I haven't been keeping up here much this week, there's been a lot of stuff going on. But this story about the Senator playing footsies in the men's-room really seems to have got people's attention, and in an interesting way. It seems like everybody who has something to say about this has something different to say.
(By the way, everybody is saying that Larry Craig will resign tomorrow. They've already got his successor picked out, the guy's dead meat. I'm getting to this feeding frenzy a little late, but it's still got a lot for us to think about.)
Like, some people have used this to talk about why anybody would want to have anonymous sex in a public restroom. That's a good question -- it's dirty, it's not really very private, there's a significantly nonzero chance of getting caught. Why would anybody want to do that? Some elaborate this thought by mentioning Mile-High Clubs and pickup bars and things that heterosexuals do with strangers or where they might get caught, the difference being that restrooms are segregated by sex. OK, good point, same-sex stuff is going to happen in a room where only one sex can go, maybe some straight people do essentially this same sort of thing, just not there.
Others have used this to open the innateness/choice question. It seems weird to see this Senator saying, "I'm not gay," when he is obviously busted, and stories have been going around for years about him. Is he gay, or not?
I'll go with this: he's right, he's "not gay," for the simple reason that he says he isn't. He does not identify himself as a homosexual person, he just ... has sex with guys whenever he can. How's that feel to you?
Let me go off on a tangent for a second, just to hedge my bet. It could be -- could be -- that this is just something he does for the addictive thrill of almost getting caught. Maybe the sexual part is nothing. The Post had a pretty good story yesterday where a psychiatrist said "What I found is that many of these people are hardworking and struggling hard to be in control. . . . Anybody can have a compulsion, whether it's a sexual compulsion or some other compulsion..." So to this shrink, it sounds like the sexual component is more-or-less arbitrary.
I'm not thinking so.
Take a heroin addict. The thing is, you don't become an addict if you don't take the stuff to begin with. Most people walk around without ever sticking a needle full of heroin in their arm, just like most guys walk around without giving a thought to propositioning the guy in the next stall. I don't know what makes a person decide to try heroin, and I don't know why a guy starts a game of footsies with an undercover cop in an airport restroom.
But I'm thinking it's not arbitrary, it's something besides just taking a chance on getting caught. A guy like this feels a need to have sex with another man, specifically. It's different from drag-racing or playing Russian roulette.
To understand this, you have to peel the onion of sexual identity, at least a few layers. Because we have an apparent contradiction here. We have a man who is irresistibly drawn to having sex with other men, and at the same time he describes himself as "not gay" and in fact, has actively pursued legislation to make like harder for guys who have romantic relationships with other guys. Let's say that's two contradictions: his behavior and professed sexual identity, and his behavior and his position on the policy issues.
Larry Craig's self-contradictions show us several things. First, he is a great example of the distinction between sexual behavior and sexual identity. You can have sex with men, over and over again, yet identify yourself as heterosexual, as your innate urges are pushed out of your self-identity. Conservatives see this as a good thing. Yes, they agree that some people have these desires, and there's no argument about whether the desires themselves are innate, everybody knows they are. But what you're supposed to do, when you have these desires, is to construct a sexual identity that defeats them. You are supposed to make yourself be straight.
This depends on a model where identity and innate physical attraction are independent of one another. And can we agree that this model has failed in the Larry Craig case? And also in the Ted Haggard case, and many others? It fails because the model also requires that the cognitive component, the sexual identity part, has to be stronger than the physical attraction part. Maybe sometimes it is, nobody knows how many people are secretly homosexual, and are presenting themselves differently from how they feel. Nobody knows. The point is, maybe sometimes, if you click your heels three times and grit your teeth for seventy or eighty years, you can live as a heterosexual even though your physical attractions are different from that.
Why would somebody define themselves in such a way that they have to deny themselves not only the physical pleasure of honest sex, but the companionship and love that grows up around it? I'd say they'd do that because they feel a tremendous amount of social pressure. It may come from their church community, or it might just be things the guys say on the playground, but the pressure to "be normal" can be very intense and hard to resist.
I guess I need to say out loud what the alternative model is. The alternative model is a model of psychological health where a person lives happily with the feelings that the Good Lord (and/or Mother Nature) gave them. This is a model where sexual identity is compatible with physical attraction. It's the model where guys who are attracted to guys call themselves, right out loud, "gay" or whatever the term du jour is, and their expression is consistent with their actual feelings.
Because, I think this is obvious but I'll say it anyway, when Larry Craig says he's "not gay" he is simply telling us that he is delusional. He is expressing a kind of denial and a kind of psychopathology where the self-identity has developed around a falsehood. I agree, he's "not gay," because he says he's not, his social self-presentation does not include his true feelings, maybe he even believes he is "not gay." But the divorce of innate feelings and socially-presented sexual identity is not an ideal, and it seems to me that unhappiness is the result, whether the person is successful in behaving in accordance with a delusional sexual identity, or not.
This international club, the Hash House Harriers, calls itself a "drinking club with a running problem." They have chapters in alomost every major city in the world, and they sponsor runs that are designed so you don't have to be that in shape to keep up. They mark the trail to follow by sprinkling flour on the ground. Sometimes the "hare" who leaves the trail puts in dead-ends and stuff, to slow down the fast ones, and let the slow ones stay with the group. At the end the gather for some "social refreshment."
They have a home page HERE. You can see pictures of them tramping through woods and ... drinking beer. Nice Wikipedia chapter about them, too. Sounds like good fun.
Except in the Age of Fear.
New Haven ophthalmologist Daniel Salchow, 36, and his sister, Dorothee, 31, who is visiting from Hamburg, Germany, were both charged with first-degree breach of peace, a felony.
The siblings set off the scare while organizing a run for a local chapter of the Hash House Harriers, a worldwide group that bills itself as a “drinking club with a running problem.”
“Hares” are given the task of marking a trail to direct runners, throwing in some dead ends and forks as challenges. On Thursday, the Salchows decided to route runners through the massive IKEA parking lot.
Police fielded a call just before 5 p.m. that someone was sprinkling powder on the ground. The store was evacuated and remained closed the rest of the night. The incident prompted a massive response from police in New Haven and surrounding towns. Beer runners’ flour trail a recipe for trouble
Because -- what else could it be, but terrorism?
Daniel Salchow biked back to IKEA when he heard there was a problem and told officers the powder was just harmless flour, which he said he and his sister have sprinkled everywhere from New York to California without incident.
“Not in my wildest dreams did I ever anticipate anything like that,” he said.
Mayoral spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga said the city plans to seek restitution from the Salchows, who are due in court Sept. 14.
“You see powder connected by arrows and chalk, you never know,” she said. “It could be a terrorist, it could be something more serious. We’re thankful it wasn’t, but there were a lot of resources that went into figuring that out.”
Listen people, if we're "thinking" like that, the terrorists have won.
These politicians and preachers just keep falling out of the closet, one after the other. I haven't commented on most of them -- mostly these are just sad personal stories, but now and then there's one where you just have to say something. Yesterday the media got the story that Republican Congressman Larry Craig from Idaho was busted for lewd conduct in an airport men's room back in June.
The thing is, Craig has made a career out of making life miserable for gay folks. According to Pam Spaulding, Craig:
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Back in October of last year, Craig's office issued a statement that rumors he was gay were "absolutely ridiculous - almost laughable." The rumor was pretty solid, though, based on several people who had had experiences with him. This time he says it was all a big mistake, and he wishes he hadn't pled guilty.
Listen, I sympathize with the "glass houses" thing. Just because you're a leader or an elected official or whatever, does not mean you're a perfect person. Leaders and famous people screw up just like the rest of us. He isn't be the only person who's ever done something stupid.
Here's what makes it a big deal: the hypocrisy. Why does a gay person like him do all they can to make life hard for ... himself? If he likes guys, why would anyone care? I mean ... lewd in a men's room? That sounds pretty desperate to me. If people would just get over it, a guy like him could go to a nice place and meet another guy, if he wanted, not playing footsies between the toilet-stalls. But no, he's got to be creepy about it in a public restroom, because of people like himself. Because it would destroy him if people found out, because of people like himself who make life hard for people like himself.
More details than you probably actually want to know, HERE.
I've been reading a little bit lately about mirror neurons. Let's say, simplifying, that there are parts of your brain that respond in kind when they see somebody else do something. Like when you see somebody raise their hand, there are sections of your brain that kind of raise your hand, too. Sometimes you're aware of this, like you know how it is when you see or hear somebody laugh, it makes you laugh. Or if you see somebody get hurt, it sort of hurts you, too. Well, they've found the way this might work in your brain.
I am not usually too impressed with neurocognitive explanations of mind and behavior, I'd rather understand what "the person" is doing than what "the brain" is doing. But mirror neurons do allow a way to explain some kinds of empathic effects that have otherwise been explained by inference. That is, previously it was believed that you felt the other person's pain by reasoning that if your thumb were hit with a hammer like that, it would feel like this. Now we are seeing that the empathy is more direct, it may be that we actually feel the other person's pain at the same time they feel it, thanks to these interesting brain cells that allow and support intimate social perspective-sharing.
This reading has taken me around the circuit to a most interesting lecture by a professor who studies primate social behavior, Frans B. M. de Waal, director of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta. The lecture is called Morality and the Social Instincts: Continuity with the Other Primates, and I'm only halfway through it so far, but he makes a most relevant point, which I suspect will be reinforced through the rest of the article (I'll post again later if I finish this article and find he has debunked himself).
First he talks about something he called "Veneer Theory," the view that human morality is just a layer of self-control that is slapped over the surface of a boiling, nearly irrepressible, selfish and amoral human nature. He counters this by describing the warm and harmonious interactions among members of groups of other kinds of primates and suggests that it just makes sense that we humans evolved as social creatures who innately care about what happens to those around us.
You might know that I am involved in some sort of crazy thing called "swarm theory" or somesuch. Well, one of my assumptions, never stated overtly, is that our social nature causes us to be intelligent, and not the other way around. It's not that we learn to get along because we're smart and selfish and figure we can get other people to give us what we want if we're nice and say what they want us to hear. It's that we're innately nice and likeable, people like to do things for other people, and because we talk to each other and tell one another about what we've learned, we all get smarter and smarter, individually and as a culture or species. Never mind what some people think, we actually do know a lot more about the real world than people did ten thousand years ago, a thousand years ago, a hundred years ago. Not only do we accumulate knowledge and cognitive skills as we develop within a lifetime, but over the time-course of our species the state of our common knowledge has improved unbelievably. I attribute that to our tendency to socialize, and I have computer programs that can find solutions to ridiculously hard engineering and math problems, by having a population of very simple individuals interact with one another over time.
It strikes me as very weird to think that human beings are evil to the core, with a veneer of morality, and disagreement about this may be an important part of the controversy we have found ourselves immersed in here in Montgomery County, in a number of ways. I suppose the idea goes back to the idea of original sin, or at least the story of Eve and that apple is used to explain and rationalize Veneer Theory: we are all fundamentally sinful. But I think it's deeper than that, and I don't think that America can ever get well again until we learn to accept human nature in a more positive light.
Think about some of the things that are said about teaching about sexual orientation. How could it be wrong to just tell students that some people are gay and some are straight? It would seem wrong to someone who believed that coiled up inside of each of us was a seething serpent of undifferentiated lustful craving, straining to escape and dominate our outward behavior. That monster will do anything, anything at all, it will make you do things with people of your own sex, even, if you don't stifle it, stomp it, control it -- it is essential, from that perspective, that the veneer of morality be toughened through education. I don't see any other way the CRC's views make any sense at all.
De Waal's thesis is that we are inherently moral, that nature herself has made us that way. We have empathic feelings for those around us and we want them to be happy, it makes us smile when we see a smile. He traces this belief right back to Darwin, in fact the historical lineage is interesting in its own right. He quotes Darwin:
Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man.
