Shot In The Dark: Smearers, Smear Thyselves

May 12, 2005

Smearers, Smear Thyselves

I fully expect that my kids could very easily wind up completely different from my own politics. After all, all three of the grandparents I remember were solid Republicans, while both of my parents are Democrats. Anything can happen. Such is life.

But for now, for whatever reason, my kids tag along with my Republican politics. Unlike me at their ages, they're pretty dang bright.

And, like good young conservatives, they have a strong market motive; I pay them a buck a piece to bring home bits of biased or indoctrinative literature they get at schools. Let's say they've bought quite a bit of pop at Superamerica because of their schools.

In a more sinister vein, the stories they tell me - the way historical and current events are presented to them - tell me that a lot of their teachers, especially social studies and humanities teachers, are thoroughly biased to the left. Not to say they teach an agenda, per se - but that views not blessed by the left get very short shrift.

In sixth grade, my daughter (whose teacher at the time was a Green who went into a morbid depression when Wellstone died, but was otherwise a good teacher) reported being taken to an assembly on the brink of the invasion of Iraq. A group of students from Hamline University had just returned from a tour ~~intended to train them as unwitting shills of the Iraqi information ministry~~ of Iraq, and gave a presentation that might as well have come from Baghdad Bob or the UN; "the embargo has killed 100,000 Iraqi children, Iraq is a sovereign nation, let the inspectors do their jobs...", that kind of thing.

My daughter, bless her spunky little heart, got in the students' faces - and, to her credit, probably knew more about the first Iraq war than they did. She was basically ignored.

At any rate - yes, there is a slant to the left in the high schools today.

Michael Boucher writes a thoroughly, drearily predictable op-ed in this morning's Strib. Boucher is described as "...a social studies teacher at South High School in Minneapolis, [and] president of the Minnesota Council of Social Studies."

So it's possible he's capable of giving the topic at hand a fair presentation.

I said "Possible".

His op-ed regards an effort by State Sen. Michele Bachmann to solicit stories of discrimination from teenage Republicans in the state. There's her first mistake; she should come to the parents.

Boucher:

Like many of us, I get a lot of e-mail and most of it goes in the trash, but one piece I recently received chilled me to the bone. It begins with the benign statement, "Senate Assistant Minority Leader Michele Bachmann is working on a project that may help us all learn and participate in democracy more freely."

"Excellent!" I thought to myself. Getting kids more involved in politics is great. Students' eyes too often glaze over when delving into the details of government, but once they get a taste of how it actually works, they become better citizens and students. It is especially hard to get them to care about local and state government, even though that is where they have the most effective voice.

Which is, presumably, why the schools are so enamored with busing students en masse to rallies at the capitol on behalf of the Minnesota Federation of Teachers.

But I digress:

"As Teenage Republicans, I'm sure that many of you have had trouble or conflict in your schools in regards to your teachers or administrators not looking favorably towards your conservative view points. These days it seems that anyone who expresses an opinion, or philosophical belief that differs from the pro diversity, pro homosexual, pro environment, or anti-war crowd of High School, often faces countless roadblocks when trying to express their views or form student-led clubs."

Here I lost my enthusiasm. The e-mail, available on the Teenage Republicans website, goes on to suggest that high school teachers and administrators are seething with anti-conservatism and that Bachmann is the champion of the underclass. It says that instead of educating students to think, Minnesota schools are instead guilty of "indoctrination" and that complicit administrators allow this to happen in order to avoid "controversy."

"Indoctrination means the intentional teaching of something in a way sought to persuade one to think a certain way," the e-mail continues.

Brief aside; let's see if Boucher actually responds to the accusations of "indoctrination". Note that I didn't say "Bachmann's charges of indoctrination"; Senator Bachmann is hardly the first to bring these charges.

Back to Boucher:

I was annoyed with the characterization of teachers and schools, but attacks on the integrity of teachers and the quality of our schools are today's standard fare for local politicians hoping to make a splash on the national stage.

Question: Are they inaccurate?

The text continues, "In the classroom, you may have had an incident or two where you had a teacher that has been outright biased against conservative thinking. Maybe it is a science teacher who openly bashes President Bush, or maybe a history teacher who spends weeks on the hippie movement, but runs out of time to talk about Ronald Reagan and the end of the cold war."

Incident or two?

How about my son's fifth grade teacher, who visibly fulminated against Bush? Who said Bush was going to be bad for the poor, and Kerry would be better for schools and families?

Or one of my daughter's teachers, who pondered in class whether the Minnesota Personal Protection Act and the right to carry concealed weapons was in part responsible for the Red Lake Massacre (ignoring, of course, that the MPPA was in legal limbo at the time).

Or my daughter's current history teacher, who is constantly slipping in anti-Bush barbs (Scene: two quarrelling students. "You two dont' need to start a war. Like Bush did") during class.

Or the teacher that passed out "Code Pink" buttons in class, at about the time of both the invasions of Iraq and the passage of the 2003 Concealed Carry bill?

Or the anti-Republican propaganda that is constantly being passed out at school events, asking parents to support Democrat school board members and legislators on school funding issues, and recruiting students to come to rallies for more school funding.

It's everywhere.

