Part-Time Pundit

The Problem with the Men’s Rights Movement

As a necessary counterweight to the excesses of the women’s rights movement, a men’s right movement has developed to fight for equity in the courts, in the family and in the workplace. For instance, in divorces there is significant and insurmountable (unless you have lots of money) obstacles to getting a fair custody decision regarding your children. Restraining orders are given away easily and have been used as weapons in divorce cases even when there is no evidence of abuse. There clearly is a need to stop the abuse men suffer from the excesses of the women’s rights movement.

The problem with the movement, which is the same problem with the women’s rights movement, is that adoption of the victim-enemy moniker that the press imposes on every issue. Anyone who does marketing for television will tell you this is the format to present any issue if you want news coverage: one, pick a victim and tell a sob story. This victim must be presented as angelic, an innocent victim of a cruel and obstinate system without regard for truth. Two, find a villain. This villain is the epitome of moral evil and must be destroyed. For many issues, referring to George W. Bush suffices (which is why political discourse in this country is so worthless).

Villains cannot be compromised with, they must be defeated. They are the bad guys and we need to stick up for the good guys at all costs. The problem is that compromise becomes unthinkable and even seeing the legitimate points of view of the other side is out of the question. To see this play out, see any political debate show talking about the election.

While there are significant injustices the men suffer as documented in Steven Baskerville’s fine book Taken Into Custody, there are injustices that women have and still do suffer also.

Retraining orders are far too easy to get without any evidence whatsoever (go ahead and sit in a courtroom and watch a hearing for one if you don’t believe me), but on the other hand there are men (and women) out there who are physically abusive and could care less about that piece of paper a court order is written on. People go to the system for help and they don’t get the help they need. We can all agree that no innocent woman or man should not be protected against an abuser. Surely there is some middle ground to address both sides.

Therein lies the difficulty. Activist groups, if they want even an ounce of press or public pressure, must adopt from the start that the other side is evil and wants to screw the innocent. Compromise is not only difficult, it’s impossible. All these groups then rank legislators on their absolute compliance with their agenda. Any leeway on their part makes them unacceptable.

So things have settled into a nice little détente where the men’s rights and women’s rights movements resort to outright name-calling instead of reasoned debate to improve the status of all people. With some issues, such rhetoric is not a big deal. In this case, we are dealing with families where peace should reign. Instead we have dueling groups that wage their war and leave the family asunder. Families are the building block of society, and as goes the family, so goes society.

It may be tempting for the men’s rights movement to say “let’s not compromise until they do”, but even from a political standpoint, if it is an all-or-nothing fight the women’s groups have more clout and that is that. Adopting a more holistic approach is also a political necessity if they don’t want to be side-lined.

It is long past time for policy makers and policy advocates to drop the all-or-none attitude and start to find a middle ground to find beneficial policies for what is best for the entire family. In an all-or-nothing fight, one side may win, but in the end we all lose.

January 31st, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Culture, Politics | one comment

The Case for an Illinois Constitutional Convention

Governor Rod Blagojevich has done something remarkable in Illinois. He has managed to unite people across the political spectrum to create consensus that he absolutely stinks as a governor. Illinois deserves better than Rod Blagojevich.

Because of his low approval in both parties and the budget fiasco of last year, legislators (even those in his own party) are talking about amending the constitution to allow recall votes of sitting politicians. The timing for such talk is opportune because on the November ballot this year there will be a question on whether to have a constitutional convention for Illinois to rewrite or amend the state constitution.

The ability to throw a politician out of office after he or she has be shown unwilling or unable to govern according to the public interest is popular among the voters and is growing popular among politicians who want to take revenge against Blagojevich. Yet a convention should include more than just recalls. While throwing public officials out of office that has shown themselves to be a complete failure is a good start, revising the constitution should produce an overall solid framework for good governance.

There are many good reforms that should be considered and factor into a complete rewriting of the Illinois Constitution. The practice of gerrymandering needs to be eliminated. There are disturbingly few uncompetitive races throughout the state. Democrats have their seats, Republicans have theirs and often they do not even try to compete for the other party’s turf. Politicians should not be able to choose their voters; it should be the other way around. Take a look at the map of Illinois Congressional District 4 to see how ridiculous gerrymandered maps can be.

Along with gerrymandering, it is time to consider term limits for every elected and appointed office in the state. Far too many politicians rule “for life” without any real means for the voters to make them responsive to their needs. Every elected office on all levels should be limited to a maximum of 2 terms or 8 years. Likewise, appointed officials who hold a great amount of power who are not directly accountable to the people need to have their terms of office limited as well.

Open ballot access should be implemented. Every person should have equal ballot access regardless of political affiliation or non-affiliation and a true democracy requires nothing less. The freedom to vote does not mean much if there is no real choice. Independents and third-parties often have to get over 10 times the amount of signatures as established parties do. This system has led the federal courts to repeatedly rule against our election system.

Citizens should be allowed to put binding referenda on the ballot. When state lawmakers refuse or are unable to come up with solutions to problems, the citizens should have a means to bring them up directly. Such referenda, to be effective, need to be binding and not subject to overturning except in rare circumstances.

