Watch This
I'm racing around doing errands today -- MVA, computer repair, stuff like that, but will take just a second to recommend that you watch this TV show. It's on today and tomorrow, at these times:
On Comcast, News8 is, naturally, Channel 28.
The show is called NewsTalk, and the host is Bruce DePuyt. Yesterday he had David Fishback from our group and John Garza from CRC -- both lawyers, both fathers, both highly involved in the controversy -- discussing the new sex-ed curriculum. You will find it interesting and informative. They sit at the newsdesk and discuss with the anchor. It's a half hour show, though I understand the original went on for longer than that.
David Fishback was on-target, Garza seemed kind of dazed, like he's forgotten what the problem is supposed to be. We will have some transcribed sections for you when we get to it, and it would be nice if we could put some of this online.
Fishback was great.
OK, I got plates for one car, now I've got to try to get an emissions test done for the other one ...
Wed, May 2 @ 4:00p, 028 NEWS8
Wed, May 2 @ 8:30p, 028 NEWS8
Wed, May 2 @ 11:00p, 028 NEWS8
Thu, May 3 @ 4:00p, 028 NEWS8
Thu, May 3 @ 11:00p, 028 NEWS8
On Comcast, News8 is, naturally, Channel 28.
The show is called NewsTalk, and the host is Bruce DePuyt. Yesterday he had David Fishback from our group and John Garza from CRC -- both lawyers, both fathers, both highly involved in the controversy -- discussing the new sex-ed curriculum. You will find it interesting and informative. They sit at the newsdesk and discuss with the anchor. It's a half hour show, though I understand the original went on for longer than that.
David Fishback was on-target, Garza seemed kind of dazed, like he's forgotten what the problem is supposed to be. We will have some transcribed sections for you when we get to it, and it would be nice if we could put some of this online.
Fishback was great.
OK, I got plates for one car, now I've got to try to get an emissions test done for the other one ...
posted by JimK at 1:53 PM
28 Comments:
News Talk is a daily show, so the programs shown today and Thursday will be the programs done today and Thursday. Today's show is with former DC Delegate Walter Fauntroy and Thursday's is with Grover Norquist. I am sure those shows will be very interesting, but they are unlikely to touch on the MCPS curriculum. :)
The full interview was broadcast live yesterday afternoon, during the hour-long show. The evening rebroadcasts are only a half-hour, so some, but not much, of the material had to be cut for the rebroadcast.
Well, it's nice that TTF had a spokesman on who made a good impression.
Meanwhile, what does the TTF community think about this?:
"ROCKVILLE, Md. - A Montgomery County woman got a lesson on what you can and can't do at the public library, and it's what you can do that's got her upset. Elizabeth Columber went to the new library in the Rockville Town Center to help her children with their homework assignment.
"I observed a man sitting right in front of me watching pornographic videos," Columber said. "I wasn't happy about it." Columber said she managed to shield her 8-and 10-year-old's eyes.
"I really made a scene and I wanted to make a scene to let them know that this is not an appropriate thing," she said. "The gentlemen did shut down and he walked out." Columber said she was upset because children were present and the computers were not being monitored.
But the library said the man was doing nothing illegal. "We filter all of the computers in the children's room and those are accessible to children who are 13 years old and younger," said library spokeswoman Kathie Meizner.
But Meizner said Internet access is unfiltered in the general computers.
"We don't want to block access to constitutionally protected speech. We certainly intervene if we believe there is illegal activity," Meizner said. The library offers privacy screens to limit peripheral views, but it doesn't help with straight-on views. Columber said that's not enough. She said she doesn't believe porn should be accessible in the public library. Columber got a letter from the library system apologizing for the incident and explaining their policies, but she said that's not enough and that they haven't heard the last from her on this issue."
Andrea- not anon
Having once logged on to a library computer and received an unending stream of photos(maybe not porn but nothing I wanted to see and certainly nothing kids should see)- I called the librarian over. She shut off the computer since we didn't know how to make these things stop.
I do not think the library should stop access to protected materials- it should not be visible for others but there are enough of our once protected rights being removed. Next books start to disappear and people ask to block access to all sorts of things that they just don't like.
You have the right to ask someone to stop -or to tell a librarian that the computer is in view of others and that is inappropriate. Hey, I think kids shouldn't be allowed to play video games in the library unless they are in a sound proof room and the right to play video games isn't even protected under the constitution.