"It's not just the teachers", says my daughter (an eighth grader at a Saint Paul junior high school). "The students do it, too - always saying "Bush Sucks" and that kind of thing. You can tell they get it from the teachers, though...they say it like during class, and the teachers will nod and stuff. They dont' get in trouble for it; the teachers don't tell them to stop, whereas the first time a student (me being usually the only one) says something in Bush's defense, the teachers will say "that's enough, let's move on with something else, let's go on to another topic", yadda yadda".

My daughter, by the way, has discovered two Republican teachers at her school. Both of them approached her covertly, in the lunchroom or while waiting for the bus, as if she were a spy and they were potential defectors; very covert and hush-hush. Like they didn't want their co-workers to know they were Republicans.

Why on earth would that be?

I can go on. And, no doubt, I will.

Bachmann is a proponent of the "Academic Bill of Rights." This document, available on studentsforacademicfreedom.org, is a nationwide effort to ferret out "bias" in academic institutions. The movement, begun in 2003 by David Horowitz, has gained some footing in state governments and significant opposition from academics around the country.

While I don't necessarily support the ABOR in its current form, there is no rational question that academics from kindergarten through college is the province of the left - and that while most teachers have a strong enough ethical sense to avoid imposing their beliefs on their students, there are enough exceptions (and enough power-grubbing, agenda-driven administrators and board members) to create a problem.

Back to Boucher:

As I read along, it was the next section that made my blood run cold: "She [Bachmann] will be putting together a scrapbook of stories from all across the state. If you have experienced any kind of social or academic injustice at your school, or know some one who has, even if it is just a small story, send it to Michelle Bachmann at sen.michele.bachmann@senate.mn."

It "makes his blood run cold"?

He's a social studies teacher, but the notion that other people might be exercising their rights to free speech and assembly "makes his blood run cold"?

Huh?

What the senator plans to do with her "scrapbook" is unclear, but the lessons of McCarthyism ring in my ears. Are teachers to be dragged before her and blacklisted if they refuse to cooperate?

(Remember my daughter's two Republican teachers? Boucher is bouching about McCarthyism against Democrats, but...oh, you know what I'm getting at)

Will they be sent to Reeducation Camps by teenagers waving "The Conscience of a Conservative" to study the Reagan Revolution? Of course not. There is no youth revolution going on in America. But if state Sen. Bachmann becomes U.S. Rep. Bachmann, undoubtedly this "scrapbook" will make its way to Washington and be used against Minnesota citizens.

"Undoubtedly?"

Well, speaking only for myself, if a hypothetical Representative Bachmann wanted to use her scrapbook to illuminate the bias, indoctrination, and frankly abuse of power that is going on in too many classrooms, it's about damn time!

Because in Michael Boucher's world (I'm assuming here, but I think it's a safe and comfortable assumption), there is only one thing conservatives do. It's his stereotype.

Speaking of stereotypes:

I am sure many of Minnesota's excellent, selfless and tireless educators will find themselves in Bachmann's crucible, smeared with vulgar references for her political gain. I submit, that in order to balance her efforts, students and parents from around the state also send her the stories of excellence, high standards and dedication that they see from teachers every day.

Well, fine, but then that's what the Minnesota Federation of Teachers is supposed to be doing. Right?

Oh, wait. To the MFT, all teachers are exactly the same; all for one, one for all, merit pay is bad, there are no bad teachers, only bad management. Gotcha.

Of course there are excellent teachers. It's a crassly manipulative strawman to say that anyone's denying that - which of course puts Boucher in perfect step with the Strib editorial board and most of their columnists.

No, Bachmann's goal is both fairly narrow, laudable, and long overdue.

Posted by Mitch at May 12, 2005 08:23 AM | TrackBack

Comments

What type of postive examples can you site for the proper way for a "liberal" teacher to deal with a "conservative" student? What types of issues are you talking about? I honestly don't get how something like this could be codified into any sort of meaningful enforcable language or directive. I'm not trying to be a smart ass this time. I really don't get this.

Posted by: cleversponge at May 12, 2005 09:00 AM

Fred: I understand that you disagree with "marxist/socialist/anti-american brainwashing". This is fine. However, beyond hyperbole, how do you realistically solve the problem? What legislative language will you use? Who defines what a "conservative" opinion is?

Posted by: cleversponge at May 12, 2005 10:54 AM

Cleversponge,

I believe that my US History and AP Government teacher handled things the right way in regard to this topic. She played Devil's Advocate against everyone. From the far left students to the far right students, she challenged everyone's beliefs and made us think, verify, and support what we were saying. Also, she never took a stand on the issue; to this day, I don't know her positions on the big issues (and the teacher went to college with my father, so its not like I couldn't ask her. Might do that if I see her again.).

Posted by: Sixth Sense at May 12, 2005 11:01 AM

I recently went back to school, and the college I went to was quite progressive. There was a poster of the school's racial/gender diversity policy in each room. Most of my teachers who showed their bias were from light to heavy left. One would make a point about how stupid our local anti-tax crusaders are, make a point of refer to Bush as 'Shrub' in a database class as if it were relevant.

Those teachers who were conservative made it known only in private outside of class. One, a former marine, was quite proud of his beliefs, and his 9/11 memorial on his office door could be seen a few doors from another teacher's 'free mumia' poster.