Interestingly, de Waal quotes Adam Smith, the father of modern economics and a source of inspiration for Darwin himself. Smith was also interested in human empathy and altruism; he said:
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.
De Waal closes the deal neatly:
The evolutionary origin of this inclination is no mystery. All species that rely on cooperation -- from elephants to wolves and people -- show group loyalty and helping tendencies. These tendencies evolved in the context of a close-knit social life in which they benefited relatives and companions able to repay the favor. The impulse to help was therefore never totally without survival value to the ones showing the impulse. But, as so often, the impulse became divorced from the consequences that shaped its evolution. This permitted its expression even when payoffs were unlikely, such as when strangers were beneficiaries.
In other words, it is our most basic nature to love one another, it isn't something we have to learn, it's really the way we are. We aren't balanced on the edge of a vortex of strange dark desires struggling for release and needing constant suppression -- oh, we have feelings sometimes that aren't very nice but there's usually an explanation for them, and most of the time we manage to keep a grip on ourselves till the feeling passes. We're capable of doing terrible things, but it is our nature to desire peaceful relations with our neighbors.
The sad thing, the dangerous thing, is the fact that people who believe the Veneer Theory of morality think that everybody else needs to believe it, too, because if you and I didn't believe it we might not try hard enough to suppress our inner demons and we would inevitably (according to the Theory) explode into uncontrollable furies of passionate irrationality after mere exposure to any provocative stimulus at all. And so Veneer Theorists feel people need to be punished for failing to struggle hard enough with their inner devils; just listen to these guys -- Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, O'Reilly, and the rest -- talk about "liberals" and you'll know what I mean. What is a liberal to them, but somebody who fails to understand the dark potency of the evil inner core of humanity? The idea that the world is a good place is despicable to our modern-day "conservatives."
The result is an inversion of morality. In the intense struggle to retain control of a Theorized beastly soul, the Veneerist attacks his neighbor. It seems to me that in our current historical time we have seen more of this than ever before in our country, and it worries me deeply. We imagine random enemies, unperceived dangers, and respond to them with our fullest force, whether they are in a far-off country or in our own neighborhoods. It worries me a lot.
Well, this is interesting. All that stuff about the Christian "traditional family" that you hear, that always struck me as kind of funny. Families in the Bible, it seems to me, might be a guy and a couple hundred wives, several thousand concubines, and then there might be a cutie next door in the tub that catches his eye or whatever. And then, all those olde-thyme families with grandma and grandpa and all their kids and all their kids, a few dozen younguns doing errands on the farm, that seems pretty traditional. War-widows and soldiers' wives raising the kids: traditional. Dad with a gang of kids after his wife died in childbirth: traditional. Stepmom marrying into a family like that: traditional.
A study published in the latest issue of the Journal of Modern History talks about another traditional form of marriage. Science Daily summarizes it:
A compelling new study from the September issue of the Journal of Modern History reviews historical evidence, including documents and gravesites, suggesting that homosexual civil unions may have existed six centuries ago in France. The article is the latest from the ongoing "Contemporary Issues in Historical Perspective" series, which explores the intersection between historical knowledge and current affairs.
Commonly used rationales in support of gay marriage and gay civil unions avoid historical arguments. However, as Allan A. Tulchin (Shippensburg University) reveals in his forthcoming article, a strong historical precedent exists for homosexual civil unions.
Opponents of gay marriage in the United States today have tended to assume that nuclear families have always been the standard household form. However, as Tulchin writes, "Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize, and Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures." Are Homosexual Civil Unions A 600-year-old Tradition?
I admit, I get a certain sense of glee out of this kind of thing. The Family Blah Blah groups have made such a big fake deal out of family-this and family-that, at the same time undermining the love between gay children and their parents, discouraging long-term relationships between people of the same sex... like their One Kind of family is the only "traditional" kind.
This next section is kind of long, but let's go ahead and get the whole thing on the table.
For example, in late medieval France, the term affrèrement -- roughly translated as brotherment -- was used to refer to a certain type of legal contract, which also existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe. These documents provided the foundation for non-nuclear households of many types and shared many characteristics with marriage contracts, as legal writers at the time were well aware, according to Tulchin.
The new "brothers" pledged to live together sharing 'un pain, un vin, et une bourse' -- one bread, one wine, and one purse. As Tulchin notes, "The model for these household arrangements is that of two or more brothers who have inherited the family home on an equal basis from their parents and who will continue to live together, just as they did when they were children." But at the same time, "the affrèrement was not only for brothers," since many other people, including relatives and non-relatives, used it.
The effects of entering into an affrèrement were profound. As Tulchin explains: "All of their goods usually became the joint property of both parties, and each commonly became the other's legal heir. They also frequently testified that they entered into the contract because of their affection for one another. As with all contracts, affrèrements had to be sworn before a notary and required witnesses, commonly the friends of the affrèrés."
Tulchin argues that in cases where the affrèrés were single unrelated men, these contracts provide "considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships. . . . I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been. It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that. What followed did not produce any documents."
He concludes: "The very existence of affrèrements shows that there was a radical shift in attitudes between the sixteenth century and the rise of modern antihomosexual legislation in the twentieth."
I don't have anything to add to this, just wanted to make sure you didn't miss it.
Our family has been hearing a lot of music this week. Wednesday night my wife and I went to the greatest show at the Strathmore. It was a tribute to Bob Dylan, by a whole bunch of local musicians, including some kids just out of school and a bunch of people that have been playing around the area since the sixties. They got together in all kinds of configurations, players from different bands jamming, a string quartet, banjos sometimes, accordians on some songs, fiddle, pedal steel, lots of blasting Telecasters, a couple of 12-string Rickies, plenty of acoustic guitars of course, a marching band with horns, and they all played Dylan songs. I'm not going to go completely into it, but the sold-out house loved it, the players were great, there was lots of spontaneous and heads-up and excellent musicianship, just like I like.
The same day, The Boy was up in Camden at Ozzfest.
See, at our concert, as people came into the auditorium, they would go to a row with empty seats and ask, "Is this seat taken?" And people would chat, and eventually they'd find a seat they liked, and they'd be careful they didn't block somebody's view. In contrast, The Boy was in the Wall of Death (he says they can't call it that any more, because sometimes people actually die in it) at Ozzfest. This is apparently where a few thousand teenagers line up on each side of the field, and on some cue they charge into one another as violently as they can. Lovely.
He said he had a lot of fun up there; he went with another kid and his mom and came home without obvious broken bones or serious injuries. I notice that whenever his phone rings, he says "Hello," then a pause, listening, then "Yeah, it was awesome, uh, let me go outside, just a minute." So I guess grown-ups aren't supposed to know about whatever mysterious things teenagers do at awesome rock concerts. And so be it, the seasons change, the generations discover entirely unheard-of awesome new things to do that their parents can't know about.
Then last night, The Girl wanted to go see some friends play; well, she's eighteen. We drove her to a restaurant in Burtonsville where a bunch of Hispanic heavy metal bands were playing. These guys are friends of hers, and I don't know how that works, because they all speak Spanish and she speaks English, but they seem to understand each other.
We drove her up there, what a scene. The parking lot was full of clumps of people, all in black, chains and pierced stuff hanging everywhere. Sure enough, there were her buddies, she hopped out of the car and ran and gave some big ugly guy a hug ... and ... we ... left ... her ... there.
This morning she is happy, bouncing around the house giggling about things. Sounds like she had a good time. Go figure. Maybe life is about music.
You might have noticed on the CRC's web site, a link that says "John Gaza awarded Certificate of Appreciation from MCPS." (Sorry, they spell it that way.) John Garza, you might not have forgotten, is the president of the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, their lawyer, who has sued the school district and campaigned for years to undermine the implementation of the new sex-ed curriculum. He is also a member of the advisory board of the group that brought the "gum game" into classrooms, where students passed a piece of gum around, taking turns chewing it, to learn how germs are spread; this was the source of great embarrassment to the district recently when The Post picked up on it.
Clicking on the link takes you to a PDF file of a "Certificate of Appreciation" made out to John Garza, signed by MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast and Board of Education President Nancy Navarro, "in recognition of outstanding volunteer service."
You just might wonder why they gave him an award. Turns out he participated in a career fair last year at Twinbrook Elementary School, to tell kids what it's like to be a lawyer. MCPS has something they call the Connection Resource Bank, a list of people who can volunteer to help out, scientists who can talk to classes, mentors and tutors, that sort of thing -- I've done it, I went around one year talking about science, and another time I talked to grade-school kids about the Internet, which was still something novel at that time. My wife went to classes one year, too, to talk about being a nurse. It's a great idea, and it sounds like it is very successful for the school district. Somehow Garza got on the list, well, there's no problem if he goes to a school and talks about his job, as far as I'm concerned. As long as that's all he talks about.
So ... why is this on the CRC's web site with no explanation? They wouldn't want to give you a false impression, would they?
Normally we don't talk much here about the invasion and occupation of Iraq and how it's going. But these two stories from the UK fit together to paint a picture that we might want to be aware of.
First, from the Independent:
Senior military commanders have told the Government that Britain can achieve "nothing more" in south-east Iraq, and that the 5,500 British troops still deployed there should move towards withdrawal without further delay.
Last month Gordon Brown said after meeting George Bush at Camp David that the decision to hand over security in Basra province – the last of the four held by the British – "will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground". He added: "Whatever happens, we will make a full statement to Parliament when it returns [in October]."
Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, "We've done what we can in the south [of Iraq]". Commanders want to hand over Basra Palace – where 500 British troops are subjected to up to 60 rocket and mortar strikes a day, and resupply convoys have been described as "nightly suicide missions" – by the end of August. The withdrawal of 500 soldiers has already been announced by the Government. The Army is drawing up plans to "reposture" the 5,000 that will be left at Basra airport, and aims to bring the bulk of them home in the next few months. Military commanders tell Brown to withdraw from Iraq without delay
Sixty rocket and mortar attacks a day, showering down on the palace where the British army is staying? It does sound it might be time to leave.
Before the invasion in 2003, officers were told that the Army's war aims were to bring stability and democracy to Iraq and to the Middle East as a whole. Those ambitions have been drastically revised, the IoS understands. The priorities now are an orderly withdrawal, with the reputation and capability of the Army "reasonably intact", and for Britain to remain a "credible ally". The final phrase appears to refer to tensions with the US, which has more troops in Iraq than at any other time, including the invasion, as it seeks to impose order in Baghdad and neighbouring provinces.
The British actually seem to be able to talk about this among themselves, and their media seem to be able to report the news without simply parroting government talking points.
Like this:
There are fears that the bloody power struggle in Basra will escalate sharply if and when British troops depart, but commanders point out that up to 90 per cent of the violence is directed against their forces.
You'd never see that in the Washington Post or the New York Times.
Editor & Publisher has a related story:
LONDON An adviser to the U.S. military said British troops have lost control of the Iraqi city of Basra and face an "ugly" withdrawal in the coming months, a British newspaper reported.
Stephen Biddle, a member of a group that advised U.S. Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq last year, told the Sunday Times that "insurgents are calling the shots" in the southern city.
"I regret to say that the Basra experience is set to become a major blunder in terms of military history," Biddle was quoted as saying by the newspaper. The insurgents "in a worst-case scenario will chase us out of town." U.S. Adviser Tells London Paper: Brits Have Lost Basra
I don't think there's any way you can spin this to make it look like the good guys are winning.
Biddle, a military analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, said insurgents and militia groups were likely to target British soldiers with ambushes, roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades as they leave.
"It will be a hard withdrawal. They want the image of a British defeat," Biddle told the paper. "It will be ugly and embarrassing."
A total of 168 British personnel have died in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.
Sounds like they're outta there. Sometimes you win one, sometimes you lose ... whatever it was Kenny Rogers said.