Andrea
Anonymous:
The typical approach in this forum is to provide the link to quoted articles. I could not find it on the Washington Post, Washington Times, Gazette, or Examiner websites. Could you provide the link, please?
Thank you.
Elizabeth Columber seems to be a paraeducator at Westland Middle School. Her letter to the Gazette here:
http://www.gazette.net/stories/042507/montlet193509_32347.shtml
An NBC4 story about her experience (this is what Anon quoted):
http://www.nbc4.com/news/13242122/detail.html
She says she made a scene. I wonder what would have happened if she had just asked the man to stop looking at those videos while her kids were there. Also, it sounds like the library does have an area where kids can use the computers without this sort of thing happening.
Nobody should have to have their kids subjected to this sort of thing, but the librarian's got a point, people have the right to do things even if other people don't approve. Generally, I think a guy looking at this stuff would not want to expose kids to it, or some mom, for that matter. But if he doesn't have any shame, sorry to say, it's up to the mom to protect her own kids, by moving them. It's not really this lady's place to embarrass the guy, it seems to me. She can be as indignant as she wants, but it should not have been impossible for her to move to another computer.
Jim
Here's the rest of the NEWS4 article that Anon omitted.
The library offers privacy screens to limit peripheral views, but it doesn't help with straigh[t]-on views.
Columber said that's not enough. She told News4 she doesn't believe porn should be accessible in the public library.
Columber got a letter from the library system apologizing for the incident and explaining their policies, but she said that's not enough and that they haven't heard the last from her on this issue.
so now every computer in the library is taken over by 16 year old boys watching porn and parents trying to do homework with children should leave ?
Really Jim ?
I also would have made a scene. Some things are NOT appropriate in public. Like watching porn in the library - that should be illegal, those sites are rated over 18/21 most of them and the librarian said the section was accessible to 13 years old - so seems like a disconnect.
Like, flying out to Denver with her kids, my friends daughter got to sit next to two gay men who were licking the rim of their glass, passing it back and forth and drinking out of it, and giggling. And making out, etc. Not appropriate. She's 12.
My friend didn't find out about it until after the trip, or she would have made a scene.
If everybody in the world agreed about what was and was not appropriate, it would be easy. Two gay guys giggling on the plane, sorry, get over it. A guy looking at porn, uh, somebody is sure looking at it.
Nobody has seen any libraries overrun by 16-year-old boys looking at porn, though we are getting very familiar with that kind of argument -- pretending that the very worst scenario is inevitable. Nah, not going to happen. For one thing, I don't think the librarians would allow 16-year-old boys to look at porn on the library computers. For another thing, they'd be too scared to.
Our society has not come to agreement about your idea that porn should be illegal, in fact, if people voted in private the idea wouldn't stand a chance. So again, sorry, people are all different. If the lady's concern was about her kids, she could have moved to another computer. If her concern was to enforce her version of morality, then she would have ... done what she did. And then she would have written to the newspapers about it.
JimK
"Here's the rest of the NEWS4 article that Anon omitted."
This is a lie, as can be seen to anyone who looks up at the comment posted by Anon. The only thing omitted was the reference to News4. Left out probably because TTFers enjoy trying to find the article without the references.
Who could deprive them of that? They need these superfluous issues because their substantive arguments are so weak they prefer to look for opportunities to personally attack the players in any situation.
Truthfully, even if it were fiction, the story still brings up an issue worth discussing.
"Our society has not come to agreement about your idea that porn should be illegal, in fact, if people voted in private the idea wouldn't stand a chance."
Not allowing porn to be displayed on monitors in public libraries is not making the same as making porn illegal.
Remember when 7-11s were filled with magazines like Penthouse's Variations and newspapers had ads for triple-X, double features? We decided, as a society, that pornography should be controlled and out of public view. If put to a vote, the public would reject public funding of the pornography viewing. It wouldn't even be close.
You're on the fringe again, Jim.
"I do not think the library should stop access to protected materials- it should not be visible for others but there are enough of our once protected rights being removed. Next books start to disappear and people ask to block access to all sorts of things that they just don't like."
Watch out, Andrea. Jim doesn't like "pretending that the very worst scenario is inevitable". It's kind of ridiculous to say either we let pervs display this stuff in public or it's Fareheit 451 time.
I mean, really.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1131288
"http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1131288"
PFOX on the vanguard, protecting the consitutional rights of Americans.