The teacher who had 'free mumia' among other junk on the exterior of her office, was one of my english teachers. She was a lesbian who wrote lesbian fiction ( available on Amazon ). However, she avoided politics in the classroom strenuously. I had to infer her politics, her sexual orientation, et al from things I learned outside of class. She was rigorously fair, to the point of noting that /Germans/ as well as Japanese were interned by America during WWII.

Were all liberal teachers like her, I wouldn't have any issue. I just don't understand why other teachers can't zip it like conservatives do.

I had a history teacher there who appeared to be quite religious, but had no problem discussing homosexuality in the context of Greek and Roman culture without a moral interpretation.

Yet, there was another English teacher who always ran her class overlong so when I filed in for physics, I could hear her causally berating capitalism in general, american free enterprise, and talk about how smart Karl Marx was because his ideas protected more people. ( As if a century of socialism hasn't proven Marx wrong. ) Was it really necessary to provide the class with these mis-representations?

Posted by: aodhan at May 12, 2005 11:29 AM

First: "You two dont' need to start a war. Like Bush did." is just about the funniest thing I've read all week. Are you sure you didn't make that one up? It sounds like something Frank from IMAO would put in the mouth of a leftist caricature...

Also: Bachmann was on the KQRS morning show today and explained that she wasn't asking for stories from high schoolers, she was concentrating on higher education. (To back this up, I heard her on the radio ask a couple of time for college students to write in, but didn't mention high school until some parents called in, then basically said she was concentrating on colleges for now.) This would appear to be mission creep from people other than Bachmann. Which is to be expected, really, and is one reason ABOR bothers me. Another is: OK, what remedies will come out of this? And will they actually help, or just introduce a new form of political correctness?

Posted by: Steve Gigl at May 12, 2005 11:30 AM

There is simply no reason to discuss politics less than, say, 30 years old in a public school. This is for the same reason that you don't discuss which is the correct religion in school. If a student asks "Did Christ really rise from the dead" any teacher should respond, "some believe he did, some believe he didn't, but that really is a topic better left for places other than school Johnny." And why is so? Because it is a PUBLIC school. Everyone is forced to pay for it. There is a consensus that 2+2=4. There is not a consensus on religion. Almost be definition, there is no consensus on politics.

So, cleversponge, here is an enforcable rule. No discussing current politics in class. No pro-Bush statements. No anti-Bush statements.

Posted by: chris at May 12, 2005 11:34 AM

I should note too that almost entirely, those teachers who discussed politics in the classroom were almost invariably the worst teachers. The one who liked to say 'shrub', I had to correct her UNIX tests as she passed them out.

As for defining 'conservative', don't worry. I'll write one down, store it in a little box, and only open the box to compare material against it once all other appeals have been filed. No problem. :)

Posted by: aodhan at May 12, 2005 11:37 AM

6th Sense"

I think you are exactly right about the devil's advocate. I personally think that this is the most effective teaching method available. It challenges the students to think critically and defend their ideas with solid arguments.

I think that many, many, many teachers use this technique to great effect in many, many schools.

Personally, I'm quite liberal and some of the best classes I had were taught by teachers who were obviously conservative--I was severely challenged in these classes (some people may argue with my claim about "conservative" teachers; I did go to a Jesuit school; I know many Catholics who say that "Jesuit" and "conservative" can't be used in the same sentence)

My problem with all of this academic bias stuff is that it can't be reasonably codified into legislative language. How do you define something like this?

Bachmann's bill's language is insane. It's a campaign document; not serious legislation.

"The institution shall provide students with a learning
1.18 environment in which the students have access to a broad range
1.19 of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects of
1.20 study. The fostering of a plurality of serious scholarly
1.21 methodologies and perspectives shall be a significant
1.22 institutional purpose. In addition, curricula and reading lists
1.23 shall make students aware of the existence of dissenting
1.24 scholarly sources and viewpoints. "

WHAT?! What does that mean? Who is it aimed at? Now, I know that this is hyperbole, but is it reasonable to ask that we teach children that some people believe that the earth is flat? Should we teach children that some people think the earth was made on the back of a turtle...outside of a theology class?

Who is she talking about? What about Devil's Advocate? She throws that out the window with this:

"The institution shall distribute student fee funds on a fair and equitable basis and shall maintain a posture of neutrality with respect to substantive political and religious disagreements, differences, and opinions."

Nope. Can't challenge anyone anymore because it could be construed as bias. Does this mean that if you want to challenge a viewpoint you have to keep a "devil's advocate score" in order to defend against charges of bias? This is ridiculous.

This is legislation written to cater to things that everyone already agrees with: teachers should teach the subject matter; teachers should be aware of differing opinons among students, etc, etc. The entire bill is a divisive straw man. For instance, the bill says:

"The institution shall distribute student fee funds on a fair and equitable basis"

Who doesn't do this?

Also, the bill equates political and religious beliefs. As a political Catholic, this worries me. Religion deals with the ultimate ends of the universe; politics deals with the immediate and pragmatic ones. They are not equal players...in both stature or legal recognition. Political beliefs should not be afforded the same civil protection as religious beliefs. This is very dangerous.