Somebody's going to have to explain this one to me.
A conservative Christian values group has been interrupting services at two central Ohio churches to protest their support for homosexuality.
Minutemen United vowed to attend services every Sunday.
The group started its crusade when First Baptist Church in Granville hosted "Love Makes a Family," a traveling exhibit by the Family Diversity Project showing photos of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families.
The night the exhibit opened in July, members of Minutemen United stood outside and protested the exhibit and the church's open attitude toward homosexuality, said the Rev. Kathy Hurt, senior pastor at the Granville church.
Since then, the group has been visiting the church every Sunday, she said.
On one of the first Sundays, six people came to the church's 11 a.m. service and addressed the congregation during a time designated for prayer requests and comments.
Hurt said a man, who introduced himself as a minister from the New Beginnings Church in Warsaw, Ohio, started to give a sermon about how the church was acting against God's word by accepting homosexuals.
Members of Minutemen United also visited King Avenue United Methodist Church in Columbus that same morning, said the Rev. John Keeny.
This has got to put the church in a strange position, don't you think? They can't have bouncers to throw these idiots out, that wouldn't be very Christian of them, but at the same time, what are they supposed to do? Just let them disrupt their services?
Once again, it's not a matter of what somebody believes -- I don't agree with these guys but they have the right to think whatever it is they think, I wouldn't be writing about it here just to criticize them for their ideas. But they feel it is their place to barge into somebody else's church and tell them that their Christianity is wrong, and that's just obnoxious.
"At our church, we welcome all people," [Keeny] said. "We would welcome them in worship, too, but we expect hospitality and acceptance to be demonstrated by all who come to worship here."
Max Erwin Sr., an evangelist with the New Beginnings ministry and a member of Minutemen United, said he attended services at King Avenue and First Baptist churches.
"What I do is not about hate; it's everything to do with love," Erwin said. "Homosexuality is a sin."
He said he plans to concentrate his efforts on First Baptist Church. He will be outside the church building every Sunday, as long as it doesn't rain.
"There are people there who are truly hungry for the true word of God," Erwin said. "The word of God is the word of God. It is not subject to private interpretation."
And as if to prove his point, he continued:
"People point us out to be haters," he said. "Jesus loves the homosexual, but he doesn't love homosexuality. This is about holding each other accountable."
Of course Jesus never said he doesn't love homosexuality, this is pure "private interpretation.
The Mormon Church Calls for Tolerance of Homosexuality
The attempted coup against the Montgomery County school board started in 2004 with a group we lovingly called the Recall Group, who had a web site RecallMontgomerySchoolBoard.com. Pretty quickly the smarter ones there realized that the direct approach just might turn people off, so they chose a snappier name: Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, and a new URL that sounded like they were part of the school district. (When we started as teachthefacts.org, they also bought the domain name teachthefacts.com and pointed it to their site, but that's another story).
Last year there was some kind of shake-up over there, they switched presidents, and another group joined up with them. The new group was a branch of the Family Leader Network, a nationwide Mormon group. The FLN has joined the CRC and PFOX in a couple of recent legal actions. The former president of CRC, Michelle Turner, is Mormon, as is their resident physician, Ruth Jacobs, and at least one PTSA-President-slash-parent who speaks for them sometimes.
So I'll be interested to see how the Family Leader Network and the Mormon CRC members react to a recent shift in policy by the Mormon Church on the topic that they call "same-gender attraction."
The LA Daily News has the story:
The Mormon Church has quietly moved further from defining homosexuality as evil and the result of faulty parenting.
An unheralded new church publication, "God Loveth His Children," says gay feelings are neither learned nor chosen, and it counsels against rejecting a gay child.
Seemingly aimed at young people, the statement gently counsels individuals who feel attraction to and love for same-gender people to trust in God's plan and not act upon the transitory desires of mortal life - a period of "probation during which we face a variety of temptations and challenges."
"Attractions alone do not make you unworthy," the pamphlet says. "If you avoid immoral thoughts and actions, you have not transgressed even if you feel such an attraction."
It also says: "The Lord's command to `forgive all men' includes the requirement to forgive yourself."
Spokesmen for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not say what led the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency - the two highest governing bodies of the church - to publish the pamphlet at the end of July.
"I don't know either," said Jan Shipps, a scholar and historian specializing in Mormons. But its placement on the church's Web site makes clear "that it would have to have been approved by the general authorities of the LDS Church." Mormons soften stance on homosexuality
It's actually quite interesting. The pamphlet makes a point that having a homosexual orientation is not itself a sin, though it is God's will that you not act on your feelings. The overriding point is, as the title says, "God loveth His children" -- all of them. Even the gay ones.
Here's a passage that addresses the perceived problem that God wants people to marry and multiply, and some gay people are uninclined to marry someone of the opposite sex. Does the Church urge them to become "ex-gays" and marry anyways?
No.
Heaven is organized by families, which require a man and a woman who together exercise their creative powers within the bounds the Lord has set. Same-gender relationships are inconsistent with this plan. Without both a husband and a wife there would be no eternal family and no opportunity to become like Heavenly Father.
In some circumstances a person defers marriage because he or she is not presently attracted to a member of the opposite gender. While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.
So, maybe you don't marry in this life, you'll get another chance.
The LDS Church takes a firm stance against homosexual behavior, but they accept the fact that some people feel that way.
Many people with same-gender attractions have strong testimonies of the gospel and, therefore, do not act on those attractions. Attractions alone do not make you unworthy. If you avoid immoral thoughts and actions, you have not transgressed even if you feel such an attraction. The First Presidency stated, “There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior” (letter, Nov. 14, 1991).
I don't think there's anything in the MCPS curriculum that conflicts with the Mormon Church's position.
We will be watching to see if the Family Leader Network and Mormon CRC members are going to conform to these expectations of the Church:
Some people with same-gender attraction have felt rejected because members of the Church did not always show love. No member of the Church should ever be intolerant. As you show love and kindness to others, you give them an opportunity to change their attitudes and follow Christ more fully.
If you're interested, follow the link and see what they have to say. This is an official LDS publication, found on the lds.org website.
The Mormon Church is taking a strong position here, that "No member of the Church should ever be intolerant," and recommending that the intolerant ones need to "change their attitudes and follow Christ more fully." Will the Family Leader Network and the Mormon CRC members go along with these policies of the Church, or will they rebel against Mormon leadership? Let's watch and see.
Today I turned off the air conditioner for most of the morning. Last night my wife actually put on a light jacket to go outside. Since I moved here, I'm always surprised, the seasons change like they're reading a calendar or something. Pools are open till Labor Day, and the day after Labor Day it is actually too cold to swim. Growing up in Phoenix, we didn't have anything like that; there're basically no seasons, just colder and hotter months. But now here I'm seeing solitary leaves falling when a breeze wafts through the trees, the yard is freckled with their yellow, you can feel the change coming, a couple of weeks before September hits, right on schedule.
I found it really kind of odd and startling that CNN Headline News quoted our web site to prove that the new MCPS curriculum is "advocacy." I saw the CRC's Michelle Turner give a talk once where she took some quotes from this blog and put them into a Powerpoint slide and showed them to people. They were mainly statements from the comment section, as I recall, I think somebody used a strong word or something, though some of it quoted me. It was one of those stupid ad hominen things, proving that I was unworthy to serve on the citizens committee or something. I'm no angel, I guarantee that, but the curriculum doesn't depend on my sterling character.
Luckily for all of us, it's not about me. I'm just a guy who says what he's thinking about what's going on. I just write my thoughts from time to time here.
This makes me think I need to state the obvious: this is a blog. We don't get together and vote on everything that's said here, and in fact if you look at the comments you'll see there are plenty of times that TeachTheFacts.org's own officers and board members disagree with me. The blog is a new, vaguely defined literary mode that allows a kind of spontaneous self-expression, unedited, an instantaneous response to anything that's going on.
When I first got involved in this controversy, two and a half years ago, I didn't know anything. I had never actually given much thought at all to gay issues, that's for sure, and didn't have any real position on any of it, beyond a basic sense that people should be reasonable and should not harass other people for being different from them. Mainly I just had a gut reaction when I saw that people who call other people "sodomites" and "perverts" were going to try to take over my county's school district.
This blog is not a place where I make ideological statements, it's a place where I tell you what I'm thinking. I don't even know what "ideology" I'd represent. Sometimes I describe myself as a "Goldwater liberal," but I'm not as excited about military solutions as Goldwater was. I'm sure I'm more rednecky than most of my colleagues -- I did spend a lot of years playing and singing country and Western music for a living, from Tucson to Kodiak -- and I'm probably more libertarian than most of them, as well as more understanding of ordinary people who just want to continue living their lives the way they always have. But that comes out of me, it's just how I am, it's not something that I was taught or anything I got from a favorite book or anything. I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy, I like to have a little room around me, to think about things the way I want, and I expect other people need that, too.
As this situation has evolved, the anti-MCPS forces have thrown up one kind of obstruction after the other, and it has been a kind of personal challenge for me to figure out how to understand the issues and respond to them. Usually this comes down a matter of asking myself what I really believe, in general, and then applying my general philosophy to a particular case. Sometimes this method reveals contradictions in my personal philosophy, which, because I write in this stupid blog every day, are exposed to the whole world. And there are people who have designated themselves umpires, who will point out the times when I have stepped out of bounds. OK, fine, that's a benefit I had not expected when I started this, everybody wants to help make me smarter.
Often, what I see in this controversy appears to me to be pure insanity. Some of the things that are said are so ludicrous that I can't imagine any mentally sound person saying them. But the other side seems to be made of people who function in society, and there are other people around the country saying similar things. So I can't really write it off as mental illness (though referring to them as "nuts" may seem to suggest that) (but come on, somebody has to say it). Here's how I understand this: it seems to me that they have decided they'll say anything in order to interrupt the deployment of the curriculum. The result is an unusual kind of discussion, where you aren't actually arguing with the content of their speech, but with their intent.
Take an example. The CRC wants to make a big deal out of the curriculum's use of the word "innate" to describe sexual orientation. They would throw out the whole set of five classes just because the word "innate" will be uttered twice. They can't really mean it, of course, you wouldn't find a one of them that would say their own sexual orientation was not innate. So you're not really arguing about whether sexual orientation is innate, you're arguing about whether the CRC should succeed in stopping the new curriculum.
This whole experience has been a good one for me, I've never been involved in public matters like this before, and I've learned a lot. But after seeing that on CNN-HN I just wanted to post this explanation to say, this is just a regular idiot sitting in his house typing on a computer. I could be right, I could be wrong, I don't know, I'm just saying what I think at the moment. The sex-ed curriculum isn't mine, I didn't write it, and it will be judged on its own qualities, not by anything that anybody in TeachTheFacts says about it.
There has been a lot of discussion in the blogs this week about this, and it has led me to understand something about the political atmosphere that had never actually sunk in before.
Let's start it with this exchange between Naomi Wolf and Melanie Morgan on Hardball the other day:
Wolf: It gets back to what I was saying earlier about the nature of lying. Let's not forget that they got us into this war on the basis of a series of lies.... This weaving out of lies was a pretext for an invasion that served their own political purposes. In the wake of the invasion, they were able to terrify the American people, subjugate the American people, drive through a series of laws that dismantled key checks and balances, allowed overreaching executive power, and completely eviscerated what the founders set in place, thus weakening America.
Morgan: Keep attacking, keep attacking Naomi, because you're going to look great in a burka. You're going to look super in a burka.
Some people thought that was a kind of strange response. I think it was a strange response, like Ms. Morgan was listening to a different conversation or something. A burka? Weren't we just talking about lying? How did she get to burkas from there?