There are those who are against a constitutional convention because they think the current constitution is fine. To show how the current constitution is not “good enough”, take a look at Article VIII Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution which requires that the budget for the state be balanced.

Yet, according to the Commercial Club of Chicago, a prominent business group, the State of Illinois is in about $106 billion worth of debt. Being thoroughly disabused of the notion that a balanced budget requirement in the Illinois Constitution has produced a balanced budget, we can go forward with discussing rewriting the document.

This November, the citizens of Illinois have a great opportunity to take bake their government from the corrupt and entrenched politicians who rule with their “pay-to-play” politics. A convention, however, should not touch on solitary reforms but to reform the entire constitution to create a foundation and framework for good governance in Illinois. Illinois deserves better than this.

January 27th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Illinois, Illinois Consitutional Convention, Illinois Constitution, Law / Legal Issues, Politics, con-con | one comment

MercatorNet article up: Unsuitable for Children

MercatorNet has another article up by me, Unsuitable for Children on violent video games, not for the perspective of risk to children, but harm to society at large even among adults.

Lawmakers are fond of saying that these games “will never be suitable for children”. I agree. But these weasel words evade the real issue: what makes these games suitable for adults? After all, the tastes of adults are linked to the tastes of teenagers. If parents or older brothers regard violent games with blood splashing all around as “no big deal”, why would they keep it out of the reach of children? And why is it that a little foreplay upsets people but not the butchery that the entire game is based on?

Read more.

January 27th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Culture | no comments

Where in the World is John Bambenek?

So it’s been almost 2 months since I put anything on here and one may be tempted to think I’ve stopped blogging. To be fair, I’ve been tempted to stop blogging too. But mostly I’ve been working on paying gigs lately, writing courseware for SANS and I’m writing a book for The Illinois Citizens Coalition which will be pushing for a yes vote on the question whether to have a constitutional convention in Illinois when it is on the ballot in 2008.

I’ve also published the following articles:

What you say online can be used against you about social networking, government snooping and privacy.

iptables as a replacement for commercial enterprise firewalls which is obviously a technical article.

How Redstate.org is Responsible for the CNN/YouTube Republican Debate Screw-up which is kind of old news now.

I’m still here, stay tuned.

January 15th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Blogging, Illinois, Illinois Consitutional Convention, Illinois Constitution, con-con | no comments

Is the Daily Kos’ Marko Moulitsas encouraging voter fraud?

originally posted at Illinois Review

Yesterday, I filed a complaint with the Michigan Attorney General against Daily Kos’ blogger Markos Moulitsas, requesting an investigation into whether Moulitsas is encouraging voter fraud in next week’s Michigan GOP primary.

The idea of the freedom to vote is part of the bedrock foundation of this nation.  Vote fraud is not a new concept; likely it reaches back even to the time of the founders.  However, once vote fraud is discovered, it should be prosecuted aggressively like all flagrant violations of the law. Daily Kos’ call, under the direction of Markos Moulitsas himself, for a conspiracy to commit massive vote fraud during the Michigan primaries may be one of those serious attempts to circumvent election law.

In Daily Kos’ January 10 posting entitled "Let’s have fun in Michigan," Moulitsas called on Democrats to cross party lines and vote in the Republican primary for the express purpose of helping Mitt Romney win.  Romney, he says, will be a "weak" opponent for the Democrats in November.  Daily Kos makes no attempt to hide the fact they are influencing Republican primaries as Democrats to benefit Democrats. 

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.

Markos, posting under his own name, may have engaged in a conspiracy to commit vote fraud by counseling Democrats to vote in the Republican primary for Mitt Romney.  The motto for this campaign is "Democrats for Romney: Because the Republicans Deserve the Very Worst." 

That motto says something about those who claim to love America as they so frequently display their hatred for other Americans. More importantly, it advertises the fact that Democrats — who have no intention of changing parties — may attempt to interfere with the Republican Party’s internal workings. 

While appearing to encourage vote fraud, the Daily Kos may also be encouraging an attempt to subvert Republicans’ constitutional right of free association and, at the same time, could be perpetuating a conspiracy to disenfranchise Republican voters and dilute their votes.

Vote fraud happens, and living in Illinois, I am no stranger to it.  Make no mistake, the Daily Kos’ posting could be a direct attack on the democratic elements of our Republic, which is exactly why I have filed a criminal complaint in the matter. 

Such public and flagrant disregard for not only Michigan’s election laws, but the rights of fellow citizens cannot be overlooked or tolerated.  Doing so will simply encourages a state of lawlessness in our election system.  While monikers such as "they can’t cheat if it’s not close" may be emotionally satisfying, any such alleged attack against our Republic and its laws should not be shrugged off.

If you agree that the integrity of the vote should be protected and that every vote should count, please contact the Michigan Attorney General, Mike Cox, at miag@michigan.gov and encourage him to look into these allegations.  Cox’s office may also be contacted at (877) 765-8388.  Additional contact information may be found here.

January 15th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Around the US, Columns, Elections, Law / Legal Issues, Politics | no comments