Posted by: cleversponge at May 12, 2005 11:54 AM

Chris:

Political science classes NEED to discuss politics in class. It is the nature of the beast. While you can sit there and talk about the electoral benefits of incumbency for hours and hours on end, ultimately you need to put this theoretical knowledge into some sort of real-world use/example. There is a need to discuss policy and politics in some classes. This is unavoidable. Pro-Bush positions and anti-Bush positions are unavoidable in most political science classes.

Also, there are plenty of reasons to discuss politics less than 30 years old in public school. How do students understand that the words and actions of our forefathers are alive and well today without these discussions? How can we reasonably expect our students to be able to function in a modern world if they don't have a political understanding of the last 30 years?

I think that your statement "This is for the same reason that you don't discuss which is the correct religion in school" is very telling. No one is saying that you need to make a determination of what the "correct" religion or ideology is. However, you should have a working understanding of the major ones.

The rule I'm looking for is specific language that makes Bachmann's bill meaningful beyond a simple mission statement. There is nothing to enforce. If there is nothing to enforce, why do we need a law?

Posted by: cleversponge at May 12, 2005 12:03 PM

This thread is swerving far afield of its original point - that Mr. Boucher is being incredibly disingenuous by proclaiming that teachers (inevitably "excellent, selfless and tireless" - is there any other type when people like Boucher start writing?) would NEVER discriminate against students that dissent against their worldviews, and he's being a hopeless drama queen for invoking "McCarthyism!" in response to what is a real problem.

I doubt there is a *statutory* solution to this problem, short of privatizing the government school system - but I'm not interested in the law right now.

Merely the stunted, pollyanish-to-the-point-of-Orwellian view Boucher has on this subject.

And I'm not talking about "Devil's advocacy" here - which is indeed a fine teaching style. That's not what the stories involve, certainly not my stories.

Posted by: mitch at May 12, 2005 12:17 PM

Boucher's op-ed is ridiculous because the whole subject is insane. You say you're not interested in the law, but this is what all the fuss is about. If there is no statutory solution to the problem, why not talk about the cynicism of those who introduce bills for laws that can't possibly work?

Do I doubt that some students (liberal, conservative, whatever) are intimidated by the viewpoints of teachers? Of course not. However, there should not be governmental regulation of ideas.

Also, if you agree that there is no statutory solution to the problem, what does this mean?

"No, Bachmann's goal is both fairly narrow, laudable, and long overdue."

Posted by: cleversponge at May 12, 2005 12:34 PM

First off, I believe no teacher in primary or secondary education should be pushing overt politics. Students at that age should be taught how to think, not what to think. I totally agree with the devil's advocate approach to thorny political questions -- undoubtedly some students will have beliefs in certain areas, and getting them to challenge those beliefs is important.

Post-secondary I have no problem with biased instructors. We're all adults at that level. All I ask from them is that when they disagree with a student who has given a cogent defense, that they do not penalize them for the different point of view.

Really, I don't think this is something that requires legislation. I also think the ABOR is a dangerously stifling power grab having little to do with rights and more to do with academic suppression. More and more, Bachmann is revealing herself to be little more than a demagogue, with these constant attempts to keep a certain political base in a constant state of outrage (gays! liberal teachers! evolution! horrors!).

Posted by: Jeff S. at May 12, 2005 03:25 PM

I am a high school student and i hope that the issue of bias in the classroom gets talked about- its all over public schools. Parents should be talking with thier kids and administrators, and yes, lawmakers too.

Posted by: Jack at May 12, 2005 03:46 PM

sorry. my computer froze. i didnt mean to post 4 times

Posted by: Jack at May 12, 2005 03:48 PM

Well, I don't know what to do politically. After all, I'm a non-Minnesotan, non-liberal arts college student. I've only had a couple "biased" professors, the most memorable of which was the president of the local NOW chapter, but she couldn't bash us over the head with it while we discussed differential equations. I'll leave the actual bill to y'all, since it won't affect me directly; however, I do think that it's worth being discussed. Perhaps a better track would be to not work towards a bill, but a statement. Draft something that the legislature can vote on, but be nonbinding as far as the law goes, for now. It would serve notice to local school boards and university boards that overt bias needs to be looked into without bringing the weight of the law down on every slip of the tongue.

Posted by: Sixth Sense at May 12, 2005 04:45 PM

Cleversponge -- the reason you sometimes introduce legislation is to gain a lever for action. In Colorado ABoR was passed by a legislative committee. After opposing it for months, vehemently, the UC system went to the author of the bill there and offered to enact it in its own student and faculty codes of conduct if the author would pull the bill. I believe Bachmann would accept a similar deal.

Posted by: kb at May 12, 2005 06:05 PM

Mitch I wrote a piece about Boucher today as well; judging from his comments, he evidently got a big kick out of it.

I also noted the he hot-footed it over to the dumpsters website..as an advocate.

If anyone had any doubt as to whether this guy is a gold-plated, barking moonbat that alone is enough to settle the matter.

Posted by: swiftee at May 12, 2005 06:08 PM

Dear Mitch,

Thank you for your post today. I wanted to alert you to a double standard involving the Star Tribune and make a clarification. As you know, the Star Tribune published this commentary by Michael Boucher but the content of his commentary was false. I did NOT solicit incidents from Minnesota high school students nor from the parents regarding the lack of intellectual diversity on high school campuses. (By way of background, I did ask faculty and students from Minnesota’s public universities/colleges to share incidents of the lack of intellectual diversity on Minnesota taxpayer supported campuses. Period.)