To some people this makes sense, and I guess I'm slow but I'm just beginning to comprehend the magnitude of it. There was a recent statement by writer Roger Simon on the conservative site Pajamas Media, in a piece titled Gay marriage and the war on terror. Part of it:
I never cease to be amazed – and perhaps it is my own myopia – that my former colleagues on the Left can be blind to this situation. They act as if the threat is not real and is only a blip caused by a post 9/11 overreaction by George Bush, thus ignoring virtually all of Western history since the year 800, not to mention the overwhelming demographic changes of recent decades. (John Edwards – interestingly an opponent of gay marriage - recently called the “War on Terror” a bumper sticker. At least, he’s consistent.) The very people most threatened by the ideology of Islamism and the institution of Sharia law – gays, women, freethinkers - are often the very people least likely to defend themselves against it.
Again, this strikes me as bizarre thinking. Do these people actually think that Muslims are going to conquer America?
Well, yes, apparently that's what they're afraid of.
Glenn Greenwald is a well-respected blogger at Salon who perfectly summarized the situation:
Every now and then, it is worth noting that substantial portions of the right-wing political movement in the United States -- the Pajamas Media/right-wing-blogosphere/Fox News/Michelle Malkin/Rush-Limbaugh-listener strain -- actually believe that Islamists are going to take over the U.S. and impose sharia law on all of us. And then we will have to be Muslims and "our women" will be forced into burkas and there will be no more music or gay bars or churches or blogs. This is an actual fear that they have -- not a theoretical fear but one that is pressing, urgent, at the forefront of their worldview.
And their key political beliefs -- from Iraq to Iran to executive power and surveillance theories at home -- are animated by the belief that all of this is going to happen. The Republican presidential primary is, for much of the "base," a search for who will be the toughest and strongest in protecting us from the Islamic invasion -- a term that is not figurative or symbolic, but literal: the formidable effort by Islamic radicals to invade the U.S. and take over our institutions and dismantle our government and force us to submit to Islamic rule or else be killed.
I have never thought about this before, but of course that's what's going on. There are people who really think that this country is in actual danger of being conquered by Muslims.
I don't know how you're supposed to reason with that.
I'm going back a few years, so the memories are a little hazy here. These little boys. They stayed with their grandmother in the corner house near us. Their dad had this beautiful early-60s Chevy that he kept in the carport, out of the rain and the sun. Every time you'd go by, he was out there working on it, cleaning it, shining it up. I talked to him a couple of times about it, he was proud of that car.
The boys would come around, I'd say this was seven or eight years ago. The older one was wiry, little, hyper. He'd come into the house and start wandering around looking at things, touching things, could not keep his hands in his pockets. We laughed about it. We'd say, "Justin, just stand there, the kids will be down in a minute." And it was like torture to him, until he forgot, and he'd start playing with stuff on the counter-top or whatever, wandering around the house. Just could not hold still.
The other one was younger but bigger. Kind of a heavy kid, and funny. He loved my daughter. He always found a reason to sit next to her or talk to her, he'd come over for no reason, just to tell her something, making moon-eyes at her the whole time, a total goofball. The kids were in grade school at that time, and then the boys moved away. Jeremy dropped by a year or so ago, this tall, handsome young man, found our new house and came by to see my little girl, who is also not so little any more. They stood out in the front yard talking for the longest time, which is what teenagers do when they don't want their parents to hear what they're saying. It seemed to me she was glad to see him, but nothing ever came of it, he just came by that once.
July 30th, their father went into the boys' rooms, one after the other, and put a bullet in each of them while they were sleeping.
CNN Headline News has a show called "Prime Time," which this week featured the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum's Michelle Turner, plus Martha Kempner from SIECUS -- the Sexual Information and Education Council of the United States, talking about our county's sex-ed curriculum. The host, Mike Galanos, is ... look, have you ever watched Glenn Beck? How about Nancy Grace? They're on this channel. Mike Galanos is like that. It might be infotainment, except for the info part.
This one turned out to be interesting. CNN Headline News has a theory, and we -- TeachTheFacts.org -- are right in the middle of it.
Galanos was talking with Ms. Kempner, who, by the way, we've never met.
He said:
Now you work with another group of parents, TeachTheFacts.org in crafting the curriculum, is that correct?
One. SIECUS: great group, we agree with them on everything, we just ... don't ... know ... them.
Two. Notice how he has little ol' us, TeachTheFacts.org, "crafting the curriculum." I don't know how he found out that the school district had turned over the responsibility to a bunch of parents with a web site. Wasn't that supposed to be a secret?
Ms. Kempner said:
We didn’t help them craft the curriculum but we did help them gain community support because there is a lot of support in Montgomery County and across the country for teaching programs like this. So we did work with other parents.
I would not be surprised to know that SIECUS was working with various MoCo groups, explaining the new curriculum, promoting it, smoothing the way -- that's what they do. And it is true, there is a lot of support for this curriculum.
Oh, and note how once this guy establishes the truthiness of TeachTheFacts.org crafting the curriculum, she just says no, we didn't help them craft the curriculum. As if we really did craft the curriculum. Hoo-hoo-hoo.
Then he springs his big point on her:
Let me read you something, this is from their website, the first page of their website. They say, “We support a new curriculum that recognizes that sexual orientation is not a choice, that homosexuality is not a disease,” goes onto say that religious extremists are attempting to impose their beliefs. I read that, that sounds like to me advocacy. Is that what’s at the heart here: if you don’t accept homosexuality then you’re intolerant?
Is this great, or what?
There's this nice lady from this big organization and CRC's former President on the screen, talking about a new curriculum, and the guy is reading from our web page.
And it sounds to him like advocacy.
Look dude, yes, we are advocates. It may be wild and weird and wacky, but we think the schools should teach the facts as they are understood by mainstream science and medicine. Most of us aren't gay, and the world isn't about gay people, but if you're going to teach it you ought to at least get it right. If that makes us "advocates," then OK, we're advocates. Cool. Somebody needed to step up to the plate, and that was us.
Also, you will not find anybody over here saying "if you don’t accept homosexuality then you’re intolerant." We don't care if you're tolerant or not, and you have every right to feel however you want about homosexuality. We will insist though that our students learn accurate facts, and we support the idea that they will learn to be good citizens and show respect for others.
Look at what he reads from our site, and then look at how he paraphrases it. Man, that's a leap.
Let me spell this out for the record. We are TeachTheFacts.org, a group of Montgomery County parents and other citizens who formed two and a half years ago to support our school district's decision to implement a new sex-ed curriculum. We don't write the curriculum, we don't work for the school district, we're just mostly people with kids that attend or have attended the public schools, we want to see them get a good education, and beyond that, we're proud of our community and like to see it do the right thing.
We have the right to promote a point of view -- why would we care if this eye-rolling talking head thinks our web page sounds like advocacy?
Oh and hey, his final statement on the show:
Thanks again Martha Kempner with SIECUS and also concerned parent, Michelle Turner. We appreciate your time, both of you and again Erica, classes begin – now there’s an appeal under way from that group Michelle Turner’s a part of. It’s probably not going to stop the classes from going forward. Again, classes start August 27th.
No, it’s probably not going to stop the classes from going forward. But it will waste the taxpayer's money, and that's just as good.
The New York Times had one of the strangest stories ever yesterday about the Montgomery County sex-ed curriculum. The CRC should be proud of this one, they really got one reporter, Diana Jean Schemo, to relay their message faithfully. I'm going to have to pick this one apart piece by piece.
After five years, one legal defeat and a challenge on the way, Montgomery County, Md., is at the frontier of sex education in the United States. This fall, barring last-minute court action, the county will offer lessons on homosexuality in its 8th- and 10th-grade health education courses. Lessons on Homosexuality Move Into the Classroom
First of all, nobody would really call a 10-day temporary restraining order a "legal defeat." It was a setback, and the only thing that the CRC has ever tried that worked at all; it did get the school district to negotiate with them, which was good for them, but it was still ... a 10-day restraining order.
Second, you're going to wonder how it is that they portray this as "the frontier of sex education in the United States." Lots of school districts cover this same territory. For instance, a Washington Post story earlier this year concluded, "school systems in politically liberal communities are expanding the lexicon of sex and gender identity in health classes. Homosexuality is one of many topics covered under the umbrella of "comprehensive" sex education, which teaches students how to be comfortable with their sexuality and safe in sexual practice."
To school officials, the lessons are a natural outgrowth of sex education and of teachings on tolerance and diversity. They consist of two heavily scripted, 45-minute lessons for each grade and a video demonstrating how to put on a condom. The lessons’ central message is respect and acceptance of the many permutations of sexual identity, both in others and in one’s self.
School officials said they were not seeking to promote a political agenda, beyond tolerance and a kind of cultural literacy. “Our charge starts with educating students,” said Betsy Brown, who supervised the curriculum’s development in consultation with the American Academy of Pediatrics. “This is part of education.”
Very sly: "to school officials," "school officials said." The implications are clear: the school officials are deluded.
(Clue: the word "accepted" is a CRC word, it's not part of the curriculum. Tells you whose notes they're copying from.)
Look, I'm proud of our school district, but let's just say they were not that eager to plunge headlong into controversy. They were extremely careful to keep the curriculum content as unprovocative as they could. Nobody watching this process could accuse MCPS of pursuing a political agenda with this; they were brave, yes, they did what the community wanted them to do, but I'm pretty sure they'd be more comfortable if we were all reading Silas Marner.
But critics, who have filed lawsuits seeking to stop the lessons, contended that the Montgomery County schools, just north of Washington, have gone too far. John Garza, president of the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, a group leading the opposition, said parents can block television shows they deem morally questionable, “but then we have the schoolteacher affirming unhealthy behavior.”
The NYT might have noted that these "critics" are very few in number. And it might have been a good idea for the reporter to flip through the curriculum materials, just to see what behaviors are being affirmed. She may have been surprised to find that none of the sexual orientation classes say anything about "behaviors" at all. The classes are about romantic feelings and feelings of attraction.
How do you affirm something without mentioning it?
Montgomery is a mostly well-educated, politically liberal enclave. But opponents of the new curriculum, portrayed as a vocal minority by school officials, may be more in sync with the mood of parents nationally.
I love that "portrayed as a vocal minority by [deluded] school officials." No, they are a vocal minority. They are portrayed as that by everybody who lives here.
Now the reporter has spilled the beans -- this is what she wants us to think. Montgomery County is some weird place, but the rest of the country is more like the CRC.
We want to see her support that idea. --Ah, good, she's got data.
According to a 2004 national poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and National Public Radio, roughly three out of four parents say it is appropriate for high schools to teach about homosexuality, but about half say it is appropriate in middle school.
Uh, that's the opposite of what she just said -- this survey finds that most people agree with what we're doing in Montgomery County.
Is that weird, or what? I mean, isn't she embarrassed to say one thing, and then show the data proving she's wrong?
When asked about the issue in greater detail, more than 50 percent of high school and middle school parents supported teaching what homosexuality is about “without discussing whether it is wrong or acceptable.” Only 8 percent of high school parents and 4 percent of middle school parents said schools should teach “that homosexuality is acceptable.” The survey had a margin of error of 6 percentage points.
Montgomery County may be ahead of the country on sex education, but it may also just be out there, stranded on its own.
OK, so once again -- the majority of the country agrees with MCPS. How did she spin this to say that we're out ahead somewhere? Nothing in the curriculum says that anything is right or wrong or acceptable. It just says some people are like that, and we should show them the same respect we show anybody else.
It sounds like they talked to some of our anti-MCPS radicals, and reported what they said as fact. Which is sad for a paper like The Times.
I'm skipping a couple of paragraphs...
But for a raft of reasons, many of them unconscious, teaching about sexuality is different, said Susan K. Freeman, a historian at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
-- Wha? Minnesota State University, Mankato? They had to go to Mankato, Minnesota to find somebody to say what they wanted to hear? A historian? I think they have a little splainin to do here.