NEWARK, N.J. (May 3) - The nation's first openly gay governor has become an Episcopalian and been accepted into a seminary, according to a published report
Former Gov. James E. McGreevey, who was raised as a Roman Catholic, was officially received into the Episcopal religion on Sunday at St. Bartholomew's Church in New York, said the Rev. Kevin Bean, vicar at the church.
McGreevey has entered the church's "discernment" phase, which usually precedes seminary work, Bean told The Star-Ledger of Newark in a report posted Wednesday on its Web site.
McGreevey, 49, shocked the nation in August 2004 by proclaiming himself "a gay American" who had an extramarital affair with a male aide, and said he would resign that November. The aide denies having an affair and claims he was sexually harassed by the former governor.
McGreevey has been accepted to study at the General Theological Seminary in New York, the oldest in the Episcopal Church, school spokesman Bruce Parker said Wednesday.
"Mr. McGreevey has been admitted to the master of divinity program and he will be starting in the fall," Parker said.
Growing up in Middlesex County, McGreevey was an altar boy and attended Catholic schools. While in office, he continued to practice the religion, but differed from church teachings in several areas, including his support of abortion rights.
His estranged wife, Dina Matos McGreevey, has demanded that their 5-year-old daughter not be allowed to receive communion in the Episcopal Church because she is being raised a Roman Catholic.
Farley Grainger's new book, "Include Me Out", refutes key TTF doctrine that sexual preferences can't change, and are beyond choice. Grainger, as part of the amoral Hollywood and NY Theater worlds, moved back and forth between homosexuality and heterosexuality having affairs with the likes of Ava Gardner and Leonard Bernstein.
Score: team CRC.
"moved back and forth between homosexuality and heterosexuality"
Ever heard of bisexuality my friend?
"PFOX on the vanguard, protecting the consitutional rights of Americans."
By expecting people to walk inside the closet to live there forever.
I don't see how Farley Granger's bisexuality contradicts TTF's worldview in any way.
Andrea- not anon,
The Farley Anon doesn't understand being bisexuality. Gee, am I surprised?
Andrea
"Here's the rest of the NEWS4 article that Anon omitted."
This is a lie
It was an error caused by Anon's failure to properly quote the News4 article. A quick scan did not find the final three paragraphs that begin "The library offers.." "Columber said that's not..." and "Cloumber got a letter..." because Anon put them all together in a single paragraph, as can be seen to anyone who looks up at the comment posted by Anon and compares it to the New4 article.
To avoid such errors in the future, I suggest Anon study up at http://memory.loc.gov/learn/start/cite/index.html
Anonymous at May 03, 2007 8:25 AM .
Anonymous, bisexuals like myself have gone back and forth to male and female loves, that doesn't mean we've changed our sexuality. At different times in my life I've tried to be exclusively gay or exclusively straight - it didn't work, I'm still bisexual, that's hard-wired in.
Randi
I think the point is that most, and maybe all, homosexuals are really bisexuals. As such, they have a choice what type of life to enjoy. Those who claim to be exclusively same-sex drawn are, if truthful, likely mentally ill and in need of counseling.
So tell us Anon, which is this last comment of yours -- autobiographical or pure conjecture?
Neither. It's based on statistics showing that most who have had homosexual experiences have also had heterosexual experiences.
Statistics? What statistics? Got a citation for them?
Dearest anonymous,
Calling exclusively gay people mentally ill is not simply an opinion (certainly not a religious opinion). It is in fact rampant bigotry (in the form of name-calling).
As I've said before, you are often ill-mannered and deliberately mean.
Stop.
Robert
From Andrea- not anon,
I think Nasty anon is channeling Richard Cohen - someone who needs real counseling(from someone with accreditation) and whose version of mental psychic surgery should be disavowed by everyone.
Andrea
Anonymous said "I think the point is that most, and maybe all, homosexuals are really bisexuals. As such, they have a choice what type of life to enjoy. Those who claim to be exclusively same-sex drawn are, if truthful, likely mentally ill and in need of counseling.".
Anonymous, if you go to a gay bar and talk to gays most will tell you they are exclusively same sex attracted. Work by Michael Bailey with plethysmographs also showed that most same sex attracted people are exclusively so. Work done by Evelyn Hooker in the 1950's and regularly confirmed since then shows that gays are indistinguishable from straights in terms of their mental health.
Post a Comment
<< Home