The fact is, Mr. Boucher never bothered to contact my office to verify his accusations. Nor did the Star Tribune. When my assistant mentioned this to Tim O’brien from the Star Tribune, she was told that Boucher’s piece was a commentary so there was no need to verify the accuracy of his remarks and evaluate the content. My assistant then asked O’brien for assurance that the Star Tribune would print a counterpoint from me. O’brien replied that he would definitely look at it with an open mind, but offered no guarantees. Talk about a double standard. For some reason, if I print a rebuttal, the Star Tribune will need to evaluate the content of my commentary, but Mr. Boucher’s commentary is not challenged.

If that weren’t enough, my assistant was given a 500 word limit for my response, but clearly Boucher’s article is more than that. So not only is the Star Tribune limiting the possibility of me publishing a rebuttal but they are also limiting my response.

When asked by my assistant when a piece might be published, she was told it wouldn’t be until a week from Saturday as all of the columns had been laid out. However, this flap over the Teenage Republican website occurred just two days ago. Apparently we are to believe there were no opinion pieces laid out for the last two days when Boucher submitted his column but now suddenly a flood of letters has tied up the Star Tribune for the next nine days. Interesting that when there is a hate Bachmann piece, the Star Tribune manages to find room for a 600 word rip but is limited by space when it comes to a defense much less a pro Bachmann piece.

Thought you would like to know.

Regards,
Michele Bachman

Posted by: Michele Bachmann at May 12, 2005 06:25 PM

Careful, Senator Bachmann. A letter like this will provide Eva Young a whole month of material.

Take no prisonors, Senator!

Posted by: Allison at May 12, 2005 06:36 PM

Senator Bachmann I'd like you to know that I sent a letter to the editor in response to Mr. Boucher's amphigory..for all the good it will do.

Keep up the outstanding work!

Posted by: swiftee at May 12, 2005 07:29 PM

Ms. Bachmann,

As Chairman of the Minnesota Teenage Republicans, I would like to personally say that I, and my organization, are sorry for any inconvenience our internal newsletter has caused you. If there is anything we can do to make it up to you, please, let us know.

Kiel Hockett

Posted by: Kiel Hockett at May 12, 2005 09:44 PM

Ms. Bachmann,

Kiel Hockett

Posted by: Kiel Hockett at May 12, 2005 09:44 PM

Hey everybody!

The Teenage Republicans have taken down their website.

That is too bad. If bias is really an important issue, the TAR should put it back up and move the letter to the very front of the page.

It should be on the front page of the GOP website.
It should be a plank on the Republican platform.
It should be shouted from the rooftops.

However, if it was a clandestine attempt to ambush good people and trash their reputations, keep it down.

Please continue your excellent conversation.

Posted by: Michael at May 12, 2005 10:29 PM

It's rather ironic that Michele Bachmann mispelled her name when signing it.

If Bachmann wasn't looking for high school stories, then why did this alert appear on the Teen Age Republican website?

Posted by: Eva Young at May 12, 2005 11:08 PM

The page is still available - but the link from the GOP website to the TAR site is down.

Posted by: Eva Young at May 13, 2005 12:32 AM

Incorrect. The Minnesota Teenage Republicans website is still online at http://www.mngop.com/tar.

Posted by: Jack at May 13, 2005 12:50 AM

http://www.mngop.com/tar/

There try that one, the period got in the way before

Posted by: Jack at May 13, 2005 12:51 AM

Jack: The TAR site is still up - but the link from the Republican Party website to the TAR site is down. I went over and verified this by looking at google's cache. See my recent post on Dump Bachmann.

Posted by: Eva Young at May 13, 2005 01:21 AM

Wow! Mitch must be really tight with Michele. She even writes in his blog. Except for one thing--she misspelled her own name when she signed her post! In fact, she misspelled it exactly the same way the Teenage Republicans misspelled it in the now-MIA plea for help with Michele's McCarthyism Project that was posted on their website.

What's up with that, Midway Mitch?

Posted by: Dump Bachmann at May 13, 2005 09:46 AM

What's up with it? Good question. I've written the Senator to confirm who it actually was.

By the way, use your real name when posting comments, or I'll ban your IP address.

Posted by: mitch at May 13, 2005 10:09 AM

To their Credit, the TAR site is up and without changes that I noticed.

Well Done!

Posted by: Michael at May 13, 2005 10:20 AM

Mitch,
I would like to give you an update on my post from yesterday. Once the Star Tribune found out that there were problems with the Michael Boucher column, they gave assurance in a phone call this afternoon that they would do everything within their power to clarify the misstatements and the misconceptions stated within the column.
Sen. Michele Bachmann

Posted by: Michele Bachmann at May 13, 2005 03:18 PM

Does Michele Bach-man work for the MN Teenage Republicans?

Posted by: cleversponge at May 13, 2005 03:41 PM

I'll be fact checking this one. I emailed Tim OBrien to fact check Bachmann's earlier post:

I wrote Tim O'Brien to fact check this. He told me that Senator Bachmann had misrepresented the conversation with "Angela" in her post.

Tim:

Did you talk with Bachmann's assistant about Boucher's commentary?