For many parents, boy-girl dating may not mean that their child is sexually active, she said. By coming out as gay, though, “they’re announcing their sexuality.” Parents make a tacit assumption of sexual activity, and “that presents a problem for a lot of people,” she said.
OK, stop.
Gay people often know by middle school or earlier that they're gay. At some point they tell somebody. That doesn't mean they are "sexually active." Has nothing to do with it. Where does this historian come up with the idea that parents assume this? Is this supposed to be an actual argument against teaching about sexual orientation?
I don't understand how a reputable newspaper can print something like that.
I have only seen the online version of this story -- maybe it was in, like, "The Onion" section of the paper. Can somebody please check that for me in the print version? Thanks.
The Montgomery County lessons begin by defining terms like “prejudice,” “homosexual” and “transgender,” and warn students not to assume that because they are not yet attracted to the opposite sex, they must be gay. The eighth-grade curriculum tells gay students that “concerns about how family and friends will accept the situation are reasonable, and fears about being teased or even attacked are not unfounded.”
OK, so much for making it sound like a walk in the park.
In the 10th grade, the lessons, which presume that sexual identity is innate, again discuss the stresses of coming out, but add, “Many people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender celebrate their self-discovery.”
Just for the record, let me show you what the curriculum really says -- this is from the Holt resource, Grade 10, second day:
Many people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender celebrate their self-discovery and feel relief and a new sense of joy when they can be honest with themselves and their loved ones. Others may feel isolated while coming out and may even turn to drugs, alcohol, suicide, and other dangerous behaviors. Because many youths who come out are met with hostility, they are at greater risk for engaging in harmful, damaging, and even life-threatening behaviors and for being the targets of violence and harassment.
Let me point out, just taking the first half of the first sentence, and using it to cast the curriculum as gay-affirming or gay-promoting is no better than a lie.
And this is the New York Times.
Kevin Jennings, the executive director of the New York-based Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, said the curriculum could reduce bullying over sexual identity.
“I don’t know how denying information to young people about sexuality or sexual orientation does anything to promote their health and well being,” he said.
True, that.
Mr. Garza objected to schools teaching that homosexuality is not subject to change and failing to mention higher rates of some venereal diseases among gay men. “When you get into these hotly contested areas of moral judgment, that’s where the school needs to get out of it, or at least teach all sides,” he said.
Sheesh, we've heard all that before. 1.Nothing says it "is not subject to change." 2.there is a "venereal disease" section of the Health curriculum for mentioning diseases, it doesn't belong here. 3.there aren't "two sides," the American Medical Association and other medical and scientific professional organizations are very clear on the facts.
This article is a little more sophisticated propaganda push than we have seen in the past from the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. I take it to mean that somebody at the Thomas More Legal Center knows somebody at The Times, I'm guessing somebody got to be buddies during the Dover fiasco.
We have been lucky to have had good local reporting over the past two and a half years we've been involved in this controversy, where "local" includes the Washington Post and some very strong smaller newspapers. We've seen a couple of turkeys, and we've even seen the big guys succumb to the pressure once or twice, but in general our local reporters have been fair to both sides. I would've expected the prestigious New York Times to do their homework before they blurted out something like this.
The group Americans United for Separation of Church and State is, it's not hard to figure out, opposed to the fudging of the line between religion and government. When they think a church is getting too political, they tend to publicize the fact, sometimes file a complaint -- that's what they're there for. The group exists to see that the strict and extremely-necessary wall between religion and government stands firm.
Turns out the churches don't always really appreciate this. So what can the churches do to defend themselves? Who can help them? Ah, yes ... (From USA Today's blog):
God is being called upon in a bitter dispute between a California Baptist pastor and the organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Specifically, Rev. Wiley Drake of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, Calif., is asking his supporters to use "imprecatory prayer" to curse Americans United and its leaders.
The argument centers on whether Drake violated federal tax law by "electioneering" when he recently endorsed the presidential candidacy of Republican Mike Huckabee. Americans United on Tuesday asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate.
They must not have heard about the guy the other day who got hit by lightning out of a clear, blue sky while he was passing out religious literature. I'd think there's a chance this might backfire.
Drake also said he had been careful to state that he was "personally endorsing" Huckabee, not throwing his church's support to the candidate. He put the endorsement on the church's letterhead, Drake said, "because I'm not going to let anyone tell me I have to hide who I am. I use letterhead to pay my phone bill and to send my mother a note."
AU, meanwhile, today issued a statement that condemns "the tactics of a political pastor in California who has urged followers to pray for the demise of staff members of the religious liberty watchdog group."
"Instead of addressing our concerns of illegally melding religion and partisan politics, Dr. Drake has launched an outlandish attack on us," Rev. Barry Lynn, AU's executive director said in the statement. "Calling for curses on us might distract Drake's supporters, but it won't help him with the IRS."
Yeah, can you imagine Jesus looking down at this? His disappointment must be immeasurable.
The Associated Baptist Press has a little more on this:
Wiley Drake, pastor, radio crusader and Baptist gadfly, issued an Aug. 14 statement calling for "imprecatory prayer" from his supporters against two communications staffers for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The term "imprecatory prayer is used to describe prayers, mostly in the Bible's Old Testament, that the righteous used to call down God's wrath against their enemies.. Drake, SBC presidential candidate, calls for God's wrath against AU
The General Accountability Office is the office in the Legislative branch of the federal government that conducts investigations, audits, and evaluations of government policies and practices. It's a nonpartisan office headed by the Comptroller General, who is appointed by the President and remains in office for a fifteen-year term.
The current Comptroller General, David M. Walker, has been in office since 1998, and he's issued a lot of reports in the years since then. This past week he published one that is, I think, like no other. From Financial Times:
The US government is on a ‘burning platform’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon, the country’s top government inspector has warned.
David Walker, comptroller general of the US, issued the unusually downbeat assessment of his country’s future in a report that lays out what he called “chilling long-term simulations”.
These include “dramatic” tax rises, slashed government services and the large-scale dumping by foreign governments of holdings of US debt.
Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.
“Sound familiar?” Mr Walker said. “In my view, it’s time to learn from history and take steps to ensure the American Republic is the first to stand the test of time.” Learn from the fall of Rome, US warned
This guy is a big-time CPA, former executive in both private industry and government. He's seen a lot of stuff, this isn't any time to be crying wolf and making political statements.
He's comparing these times to the end of the Roman Empire.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Walker said he had mentioned some of the issues before but now wanted to “turn up the volume”. Some of them were too sensitive for others in government to “have their name associated with”.
“I’m trying to sound an alarm and issue a wake-up call,” he said. “As comptroller general I’ve got an ability to look longer-range and take on issues that others may be hesitant, and in many cases may not be in a position, to take on.
“One of the concerns is obviously we are a great country but we face major sustainability challenges that we are not taking seriously enough,” said Mr Walker, who was appointed during the Clinton administration to the post, which carries a 15-year term.
The fiscal imbalance meant the US was “on a path toward an explosion of debt”.
“With the looming retirement of baby boomers, spiralling healthcare costs, plummeting savings rates and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks,” said Mr Walker, a former senior executive at PwC auditing firm.
Current US policy on education, energy, the environment, immigration and Iraq also was on an “unsustainable path”.
“Our very prosperity is placing greater demands on our physical infrastructure. Billions of dollars will be needed to modernise everything from highways and airports to water and sewage systems. The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a sobering wake-up call.”
In other news... growing up -- remember? -- Americans were the tallest people in the world, on average. It was because we had the best health care, ate the best food, worked the best jobs, lived the best lives.
Here's the Washington Post:
U.S. adults lost their position as the tallest people on Earth to the Dutch, who average about two inches taller than the typical American. In fact, American men now rank ninth and women 15th in average height, having fallen short of many other European nations.
"Americans, who have been the tallest in the world for a very long time, are no longer the tallest," said John Komlos of the University of Munich, who has published a series of papers documenting the trend. "Americans have not kept up with western European populations."
The idea that many Europeans are looking down on Americans has led to a flurry of interest in trying to explain the trend, with debate focusing on whether to blame the lack of universal health care and other holes in the nation's social safety net, particularly for children.
"We conjecture that perhaps the western and northern European welfare states, with their universal socioeconomic safety nets, are able to provide a higher biological standard of living to their children and youth than the more free-market-oriented U.S. economy," Komlos wrote in one of his latest papers, published in June in the journal Social Science Quarterly. America Loses Its Stature as Tallest Country
They even tried analyzing the data with recent immigrants taken out. Turns out, we reached our height in the 1950s and stopped, while Europeans kept growing.
Height is considered a bellwether of a society's well-being. As wealth increases, often so does height. Wealth usually improves nutrition and medical care, enabling people to reach their maximum growth potential and live longer. The key years are early childhood -- with those children receiving the best nutrition and suffering the least illness growing the best.
Komlos and others noted that the contemporary American diet, while plentiful, has become less nutritious in some ways, especially in recent years, which has helped fuel the obesity epidemic, particularly among children. So while Americans are no longer the tallest, they are among the widest.
"The culture of food here is different than other countries," said Richard H. Steckel of Ohio State University. "Children tend to watch more television and snack and eat fast food. When they do this, the fuel they are consuming is not the optimal blend."
The United States also lags far behind other countries in a host of important markers for childhood well-being. Rates of infant mortality, low-birth-weight babies and childhood poverty remain well higher than those in many European countries, and rates of childhood vaccination are much lower.
"American children are not as well taken care of as one would expect, given American incomes," Komlos said.
Oh, and here's another story along those lines:
Officials blame a lack of health care in the US for its latest ranking in life expectancy, which placed the country behind 40 other countries.
The US lagged behind countries like Guam, Jordan, Japan and most European countries. The highest life expectancy is found in a small country in the Pyrenees Mountains between France and Spain called Andorra. Japan was second.
Andorra's life expectancy was 83.5 years while the US has a life expectancy of 77.9 years.
Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, said, "Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries."
Forty-five million Americans live without health coverage. Many other counties, who had better life expectancies than the US, have universal health care coverage where everyone is insured. One of these countries is Canada. But McGill University in Montreal epidemiologist Sam Harper said it's more than that... US Life Expectancy Years Behind 40 Counties
One more thing. You ought to read this interview at AlterNet HERE, about how companies produce two sets of products. They make healthy versions of their products for the European market, and toxic versions for the US. Why? Because we let them.
The American industry argues that the more loose system in the United States helps encourage innovation, and to some extent, perhaps at a certain point in our history that might have been true. But, now if you look at it, the imposition of principles to take the most toxic chemicals out of products in Europe, which is happening now as we speak, is giving rise to a huge industry in green chemistry that is being prompted by the industry.
Go read that one -- it's an eye-opener, but this post is already too long and depressing. We need to realize what has happened. The rest of the world, especially Europe, has progressed, they've moved past us. They look out for their people, they take care of each other and they take care of their environment. Meanwhile the USA has committed itself to the philosophy of greed.
When I sat down at the computer today I wanted to write something funny.
We're glad because this sex-ed battle is pretty much behind us, the suers will continue to file papers in court but they've just about exhausted their options, all they're doing now is whining without any substance. School's starting in a few weeks, the kids will sign up for Health class and they'll learn the new material, which is all we ever really wanted.
We see that the neoconservative national experiment has failed and the radical right is in a state of collapse, even the big-bucks religious extremists have to shout to get anybody to listen to their ugliness. The Democrats in Congress don't seem to have quite understood what they were expected to do, but at least there're checks and balances again, to some extent, and it looks like the 2008 candidates are being forced to deal with the message that people want this country turned around, and fast.
We hope to hasten the end of the age of imperialistic gluttony, but these past years have set us up for hard times. The 2004 election made it impossible to say that our leaders were going against the will of the people; now the whole world holds all of us individually accountable for what we've done. Chasing the road-runner of unrestrained greed, we ran off that cliff, and now we're looking down and seeing nothing but air.
