Friday, January 08, 2010

Ballot order chosen for West Bend School Board Primary

Ginny Maziarka was kind enough to post up the Ballot order for the upcoming School Board primary election.

Here it is:

Doug Ziegler
Carl Knepel
Dave Weigand
Randy Marquardt
Bart Williams
Lynn Corazzi
Doug Rakowski
Kathy VanEerden


I think it would be useful to find out which of these candidates wants to 1) have creationism included in the science curriculum and 2) believes in continuing to cut academic programs in one of the better school districts in the state?

Let's find out.

13 comments:

West Bend Citizen Advocate said...

Just to save you the time, I've already email a questionnaire to all the candidates asking that very question. I'll post it once all of the candidates respond.

Heidi Ho!

Ginny

Mpeterson said...

Heidi Ho Ginny,

We may disagree about everything else, but not about informed voting! :^)

hiho
Mark

West Bend Citizen Advocate said...

True dat!

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

I'm surprised you want this question answered. (At least in such a public manner.)

People are passionate about creationism.

The theory of evolution makes people yawn.

If people vote for school board on this issue alone...evolution loses.

There just aren't that many people "jazzed" about a scientific theory with a lot of holes in it.

Mpeterson said...

A lot of holes in it? :^) I'm glad you assimilated enough Plato in class not to be embarrassed by your ignorance. It shows terrific character.

But you're quite right, of course about the issue of popularity, as is Ginny here. We live in a county where people actually complain about the witchcraft being taught in the public schools. :)

Anonymous said...

Creationism was addressed by the West Bend School District years ago. A woman (whose life partner is on the current ballot) approached the district wanting Creationism taught as another theory to life as we know it along with evolution in the science curriculum. I guess she feared the science curriculum would make some children question their faiths (I guess she worried that her own faith's arguments would not stand of to the young one's new science based reasoning, which is a factually demonstrated lack of faith in the power of the wisdom of their own teachings.). The request was dismissed on the grounds that Creationism is NOT a science (Not to mention the fact that if creationism was adopted, a whole bunch of other faiths' creation stories would have to be adopted for the sake of impartiality and to avoid litigation.). The issue of teaching Creationism in the science curriculum has, therefore, been decided and will NOT be revisited per policy. If the board revisits the issue again, time will be wasted again (like the time dedicated to addressing the harassment policy) listening to a small group(s) of loud people (who should be force fed fiber so they are not so backed up) with weak arguments whose demands have twice pointed the district in direction that would have ended with litigation and a reversal to the status quo. This precious time should have been (and should be) dedicated to addressing the district's building and financial woes and try to sustain fair and equitable taxation for the services (The freaking elephant in the room).

Frankly, I believe the real purpose behind these complaints (Including the B&S diarrhea) is to simply Poison the well, bleed the beast, steal precious time, and distract the board for the sake of eventually destroying public education in WB.

If it ever comes to that, My cynical/evil side tells me I'm buying stock in a prison company to recover my (wasted) tax dollars because that's where they'll be going to protect us from hungry/wanting/ignorant/unwanted youth.

Now, to calm down, sip some coffee, relax, walk the dog, and get back to work. Have a peaceful, relaxing Sunday, Mark.

Anonymous said...

My realistic side knows they have an icecream's chance in hell.

Anonymous said...

Here is a quandary: How is it possible Kevin S operate a business using the logic he demonstrates here?

If someone were to complain about his meal at Kevin's business, would Kevin first question him about his political affiliation, then his religious beliefs? Would Kevin deny the possibility that the meal could scientifically be proven to be disagreeable? Would he even bother to inspect the meal, checking the steps along the way of its preparation looking for errors? Or would he take it on faith that the customer was wrong? All the passion in the world, on its own, ain't gonna turn a philosophy or religion into a science.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

No, I would just fix the issue.

I appreciate the advice, but, honestly, there is no shortage of liberals trying to tell me how to run my business.

This is what I don't get about liberalism, government has no business in the bedroom, but then liberals want to work their nose, constantly, into my business?

Why is less government OK for the bedroom, but not everything else?

Mpeterson said...

This is confusing Kev.

It's conservatives who keep getting caught in juicy multiply gendered sex scandals, not Democrats (snore). And it's Conservatives who are busy legislating morality -- specifically, trying to implement a narrow brand of Fundamentalist Christian morality. I suspect you approve of that because they don't legislate business -- which is supposedly amoral.

But that's how it starts... eventually they'll pass blue laws and shut you down on Sundays.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Its not confusing,

You criticize conservatives for their alleged invasion into the privacy of the bedroom and say government keep your "hands off". (right to be let alone---shocking isn't it?)

Why do lefties fail to say "hands off" about my wallet? (right to be let alone) Would it help if I say I keep my wallet in the bedroom?

Its the liberal arrogance that I'm smart enough to make my own irresponsible decisions in my bedroom, but not smart enough to manage my own irresponsible decisions for my wallet.

In other words, why is your hand constantly in my wallet, making choices for me?

Mpeterson said...

Oh, this is an easy one Kevin.

Liberals believe that government should regulate the public relationships we have with each other while leaving the private ones alone.

Conservatives believe that government should regulate private relations while leaving public relationships alone.

Socially, conservatives protect only the powerful -- by not regulating the public sphere -- and oppress the weak -- by attempting to regulate the private sphere.

Liberals do the opposite.

Libertarians land on the conservative side of this divide, alas, because they don't believe in... well, in a society that includes other people.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Yes Mark,

I've heard that before...the problem here is: when is a particular relationship "public" and when is it "private"?

Who gets to decide?

This distinction is about as clear as mud.

Why do liberals advocate smoking bans? If one is smoking in the privacy of his privately owned business...why do liberals advocate that as a "public relationship"?

Conservatives and liberals both have the arrogance to think they can decide the public/private issue, reasonably.

Meanwhile, the paradox of "public" vs. "private" rages on...one is afforded more rights than the other...each side is trying to oppress the other side by slapping the behavior with a "public" label.

For liberals (and conservatives), throwing around the "public" label for a particular tax/behavior is akin to throwing around the "religion" label around for you.