I'm just checking Bachmann's facts (if this is in fact, Senator Bachmann). When she posted on Mitch Berg's blog, she spelled her name wrong when she
signed her name.

The question is why did this appear in the Teen Age Republicans website, if she wasn't soliciting this material from high school students.

Eva Young

Tim OBrien responded:

Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:59:51 -0500
From: "Tim O'Brien"
To:
Subject: Re: Someone claiming to be Michele Bachmann posted this - and
mentions you.

Eva,

Thanks for the heads up. My conversation with "Angela" was misrepresented by the senator in her posting on Mitch Berg's blog.

Thanks again,

Tim O'Brien

Tim O'Brien
Letters editor
Editorial Department
Star Tribune
(612) 673-4778
tobrien@startribune.com

It's also interesting how Mitch says people have to post with their real names only after a person with the handle "DumpBachmann" (who is not me) posted. I always post with my name, and will leave DumpBachmann or Lloydletta as a URL.

The email address dumpbachmann@aol.com is another person active on the DB website. I use the email address dumpbachmann@gmail.com for the website.

Posted by: Eva Young at May 13, 2005 07:05 PM

Mitch writes: What's up with it? Good question. I've written the Senator to confirm who it actually was.

EY: Did you get any answer? Is the person who is playing Michele Bachman or Michele Bachmann on the blog the real Michele Bachmann?

Posted by: Eva Young at May 13, 2005 07:08 PM

"It's also interesting how Mitch says people have to post with their real names only after a person with the handle "DumpBachmann" (who is not me) posted. I always post with my name, and will leave DumpBachmann or Lloydletta as a URL. "

Actually, I don't have so much of a problem with anonymous IDs - I have no way of confirming anyone's identity, obviously. It had less to do with the "DumpBachmann" handle than with the fact that "Dumpbachmann" was snide, sarcastic, and came across as a bit of a dick, in my humble (and blog-owning) opinion. Although I love democracy, this blog is an absolute monarchy, and commenters are allowed primarily for my edification and amusement, as well as communication.

I don't care if you call yourself "Cleopatra, Queen of Minnetonka", if you're civil.

Posted by: mitch at May 13, 2005 08:08 PM

I don't care if you call yourself "Cleopatra, Queen of Minnetonka", if you're civil.

Posted by: mitch at May 13, 2005 08:08 PM

The question remains unanswered though. Did you verify that the person claiming to be Michele Bachman or Michele Bachmann is actually Senator Michele Bachmann from Stillwater?

This was the post that you found to be rather sarcastic:

What's up with that, Midway Mitch?

EY: I agree the tone was sarcastic - but the question remains on the table - and you've avoided answering the question. I did some fact checking on the MB posts - and found that someone in her office DID have a discussion with Tim OBrien at the Strib - but OBrien disputes the account Bachmann gave of the discussion. You said you were going to verify with the Senator that it was actually her that posted.

Posted by: Eva Young at May 14, 2005 02:30 AM

Jeez, Eva. "There's no answer yet" is not the same as "avoiding the question".

My email to Sen. Bachmann has not been answered. The Senate was pretty busy yesterday.

I may be talking with her this next week, but failing that, I'd suspect the comment was bogus.

Posted by: mitch at May 14, 2005 07:27 AM

That's weird. It only took her 50 minutes to reply to my letter (click my name) yesterday.

Posted by: theyeti at May 14, 2005 08:30 PM

It is avoiding the question. Just answering that you've gotten no answer from Bachmann speaks volumes.

Posted by: Eva Young at May 15, 2005 04:59 PM

It "speaks volumes":

Volume 1: It's the weekend.
Volume 2: I'd presume Senator Bachman and Mitch both observe the weekend.
Volume 3: This is an issue of low priority to everyone involved.
Volume 4: Except Eva Young and her fellow obsessives.
Volume 5: Who are throwing a tantrum about this, as they do about everything.

With all due respect, Eva, get a life.

Make sure you post this on one of your blogs!

Posted by: Allison at May 15, 2005 05:30 PM

Where to start?

From the bottom, of course.

Eva: The fact that I've "gotten no reply" "speaks volumes" about nothing. I don't customarily spend the weekend parked in front of my email. The fact that you spent the weekend spinning endless reams of commentary, drawing scads of conclusions, out of the fact that I didn't spend my Saturday and Sunday pursuing something that - and I emphasize this - I'm not remotely interested in (!), however, "speaks volumes".

I've gotten confirmation that the comment came from Sen. Bachmann's office. The misspelling came from the message being typed by someone other than Bachmann.

By the way, given your wont to obsess endlessly over the meaningless minutiae of these teapot tempests, Eva - did you notice that Boucher mis-spells "Michele", with two "L"s? Perhaps the Teenage Republicans wrote Boucher's article too?

Posted by: mitch at May 16, 2005 06:24 AM

By the way, Eva, since you're of a mood to turn your keen reportorial instincts loose, answer us this:

You report, above, that Tim O'Brien claims he was "misrepresented" by Bachmann's posting.

How? Why?