I wanted to write something funny, really I did. Maybe next time.
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" seem silly and superficial these days, when liberals are more conservative than conservatives ever were, and conservatives believe in comprehensive government control over the minutiae of citizens' personal lives. The classic terminology fails us, it provides no insight into the true nature of the most important issues we concern ourselves with.
WTOP had a little story the other day about a talk Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer gave at the American Bar Association's annual meeting. One statement of his seems to shed some light on the situation, maybe this is a better dichotomy than the familiar ones:
After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Breyer said: "I began to see that the true division of importance in the world is not between different countries. The important division is between those who are committed to reason, to working out things, to understanding other people, to peaceful resolution of their differences ... and those who don't think that." Breyer Says Last Term Was Difficult
Our sex-ed controversy in Montgomery County has been, since the start, a battle over the process. The school district is managed by an elected board, and the organization has clear and effective ways for developing new curricula, with lots of community involvement, expert advice, it's all slow and steady and deliberate. But this time, in the middle of a routine Health curriculum revision, a handful of extremists decided they would agitate to recall the entire Board of Education, they would undermine and slime the whole process, because it wasn't coming out the way they wanted.
I talked about this a couple of years ago in a post about the third group, which was picked up and passed around the Internet a little bit at the time. There are, obviously, more conservative and more liberal views about what sex-ed should be. Some parents believe their children should be given the facts, should be told what the real consequences of various sexual behaviors are, and trust that when the time comes they will be able to make responsible choices. Other parents are concerned that their children will be exposed to too much too soon, they believe that sexuality is a personal matter that should be learned in the home more than the schools. In fact, all parents feel both ways to some extent. The trick here is to find a balance or compromise, a way to present the topic that satisfactorily meets both standards -- a vast majority of citizens everywhere agree that sex-ed belongs in the public schools, there's very little debate about that, the question is what to present, and how.
That means people have to be able to talk. "The liberal side" understands the concerns of a parent who worries about influences that might affect their child's values. "The conservative side" understands that things need to be talked about in school, and that sometimes their kids will learn things that make them uncomfortable. There's plenty of room there for discussion and adjustment.
Those two sides of the lower-level dialectic are one side of Breyer's dichotomy.
The other side believes they are absolutely, divinely right, that there's no need to talk about it, that discussion will only result in a dilution of their "truth." This group feels obligated to interrupt the dialogue in any way they can, they will only declare success when the process has been dragged to a standstill.
We have looked at the news about the next legal phase, as described on the Thomas More Law Center web site. Some of their complaints are pure fiction, and some simply insult your intelligence. The gist of it is that they don't like the new curriculum. That's a great back-fence talking point, it's fine when you're yakking with your friends, but it's not a legal argument. We have seen the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, through a bogus web site (linked to from their home page), bragging about how much another lawsuit will cost the taxpayers, and all the good things the schools could have done with that money. It's a joke to them.
It's true, it will be expensive for the school district to defend itself. At some point, the anti-MCPS groups hope, they will wear the system down until the other side can't afford to fight any more: this is the great victory they dream of. As civilized people, we must prevent that outcome. "Those who are committed to reason, to working out things, to understanding other people, to peaceful resolution of their differences," must win this one.
We could have required everybody to register with Blogger and use an identifiable name consistently, every time they comment here. But no, we gave our Anonymi a break, just because they're so cute and cuddly with their troll-like features.
Now if you go to leave a comment, you will be shown a box with some letters in it, and you'll have to type those letters into another box. It shouldn't be too hard, though I admit sometimes I can't tell what letter they intend.
Also, it looks like if you have a Blogger account and you stay logged in, it doesn't make you type the letters. When I first set it up, I thought it wasn't working, until I logged out and tried it. So a lot of you won't notice any difference.
Hopefully this fixes the comment-spam problem. When I have lots of time, I'll go through the hundreds of posts that got hit today and delete the junk.
Comments to this blog are being spammed and so we've just turned them off until we can figure out how to stop the spammers.
Christine
UPDATE (JimK) This afternoon we were hit with a couple hundred spam comments within a few minutes, so we shut off the comments. I am going to implement a word verification method; you will be shown some letters in strange writing, and will be asked to type that into a box in order to verify that you are a human being. Unfortunately, right now the Blogger service is not publishing correctly (we've had problems on and off all week with it), so I can't get that to work.
If we get spammed again, we'll have to turn the comments off. In the meantime, have at it, kids.
A lot of the blogs have been talking about this, and it caught my attention, too; Rudolph Giuliani gave a speech the other day with a couple of discussable tidbits in it. These are the kinds of thing that you hear all the time; I'm taking a few lines out of context just to give us a minute to pause and think them through.
As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it. 'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime
OK, that's a handful right there. I'd have to put the pronouns "we" and "they" and the noun "people" in the category strawmen.
Who is afraid to use the word "values?" You? Me? I don't think so. Teach the Facts, for instance, is all about values, the values of kindness, truthfulness, clear critical thinking, fairness. The CRC is also about values, different values from ours, of course -- but that's what this whole controversy is about. Not sure we share values? That's an understatement. It's perfectly clear we don't share values.
And who are "they" who confuse ethics with religion? Well, there are those who believe that only God can provide knowledge of right and wrong. The rest of us are just fine with understanding ethics as a system of human judgments. Do you get the deal about being embarrassed to "reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based?" Yeah, me either. I believe, like our Founding Fathers, in taking a good, reasoned, skeptical view of human nature, bracing for the worst, and living the best. What's embarrassing about that?
But, rich as that paragraph was, there's more here.
We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]
You have free speech so I can be heard.
[ Another interruption. ]
Wow, beautiful. You have free speech so I can be heard. Rudy's a master, nothing less, a master of irony.
I do want to dwell on this paragraph for a minute, because it seems to me that 1.it stands reality on its head and 2.a lot of people will agree with him.
Freedom is about authority.
This sentence is a work of art. Here, Giuliani has crystalized the culture wars into one clear, short, four-word slogan. For many people, the liberty our Founding Fathers fought for and crafted for us was the liberty to obey. Our freedom is the freedom to "cede to lawful authority." We are free to do as we are told.
Let me spell it out: this is exactly the opposite of what the word "freedom" means. The freedom of our forefathers was freedom from authority, from a king who was an unjust and harsh ruler. Freedom doesn't suddenly mean something new, it's always meant the same thing: Webster says:
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another...
There's nothing ambiguous about that.
Look, we grew up with this stuff in the fifties and early sixties, during the McCarthy years. Conformity was an ideal and obedience to authority was an ideal, and the kooks were suspected to be communists, leading us all toward a depersonalized robotic totalitarian state with their nonconformity. I really used to think that America had passed that stage, that we had learned our lesson and would never go back to that. But here it is in a nutshell, this guy is running for President on the United States talking like this.
Let me try a generous interpretation. Let's say he means that we are free to choose to obey authority. Whaddya think? Of course he doesn't mean that. He may think he means that, but how does he feel about those who actually exercise their choice, and refuse to accept authority? Of course he rejects the validity of that option. It's not a choice.
Why is this worth talking about? It's because these kinds of statements ring happy bells for many people. These are some soul-stirring slogans here, people will get worked up about this sort of thing, but when you get down to it they are self-invalidating statements. Freedom is not obedience. Values are not embarrassing. American values are not homogeneous, and diversity -- even diversity of belief -- is not dangerous.
These are times when you need to listen with your mind. You need to be careful to think about what these guys are saying: they're counting on you not to.
Terrance at Republic of T has been doing something really cool. You remember that Congress was considering a new hate-crimes bill that would have extended the definition to include violence motivated by the victim's perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. The religious right went nuts when this was proposed, I know that's hard to explain how you go nuts when you're already nuts, but let's say they really opposed this new amendment. They get protection, based on their religious beliefs, which they choose, but gay and transgender people shouldn't.
Anyway, as he explains HERE, Terrance started compiling information about hate crimes against sexual minorities and posting them at Wikipedia. There's already a pretty good page on Violence against LGBT people, but T. wanted more precise documentation.
As far as I can tell, Terrance hasn't posted a list or index to the entries he's contributed to Wikipedia, so I just went through his blog, picking out the ones I saw. This might be the list so far, in alphabetical order:
I suggest you click on each of those links, read those stories. You tell me what it is that makes the so-called Christians feel so strongly -- you explain to me why they want this kind of behavior protected.
Any of these cases will turn your stomach. The whole bunch of them will haunt you for the rest of the day.
It's bad enough that individual people behave this way, that they manifest their ignorance in violence, but you would think our society would be unanimously opposed to it. So why are groups like Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, American Family Association, President Bush, and the rest of them so adamant about defending this kind of behavior?
Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.
Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.
It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?
Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.
Last night we went to the Montgomery County Fair, man, there's nothing like it. My wife and I were talking afterwards, she was wondering if every place has something like that, and I figured yes, there must be something like "the fair" everywhere. The nature of farming requires that people are separated -- it takes space to grow stuff, acreage. So farmers are spread out. And this time of year, the crops are coming in, the young animals have been born, it's time to go to town and do some business. I imagine that any place that has farming has something like a fair in the late summer or fall. People get together, there has to be something for the kids to do, food to eat, social events, it's an inevitable consequence of agriculture.
There's no glamor at the fair, no beautiful people. Oh, there were beautiful people, I felt like Walt Whitman walking around marveling at my wondrous neighbors, but even the beautiful ones look ... unbeautiful. People are there to look, not to be looked at. All blobs of fat are conspicuous, all colors clash, all hair-dos are mussed or have been sabotaged by wind or activity, body proportions seem exaggerated in an unglamorous direction. Everybody's face is tired or distracted or absorbed or smeared with food or silly in some way.
I guess what I'm saying is, at the fair everybody is a kid.
The midways were packed, I mean, solid people. Boyfriends and girlfriends holding hands tightly so they wouldn't be pulled apart, parents nagging their little ones to stay close, food instantly trampled as it hits the ground, carney recordings -- none of it is live any more, it's all recordings blaring from PA speakers, yelling at you to see the "world's biggest horse" or win a prize or get on a ride, or if you're already on one, urging you to shout or whatever. And it's all so crazy, if there's a rope to control crowd flow, people are ducking under it and cutting across; lines wrap around organically, sprawling, kids cutting in and others wandering off at approximately the same rate so it actually works without anybody getting too mad. You hear every language in the world, too, and see every nationality in their native costume, everybody who lives can enjoy the fair.
I don't like to go on the rides. Life is scary enough for me, without, you know, defying gravity. They got me to go on the ferris wheel; my daughter, after calling me a bunch of names challenging my manhood, promised "I'll be there for you, honey, don't worry, I'll be right there, you can hold my hand if you get frightened." Still, I didn't look down.
It's been a weird week, it seems to me, as we realize that the Democratic Congress really isn't going to do anything to make America well. There was a sense of optimism when the possibility of checks and balances was restored to the federal government, yeah, well, that didn't happen. They're giving our rights away as fast as the last guys did. (I just went out and got the paper -- and I should mention that this is the most beautiful morning in all of Montgomery County history, sunny and cool and clear, just outrageous.) The Washington Post has a front page story called "How the Fight for Vast New Spying Powers Was Won," which tells you whose side they're on. Shouldn't that have said "Was Lost"? They don't even think about it, it's obvious to them. The good guys want to be able to spy on the American people without a warrant, the evil bad guys don't want them to. The good guys won, according to the Post. Oh well, what can you do on the most beautiful morning in all of recorded history? Have another cup of delicious coffee, listen to some jazz guitar on WPFW, wait for the family to wake up, not much a person can do to save the world at this moment.
