.

If its discovered that I'm a member of any "non-favored" religion, that will give me ample time to "lawyer-up" to insure my victim protection status from any "non-favored" religious remark I may have made in relation to my email. (Maybe enough protection to prevent compliance with the Wisconsin Open Records law.)

Many thanks in advance for defining "favored" vs. "non-favored" religions. I always thought this was a question best left for philosophers---that is, unless, we want to, foolishly, leave to lawyers to define.

Mpeterson said...

it is, of course, possible to bend any definition of a word to make it say what you're hoping it'll say... and I have no idea what it is you're actually trying to say, so, assuming that you believe the library director was attempting to convert anyone by making a comment on, I have to assume he was referring to Ginny as sanctimonious which fits that definition rather accurately (although sow is clearly pejorative here), a community member I imagine you're going to ....

Yeah, I have no idea. But it was nice to hear from you. I imagine there are more Wiccan farmers then you think there are. :^)

hiho

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

Isn't "wordsmithing" the art of good politics? Obama, no doubt, does this well, despite misplaced "faith" in Washington politicians.

"Faith" in public servants insulting constituents in a public email is OK, but attaching a bible passage is not OK?

Thats why I ask which "faith" is and is not OK?

kevin scheunemann said...

Memo for Prof. Peterson,

"Rep. Garthwaite: Urges state agencies and private media sources to cease referring to the seasonal H1N1 influenza virus as “swine flu”"
(9/10/09) press release

Democrats have determined its politically incorrect and harsh to call H1N1 "swine flu".

So Democrats in the state legislature find "compassion" and "tolerence" for a strain of flu, but the West Bend Library Director can use an even worse "pig" derivative to describe constituents without the same Democratic denouncement.

Someone has to explain to me the rules of political correctness.

Many thanks in advance.

(p.s. the word verification for this post was "blessing". Is this a sign the motely cow is taking up religion? lol)

Mpeterson said...

Funny stuff Kevin.

Don't be so naive about political correctness though. Odds are they all merely got huge campaign contributions from Pork Marketing Board. :^)

Of course, as usual Democrats shoot themselves in the foot -- by avoiding the politically incorrect use of the phrase "swine" they helped keep the Bush administration in place for 2 full terms.