Because the information in the post sounded *exactly* like the way the Strib always handles these things. It sounds exactly like the process the Powerguys have gone through a couple of times with Jim Boyd, and again with Nick Coleman, to say nothing of the whole Rod Grams ordeal. To wit:

1) Allow some lefty (or one of their reporters) (pardon the near-complete redundancy) to throw a brickbat at a conservative. The brickbat can leave out key context (like the attacks on Grams) or can be utter bullsh*t (Boyd and Coleman's attacks on Powerline).

2) Field a request for a response from the right with absurd conditions - allowing half the space, or editing the response into a shell of its original meaning (like last summer's op-ed by Rudy Boschwitz), or downright saying "go ahead, send us something", which disappears into the big black void.

3) On the off chance that a response moved, allow their tame pundits to counterattack.

4) Respond to requests to counter the re-response "we don't print 'tennis matches'" - threads that bounce back and forth.

5) Invoke the "final" result of the discussion - the final way the Strib was willing to leave it - as the canonical truth about the issue when referring to the issue, forevermore (viz the Strib's institutional voice on, among dozens of issues, concealed carry - where the Strib has allowed Wes Skoglund and Matt Entenza's last words on the subject to define "the truth".

So, Eva - or for that matter, Mr. O'Brien, if you're reading - what was the misrepresentation? Because nothing about Sen. Bachmann's office's response sounds in the least out of character.

Posted by: mitch at May 16, 2005 08:21 AM

Wow, if I were a Bachmann donor...I'd be feelin' real good about my horse right about now. She's obviously got some people who pay very close attention to detail and who are EXCELLENT at staying on message under pressure.

Is it time to board the Yecke train?

Posted by: cleversponge at May 16, 2005 09:40 AM

Poor Mitch, got suckered by an imposter claiming to be his hero Michele and now he just can't bear to admit it.

Mitch, it's one thing for a typo to sneak its way into someone's op/ed piece at the Strib. There are probably a half dozen people who work those things over before they see print. But a direct entry onto your blog by someone claiming to be Bachmann misselling Bachmann, well, there's hardly any excuse for that. And to suggest that it's any better if a Bachmann staffer misspells their boss's name is just as absurd.

Admit it, Mitch, you got snookered. Your blog got snookered. Your hero is a phony. And you're the laughingstock of the Blogosphere. Shall we just call you Dan Rather? Or maybe Jeff Gannonguckert.

Posted by: Dump Bachmann at May 16, 2005 12:44 PM

Dumper,

Can I have a hit off whatever bong you're smoking? Because it's a view of reality that's a lot more fanciful than I can manage.

I presented Bachmann's comment without comment. I emailed to verify. I got the verification.

Bachmann is no "hero" of mine; just a politician. I don't live in her State or US district, so I really have no dog in the fight. However, given the enemies that Bachmann has, I figure she's gotta have something going for her.

Any value judgements about misspellings are yours, and yours alone. In your little world, I'm sure it all means something.

And now you speak for "the blogosphere?" Interesting.

In the meantime, I asked some questions. Feel free to answer them. (Ha ha ha).

I'm always curious about people who post angry, uncivil comments anonymously. Tends to be a common thread among your crowd.

Posted by: mitch at May 16, 2005 01:21 PM

Let me add this to the "discussion", here ("let me". Hah. It's my blog. Try to stop me):

All of this niggling over who is posting comments where is, frankly, a supremely dull topic, the province of people who sort their socks by thickness *and* are flogging an agenda that I find tedious (to be polite).

The question I care about - and the focus of the post to which you are all commenting - is "is there discrimination in schools".

I notice that none of you who are baying at the moon for Bachmann's political head have come within three time zones of answering that question.

Anyone care to take a whack at that one?

Posted by: Mitch at May 16, 2005 02:17 PM

Do you mean discrimination towards people because of who they are or because of what they choose to believe?

On a side note, do you think that gay people choose to be gay? If so, is it ok to be intolerant of the sin? Isn't tolerance of my intolerantness tolerance by itself?

Without the over-the-top-ness:

There very well may be "discrimination" based on ideology. However, how can this be proven? Who gets to define what a conservative position is? I remember being in classes where 2 "conservative" students didn't ask a question in class because the teacher had "liberal" cartoons posted on her office door. I remember being in a class where this same teacher played devil's advocate with another "conservative" student and the 2 non-talking conservative students got pissed off because they viewed this as evidence of her liberalness.

I'm not trying to belittle the examples you gave with your own family. All I am saying is that even if there is "discrimination" how can you define a "conservative" identity and why does it deserve protection? How are political opinions any more deserving of protection from discrimination than one's choice of which baseball team to root for? I think that this is an apt analogy. Let's say I'm a teacher and I love the Twinkies. I go on and on about how they are the best team in the history of baseball. One day, I get a Chicago White Sox fan in class and we go back and forth about our favorite teams. When does this situtation step into discrimination? Only when I dock his grades or mess with his record because I disagree with him. If these are the cases that are being put in some sort of scrapbook...this needs to be addressed.

I think it is perfectly understandable that you want your children to be in an environment where their supervisors/teachers/superiors agree with them politically. It is never fun to be the odd man out on the political arena. I spent nearly 8 years as virtually the only liberal in several military units. One of my commanders sent out an email about how Hillary Clinton said something that was anti-troops. The tone of the letter was more about how she did this because she was a liberal than it was about anything of real substance.

Is this "conservative" bias? I have had a similar thing happen to me in the boardroom at one of my places of employment.