There's not a lot new in the local sex-ed controversy, we're waiting for the latest legal appeal to come through -- nobody expects the courts to overrule the state school board, this seems like a formality, but then the CRC, with Thomas More Law Center representing them, will sue in state court, they say. Well, they have the right, you wouldn't want to see them give up without having exhausted every possibility. I guess.
There was one thing that happened this week, pretty typical, not exactly newsworthy at the time but you'll be interested to hear about it.
You might remember when David Fishback, former chair of the citizens committee that worked on the "old new" sex-ed curriculum, was on TV with the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum's John Garza a few months ago; you can read about it HERE. Well, another show, Maryland Public Television State Circle, was going to have them on this past week to talk about the curriculum.
First, they arranged it with Garza. Garza's a lawyer, and Fishback's a lawyer, by the way, this is a good matchup. Garza was happy to go on TV and give the CRC's view of things, how the schools are promoting the gay agenda, how they're discriminating against Christians, how they don't teach enough about anal sex, about the "unisex bathrooms" that will become inevitable if this goes forward.
Having lined up Garza, Maryland Public Television contacted Dan Furmansky, leader of Equality Maryland, who recommended Fishback to balance out the show. So they called David, who agreed to it. Then they told Garza, who decided he didn't want to appear on the show after all. The producer was able to talk him into it though, and we were all ready to watch another showdown between the most articulate leaders on each side of the debate, very knowledgeable men who have experience in public speaking, in composing their arguments and representing their points of view carefully and thoroughly. Should be good.
The show was scheduled for Friday. The interviews would take place in the afternoon, they'd edit the tapes and put it on in the evening.
This is funny: they changed the announcement on the Montgomery Public Television site (though Fishback and Garza are still in the Google cache HERE), but you can see the announcement on the "Think Classroom" site HERE:
David Fishback; Former Chairman, Citizens' Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development; John Garza; President, Citizens For Responsible Curriculum Recently the Montgomery County school board approved a new lesson plan on sexual orientation. Montgomery County middle and high schools will introduce homosexuality and gender identity in health classes. Tonight we'll discuss both sides of the issue. David Fishback was Chair of the Montgomery County Board of Education's Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development from 2003 to 2005, and is a member of TeachtheFacts.org, a grass-roots organization formed to support comprehensive and accurate sexuality education in Montgomery County. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Metro DC Chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).
In case you didn't see the last show they did together, let me just mention, it wasn't really fair; Fishback out-argued Garza on every point, he had the facts and he had the reasoning to make sense of them, while Garza had empty assertions. So this time, the day before the show was to be taped, Garza canceled. The CRC also didn't have anybody else who could do it. Every single one of their thousands and thousands of supporters were busy Friday.
The show has been rescheduled for September 7th. It is my understanding that it'll go on whether the CRC provides anyone or not. They usually try to get both sides of an issue, but if one side doesn't want to speak up ... what do you do?
The CRC convinced the Thomas More Law Center, a pretty big Catholic religious-rights legal firm, to represent them in court. Their complaint comes down to this: the new curriculum has stuff they don't like. They don't like it that students will learn that sexual orientation is innate. They don't like it that students will learn a little bit about prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. They just don't like it. Can you go to court with that? Well, yes, if you get a lawyer to file the papers you can go to court with anything. Can they win? Hey, stranger stuff has happened; those cleaners in DC almost had to pay fifty four million dollars for losing a guy's pants, because the sign said "Satisfaction guaranteed" and he wasn't satisfied. You can't guess what a judge is going to say. And again, you can't blame them for trying. They really think this curriculum is wild and out of bounds, and apparently they convinced some lawyers in Michigan who go around and do this kind of thing, so ... buckle your seat belts, here we go again.
But listen, how are you going to convince a judge, if you're afraid to join in a debate on a TV talk show? The CRC must know that as soon as they try to say any of this stuff in court (Thomas More Law Center has the gist of their complaint HERE), the other side is going to jump up and counter it. That's how it works, the courtroom is where two sides of a dispute present their best arguments and somebody, a judge or a jury or whatever, decides between them. Last time, the school district's lawyers seemed to have not given the nuances of the issue much thought, they were sucker-punched and out-lawyered by the guys from Jerry Falwell's legal team. This time, they have studied the curriculum in detail, from Step One. They know what's in it, they know what the issues are, they know what the research says. This time the schools will be fairly defended. And the CRC will be represented by the group that tried to get the schools in Dover, Pennsylvania to teach Intelligent Design instead of Biology.
Everybody knows that the Internet is jam-packed with adult predators trying to meet innocent children and take advantage of them. Like, just watch "To Catch a Predator," in which week after week they lure a bunch of the dumbest no-good losers on the planet to a meeting with an underage kid who turns out to be the cops and a TV crew instead. It's every parent's nightmare, and the horror stories are out there.
But what is the real situation? How often does this sort of thing actually happen? The National School Boards Association, with Grunwald Associates LLC, conducted a survey to find out a little bit about what's actually going on with kids and the Internet.
Overall, an astonishing 96 percent of students with online access report that they have ever used any social networking technologies, such as chatting, text messaging, blogging and visiting online communities, such as Facebook, MySpace and services designed specifically for younger children, such as Webkins and the chat sections of Nick.com. CREATING & CONNECTING//Research and Guidelines on Online Social — and Educational — Networking
Ninety-sex percent -- that's basically all of them. I know my kids can hardly imagine a world where you're not instant-messaging with a half-dozen people at once, while you're fixing up your MySpace and watching TV ... oh, and texting on the cell-phone.
It was not so many years ago, when mine were in grade school, that the general situation was that the kids knew a lot more about computers than their teachers did. I don't think it's like that any more, but there's no doubt, they've grown up in this environment, the net is like air to them. We can't even imagine what that's like, being a kid in the Age of the Internet.
The survey finds that about a fifth of the kids are what they call "nonconformists." These are the ones who break the safety rules occasionally, and are more likely to be using other advanced and new technology; they are also seen by their peers as leaders.
There is a lot of information here about how schools are dealing with all this. For instance, most schools (69 percent) have student web site programs, and nearly all school districts assign homework that requires the Internet to complete. They also mostly have some rules about instant messaging and social networking on the school computers, and most require parents to sign some sort of agreement before their kids can go online at school.
But that's not really the stuff we worry about. There is a dark side out there -- how does that affect our kids?
One in five students (20 percent) say they have seen inappropriate pictures on social networking sites in the last three months; 11 percent of parents, referring to their own children over the last six months, concur.
Nearly one in five students (18 percent) say they have seen inappropriate language on social networking sites; 16 percent of parents concur.
Personally directed incidents, which are of serious concern to students, parents and educators, are relatively rare. About one in 14 students (7 percent) say someone has asked them for information about their personal identity on a social networking site; 6 percent of parents concur. About one in 14 students (7 percent) say they’ve experienced selfdefined cyberbullying; 5 percent of parents concur. About one in 25 students (4 percent) say they’ve had conversations on social networking sites that made them uncomfortable; 3 percent of parents concur. Fewer than one in 30 students (3 percent) say unwelcome strangers have tried repeatedly to communicate with them online; 3 percent of parents concur. Only about one in 50 students (2 percent) say a stranger they met online tried to meet them in person; 2 percent of parents concur. Only .08 percent of all students say they’ve actually met someone in person from an online encounter without their parents’ permission.
I don't know, 0.08 percent -- that's nearly one kid in a thousand has gone to meet somebody in person without telling their parents. Sounds like a lot to me. But then, we're imagining some creepy adult, I think most of the time it's actually another kid.
The survey report ends up with a series of thought-provoking recommendations. Here are the section headings:
Consider using social networking for staff communications and professional development.
Find ways to harness the educational value of social networking.
Ensure equitable access.
Pay attention to the nonconformists.
Reexamine social networking policies.
Encourage social networking companies to increase educational value.
The lesson here is first, it isn't as bad out there as you might think. Yeah the kids are online day and night, but mostly, remember, they're talking to each other. Second, these researchers suggest that adults can learn from the students as well as trying to direct them away from danger. This new technology catches on among the young first -- it is very interesting that they conclude that schools should use these techniques for their own communications and staff development.
Third, these "nonconformists" are an interesting breed. They are well-adjusted, smart, popular, technically savvy -- and their grades are mediocre to bad. They get more out of the social world of the Internet than they do from traditional academics. These are the young people who will be the leaders in ten or twenty years, we ought to make sure we don't lose them by restricting them and restraining them in ways that only make sense if you're a paranoid, ignorant, and old-fashioned grown-up. We need to keep them in the system, learning, going on to college and maybe beyond, these are the exact kids you want to succeed in life. They're the ones who take the risks; yeah, that scares us, they're doing things we can't comprehend, but we need to capitalize on that impetuous energy and turn it into something positive.
I suggest you click on that link and browse through that interesting document. It's about twelve pages of solid information, something all parents should be keeping an eye on.
The Wall of Separation -- the blog for Americans United for Separation of Church and State -- catches author Stephen Mansfield telling a big lie in an interview on Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink Daily Update site.
Mansfield, author of Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America... and What’s Happened Since, says, “Washington was a believer. Washington preached to more churches than any other president in American history — while president. I write that he calls America to a deep faith and to the ethics of that faith.
I repeat what he said in his farewell address, that we cannot expect societal ethics apart from religion. I write that he calls men very boldly to model themselves on Jesus Christ.”
So Wall of Separation asked an expert, Philander D. Chase, senior editor of the Papers of George Washington at the University of Virginia.
And he says?
“We do not know of any instance,” Chase says, “of Washington preaching to a church congregation while he was president or at any other time of his life. As president he did attend a variety of church services, apparently to underscore the importance of religious tolerance as part of national unity. ...
“We have not found any instance,” Chase concludes, “where Washington used the names ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ’ either separately or together in his personal correspondence, but Washington certainly thought of himself as a Christian. Again, we unfortunately cannot probe but so far into Washington’s religious beliefs, because he never undertook to explain or justify them in detail.”
How can they do this? This writer tries to sell us the idea that George Washington preached everywhere he went, that he talked incessantly about his faith -- and it ... just ... didn't ... happen. We don't even know what he believed. Never preached in any church, as far as anybody knows.
I can't get a handle on the kind of mind that just makes stuff up and offers it as fact, just can't understand it. Or the kind of mind that seeks out this sort of discussion and believes it.
I'm not going to go into it here, but the Wall of Separation blog post is very interesting, exposing Mansfield's theocratic agenda; it's the kind of thing that does not survive in the sunlight.
Mark Hoofnagle at the Denialism Blog had it exactly right yesterday:
Democrats, empowered by their victories last November and in response by a nation-wide desire to hold the presidency accountable vote to expand warrantless wiretapping.
OK, I'm old fashioned. I don't see the sense in buying bottled water. I see people pay a buck or more when there's a drinking fountain right there for free, and it just drives me crazy.
Oh, it's so much better, you say.
Both Coke and Pepsi have their brands. Coca-Cola sells Dasani and Pepsi markets Aquafina.
UK's The Economist has a pretty good story about this;
SO THE emperor really isn’t wearing any clothes. Last week PepsiCo announced that the label on its Aquafina brand of bottled water will soon carry the words “public water source”, instead of simply the innocent looking “P.W.S.”. That’s right: Aquafina is to all intents and purposes tap water. Coca-Cola is under pressure to follow suit with its Dasani brand, though so far it is refusing to do so. “We don’t believe that consumers are confused about the source of Dasani water,” Diana Garza Ciarlante, a Coca-Cola spokeswoman, said. “The label clearly states that it is purified water.”
