What God has wrought, let no man put asunder, and by no means should you ship that lunatic back up here.

Florida – have fun stampeding back to the stone age where Jaheeeeesus and the dinosaurs shared breathing space.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.

“Check out the following story about Florida’s #2 education person who may lose out on the #1 spot because she has been tarred with ID ”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-cheri-yeckes-advocacy-of-id-a-career-maimer

Hmmmmm, tarred by having a belief in ID? If having a belief in ID was not a problem then why would her career be in jeapordy? Oh wait, is it because the teaching of science to students should be based on facts rather than one’s personal beliefs?

It would seem that she wasn’t fit for service in Minnesota which is why they gave her the boot and thankfully the good citizens of Florida are learning the truth before they make the same mistakes.

For the record:
Wes is a gentleman.

For another opinion …

But that’s ftk, for goodness sake! She’s actually improving your reputation there!

Wes, sometimes you’re so much a gentleman I can’t stand it.

For another opinion, see here.

:-)

It seems ‘reputationdefender’ does their client’s reputation more harm than good.

Real reputation defense would include telling a client when a particular course of action would be counter-productive, so I think that “llewelly” is onto something here. But instead of blindly sending out emails when a client says, “That’s false!”, it would involve actual research to ascertain whether the client is actually right, or is being self-deluded. In the latter case, their best course of action would be to try to convince the client that they do have their best interests in mind when saying that, no, the statement isn’t false, and it won’t do anyone any good to try to get it erased.

There are people who are charged with doing that job, at least in the ideal. They are called “lawyers”. It’s at least a part of the reason that scheduling a couple of hours of a good lawyer’s time will cost several multiples of what ReputationDefender is charging their clients. Too often, though, even the lawyers do no better for their clients than ReputationDefenders have done for Cheri Yecke.

But I digress.

Committee reports are often used indeed to explain what was meant in legislative language that is not wholly clear. But the law is always the superior.

And on the issue of the language in the Santorum proposal, Santorum agreed to strike it as an amendment to the law and instead offer is as a non-binding sense of the Senate resolution. He did this because Ted Kennedy, the floor manager of the bill, told him that he, Kennedy, opposed it, and that it would not be in the law. Rather than be defeated on the amendment, Santorum went for the non-binding resolution.

Kennedy and his aides who worked the issue were quite livid when Santorum later tried to grease around the agreement by saying it was an amendment, and that the Senate approved it. That went against the spirit of the agreement.

In the case of a non-binding resolution, no report language can enforce a non-binding resolution.

Ms. Yecke has mistaken report language on real law, for a polite mention on a non-binding resolution. When I moved from Congress to the Department of Education I found a lot of similar misunderstandings of the law. Misunderstandings don’t count as law, either.

The Santorum resolution was never law, was never close to law, and committee report language cannot resurrect it from that particular limbo.

I’m not sure what I would request an apology for.

The apology is for accusing you of posting a false statement. You might offer to post an unambiguous refutation of her earlier policies.

I suggest you e-mail ReputationDefenders and request an apology.

I’m not sure what I would request an apology for. They haven’t, so far as I know, maligned me, cracked my site, or otherwise messed with me. Our society’s legal system is premised upon advocacy for people who are in the wrong as well as those in the right. RD just seems to have extended that into cyberspace.

Now, I think that they’ve harmed their own reputation by being willing to accept as truth whatever anyone who pays them their fee tells them. It seems to me that they’ve already self-inflicted a wound to their credibility.