Is this political discrimination? Where is the bill for this sort of thing in the military? If we are talking about the same sort of "discrimination" (and I think you know that we both are) why don't we have a Military Political Bill of Rights?

Answer: it would be insane. A law couldn't enforce it. If something affects performance/grading...fine, there are laws that deal with this sort of thing. If it is just a clashing of opinion without retribution...not so much.

Posted by: cleversponge at May 16, 2005 04:09 PM

"On a side note, do you think that gay people choose to be gay?"

No, I think it's an adaptation.

"I think it is perfectly understandable that you want your children to be in an environment where their supervisors/teachers/superiors agree with them politically."

Untrue. I want my kids to grow up defending their beliefs; it makes one's beliefs stronger.

I just don't want them to be actively penalized for expressing their beliefs. There is currently no protection against that.

"If something affects performance/grading...fine, there are laws that deal with this sort of thing."

Really?

Which one? Where?

Because there is all sorts of overt discrimination out there; denial of tenure on largely political grounds; grading skewed by politics; recommendations not given to students who disagree, and so on. Which is one of the grounds behind Horowitz' ABOR (which, by the way, I don't necessarily support, contrary to how you mischaracterize me in your blog).

Posted by: mitch at May 16, 2005 04:29 PM

I think it is perfectly understandable that you want your children to be in an environment where their supervisors/teachers/superiors agree with them politically."

Untrue. I want my kids to grow up defending their beliefs; it makes one's beliefs stronger.

--Understood. I will apologize because this is about parenting and kids...something that I take personally myself (I have 2 of my own). I agree with your statement on making one's beliefs stronger.

I don't know what you mean by an "adaptive" behavior. Adapatve how? Culturally? Environmentally?

There are rules that prohibit teachers from unfairly grading students on the basis of ideology alone. Just like there are rules in the military that prohibit political ideology from being used against someone. However, I won't be the pollyanna by saying that these rules don't get overlooked or ignored from time to time. My point is that it is impossible to make a rule that covers all of the gaps. Go look in your son/daughter's school's code of ethics or by-laws. My daughter's school has a provision for this type of thing. It is an enforcable rule. Granted the appeals process is kind of messy, but it is there.

I don't think I mischaracterize your position of support for the goals of Mrs. Bachmann's initiative. You say that Bachmann's goal is "both fairly narrow, laudable, and long overdue." Her goal is the passage of this bill. You say that you don't think that there is a statutory solution to this problem...I think this statement is squarely at odds with your support of her goals. I do understand that there is more than one way to skin a cat; however, Bachmann and Horowitz have chosen legislation to meet thier goals. I know of no other means that they have suggested to meet their goals. Their goals and means are tied together in this case. I don't think there are both ways to be had in this circumstance.

Posted by: cleversponge at May 16, 2005 06:00 PM

Thank you for reporting back that Bachmann's office wrote the comments. Did Senator Bachmann review and approve the comments - that is, did she ask her staff to post them - or does she have a staff member who takes it upon themselves to post something here without her permission?

Inquiring minds want to know....

Posted by: Eva Young at May 17, 2005 09:09 PM

I'm wondering what you want to do about this - do you want the legislature micromanaging high school and college grading disputes?

Posted by: Eva Young at May 17, 2005 09:22 PM

csIf you have a free time test this urls: girls doing poop
http://scat.studsplase.com/
beast scat
http://scat.studsplase.com/beast-scat.html
teenage girls pooping
http://scat.studsplase.com/teenage-girls-pooping.html
thai scat
http://scat.studsplase.com/thai-scat.html
japanese collge girls pooping
http://scat.studsplase.com/japanese-collge-girls-pooping.html

Posted by: petra at May 15, 2006 10:38 PM

csHello. I am new here. It is very interesting. s3xy shaved pussy
http://dodfgdfging.theamateur.us/
hairy pussy gallery
http://dodfgdfging.theamateur.us/hairy-pussy-gallery.html
bald virgin pussy
http://dodfgdfging.theamateur.us/bald-virgin-pussy.html
f4cking old pussy
http://dodfgdfging.theamateur.us/f4cking-old-pussy.html
big pussy gallery
http://dodfgdfging.theamateur.us/big-pussy-gallery.html

Posted by: mary at June 5, 2006 08:14 AM

csNo words dog s3x cart00ns
http://zooman.tinybodys.com/
dog s3x with
http://zooman.tinybodys.com/dog-s3x-with.html
dog and woman s3x
http://zooman.tinybodys.com/dog-and-woman-s3x.html
dog s3x p0Rn
http://zooman.tinybodys.com/dog-s3x-p0Rn.html
free beastility movies
http://zooman.tinybodys.com/free-beastility-movies.html

Posted by: nik at June 8, 2006 11:33 AM

csIf you have a free time test this urls: dog s3x cart00ns
http://zooman.tinybodys.com/
dog s3x with
http://zooman.tinybodys.com/dog-s3x-with.html
dog and woman s3x
http://zooman.tinybodys.com/dog-and-woman-s3x.html
dog s3x p0Rn
http://zooman.tinybodys.com/dog-s3x-p0Rn.html
free beastility movies
http://zooman.tinybodys.com/free-beastility-movies.html

Posted by: serge at June 8, 2006 11:34 AM