No doubt Coca-Cola still remembers what happened in Britain in 2004, when the press made a stink over the fact that Dasani was simply filtered tap water. The company became a laughing stock, as readers were reminded of an episode of a popular TV comedy, “Only Fools and Horses”. In it Del Boy, a decidedly dodgy businessman, decides to bottle tap water, selling it as “Peckham Spring”, named after the unprepossessing inner-London borough. No sooner had the initial furore died down than Coca-Cola discovered that some of the water had been contaminated betwixt tap and bottle, and decided to admit defeat. Dasani was axed in Britain a mere five weeks after it was launched. Bottled water and snake oil
So, can you believe that? They put P.W.S. on the bottle as if that told you you were paying top dollar for tapwater. Public water source. It's like something P.T. Barnum would do. I can think of a million things "P.W.S." could stand for, public water source does not spring to mind, you might say.
Q: Do these guys think we're idiots? A: Yes.
Q: Are they right? A: Discuss among yourselves.
This article has some fun and interesting observations. Like:
The success of bottled water is in many ways one of capitalism’s greatest mysteries. Studies show consistently that tap water is purer than many bottled waters—not including those that contain only tap water, which by some estimates is 40% of the total by volume. The health benefits that are claimed for some bottled waters are unproven, at best. By volume, bottled water often costs 1,000 times the price of tap water. Indeed, even with oil prices sky high, a litre of bottled water can cost more than a litre of petrol. And on top of that, there are the environmental costs of transporting bottled water and of manufacturing and disposing of the bottles.
Yet sales of bottled water have been booming. In 2006 Americans spent nearly $11 billion buying 8.25 billion gallons (31.2 billion litres) of the stuff, an increase in volume of 9.5% on a year earlier. The average American drank 27.6 gallons of bottled water last year, up from 16.7 gallons in 2000.
As an inherently lazy person, I have always admired people who do things like earthworm farming, say, where you basically didn't do anything for your money. You put some worms in some dirt, and later you dig them up. So I am not really against the idea that somebody would pour tapwater into a bottle and charge people a lot for it.
At the same time, yeah it's nice that somebody makes a living by putting rainwater, or tapwater, in a bottle, but ... hey, I can remember when a bottle of water was a dime. Same as a Coke. Just joking, a dime is still a hundred times what a drink of water actually costs if you pour it from the faucet yourself. Crazy stuff, weird and wacky times we live in.
Robert posted a link to an Alliance Defense Fund press release in our comments the other day:
ARLINGTON, Va. — Arlington Public Schools agreed yesterday to permit Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) to distribute and post its flyers on the same terms and conditions as other Virginia community groups. Attorneys with the Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund brought suit against school officials in May when they refused to distribute PFOX’s flyers even though they were distributing flyers for other community outreach groups.
“Christian community groups are not second class to other community groups. The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech for all is principally about ensuring that all citizens have a right to be heard on critically important issues,” said Timothy J. Tracey, litigation counsel for CLS’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom. “The school district is finally recognizing this obligation by allowing PFOX to share its viewpoint along with other community organizations.” CLS and ADF win equal treatment for Christian group distributing flyers to students
Wow, that sounds like a pretty big deal. We reported on the situation down there (HERE); PFOX was pushing to get the schools to distribute their flyers, and then the school district just said it wasn't going to distribute anybody's flyers. So there.
ADF represents them, I guess, and they filed a suit, it sounds like, and looky here, they won ... a settlement.
I thought it was weird that no newspaper or news site carried the story. It seems to me I recall an occasion where one of these nutty guys, y'know, exaggerated something. Maybe I was wrong.
OK, here it is. It is a little bit interesting to see how the Associated Press wrote it up yesterday.
McLEAN, Va. - An organization that advocates therapy to convert gays has settled a lawsuit with Arlington County school officials over their refusal to distribute its fliers to high-school students. As a result, the group is now considering targeting its message to even younger students in middle schools. Group promoting gay 'conversion' settles with Arlington schools
Isn't that great? Now they can target "even younger students."
Listen, let me tell you, they don't like me to say this about them, but I think there is something really creepy about PFOX trying to lure teenagers who think they might be gay to contact them -- never mind that now they're going after preteens.
Do you see anything wrong with that picture? No? Put Richard Cohen's face on it. Now?
(And don't think Cohen isn't still working for PFOX or vice versa -- look HERE.)
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, or PFOX, sued school system administrators and board members earlier this year in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, claiming that they improperly blocked their request to send out fliers to high school students.
School officials denied any discrimination. They said all outside groups are barred from distributing fliers at high schools, basically because students don't read them. But those rules were not part of the school board's written policy, said schools spokeswoman Linda Erdos.
Last month the school board formally revised its written policy, allowing flier distribution only at middle and elementary schools.
So there it is, the new policy. Same as the old policy, except in writing.
A settlement, reached last week, specifically states that PFOX will have the same access given to other groups and can submit fliers for distribution to middle and elementary school students if it wishes, said PFOX's lawyer, Timothy Tracey.
If I was a parent, and PFOX was trying to make contact with my elementary or middle-school kid, uh ... I'd better not say.
PFOX, based in Fairfax County, has been controversial for its support of conversion or reparative therapy, which many mental health experts say is harmful. It has also opposed sex-education curriculum in Montgomery County, Md., and elsewhere that it believes advocate a homosexual agenda.
Tracey said Monday that PFOX is considering distributing its fliers at middle schools but has no plans to do so at elementary schools.
"It's better to aim at a more mature audience," Tracey said.
A little story in the Indianapolis Star this week:
Screeners from the Transportation Security Administration checked passengers at two Downtown city bus stops this morning, looking for weapons and suspicious behavior.
David Kane, federal security director for TSA in Indianapolis, called it a "VIPR" operation.
"It's called Visual Intermodal Prevention Response. We have plainclothes inspectors, blue-gloved uniformed security officers who are checking baggage, the behavior detection officers, and federal air marshals, which are the law enforcement arm of TSA."
Security stations were set up at bus stops at Capitol Avenue and Market Street, and Ohio and Meridian streets.
Some passengers were patted down or submitted to having bags checked.
TSA said the searches were "by-permission," meaning patrons could decline to be checked. Those who did would not be turned away, an official said, unless they otherwise appeared to be a security threat. TSA checks IndyGo bus passengers
The Transportation Security Administration is searching people getting on the bus. Does that set off any kind of alarm for you? It appears that the word "Transportation" in their name now really means any transportation. How soon will they start randomly searching Metro riders? Do you suppose they have the power to search you in your car? Where does this end?
My son and I had some experiences flying last week, and I'll tell you, these guys are something else.
Going into the terminal at National, my kid put his cell phone in the tray with his change and other things. We walked through the metal detector and waited for our stuff to go through the x-ray machine. As it came out, I don't know what happened, but the phone fell out of the tray and bounced on the floor. He picked it up and said to the x-ray operator, "You just knocked my phone on the floor."
The guy barely glanced up. He said, "I didn't see anything." That was that. The phone now does not turn off when you close it; it's busted. Later on our trip we got a complaint form. The TSA guy who gave it to us said it takes three to six months for them to decide how to respond. We'll send it in, just to see. What do you think they'll do? I don't either.
In Houston, we had a four-hour layover, and I called home. I stood off to the side, with my back to the room, talking with my wife on the cell phone. We were already in the secure area, you don't have to go through security when you change planes. Pretty soon I noticed that there were TSA uniforms all around me. I wondered if I looked suspicious talking on the phone, and then realized that it was the most unsuspicious thing in the world, a guy talking on the phone in an airport.
So about six of them came and set up a little table next to the agents' desk, while the passengers lined up to board. Then, this was unbelievable. A TSA guy would walk over to the front of the line and look at some people, then he'd point to somebody and they'd have to go over to the table to be searched, and TSA would go through his stuff. After a while they'd get another person, just whoever happened to be standing near the front. Never anybody from the back of the line, or even the middle, just the most obvious people in the front. By "obvious," I don't mean obviously terrorists, I mean like somebody who'd make eye contact with them.
One guy who had been searched came back and stood near the desk. He called to his wife, "I already went through that, I'm getting in the front. Come on up here with me." So the TSA guy got her out of line and took her over to be searched, too, as punishment for being married to a guy who sort-of-almost-kind-of complained about being hassled for no reason
This is the least effective security strategy you could imagine.
In Phoenix, I didn't see this, but somebody mentioned it right after it happened -- "Did you see that?" As we walked past the stash of seized items, two TSA guys were picking through the confiscated booze bottles, talking about what they were going to bring home.
This was also in Phoenix, there was a long line to get through security. We waited a long time, shoes in hand, ID and boarding pass ready. And then right when I got to the conveyer belt, this guy in a TSA uniform walked right up to the front of the line, right in front of me, grabbed a tray, and threw his stuff on the belt in front of mine. I said, "Hey, what's that about?"
He looked at me, sort of surprised-looking, and said, "If you don't like it, I'll go somewhere else." Then he went to the front of the line next to mine and did the same thing. Nobody said anything over there, and he just went through.
Remember, I wrote last year about the TSA feeding potential pie-bombs to soldiers at the airport. It was Thanksgiving week and they were taking pies away from people and giving them to the soldiers.
The question was: if they know they're safe enough for soldiers to eat, why do they take them away in the first place?
And don't forget a couple of weeks ago when TSA was warning us that they had broken up some terrorists' dry runs. Remember that? They were practicing smuggling parts of bombs onto airplanes, so they could assemble the bombs in flight. It was a lie. Watch that CNN video. Man, that is one scary little old lady, isn't it?
Security and liberty are known to step on one another's toes at times. And when you give someone power over other people, it is not unusual for them to take more. I think Phil Zimbardo has a best-seller out about that right now, doesn't he?
Oh hey, one of the most interesting things on the blogonet this week has been security expert Bruce Schneier's five-part interview with TSA Administrator Kip Hawley. It is a mostly candid interview, where Schneier comes at him with both barrels. Some of the answers are deceptive and/or deflective and some are of the "I can't tell you that" variety, but Hawley explains a few of the things they're doing, and hints that there are things we don't know about. Anyway, don't take my word for it, go read it yourself, all five parts together HERE.
I don't think Schneier knew that they have started searching people on buses, he didn't ask anything about that.
Man, yesterday was a hot one, wasn't it? This time of year it's humid, stuffy. This is when you're glad there's air conditioning. So far this morning it's not too bad, but I admit I'm glad I'm indoors looking out.
It looks like the CRC and the other groups are getting ready to sue the school district again. They brag on their bogus web sites:
Win or lose this lawsuit will cost taxpayers big bucks which could be used to help special needs children or support other programs.
And what a triumph that would be, eh?
From the very start they have felt that suing in itself was worth doing. One of them said in an online discussion in January, 2005:
Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis.
So here we go again, wasting the people's money, merit or no merit.
The Thomas More site gives four objections that the CRC and other groups have to the new curricululm.
Shall we look at those?
(1) it teaches students that homosexuality is "innate," which is an unproven theory.
I don't think the legal attack is going to get very far with this. First of all, the consensus of the medical and scientific communities is that sexual orientation is innate. Second, everybody knows it's innate. People who try to change their sexual orientation fail. Even the "ex-gay" groups have realized that the most they can do is resist their feelings, they'll never change them.
I'm not sure what exactly they dislike about this statement, about the idea of innateness. They wouldn't mind if the schools taught that people were innately heterosexual, but the idea that you could be anything else really bugs them. Maybe it has to do with the idea that God makes some people gay, maybe that's the hard part. Why would He do that? That just might be too hard to understand, for some people. Generally, I think this is part of the PFOX-ish delusion that people can stop being gay. If it's innate, then you can only change so much, you can't really change your true nature, and they can't accept that.
I would think they'd appreciate these statements, as it would help explain the Ted Haggard type of phenomenon, which we have seen numerous times, where a paragon of straightness turns out to have a secret homosexual life. They should be able to look at someone like Ted Haggard and say, he was torn in a struggle between his religious values and the way he is -- innately.
Anyway, there is simply no case to be made that sexual orientation is anything but innate. They probably have some NARTH guys ready to testify, maybe Richard Cohen can sit in the witness box, but it wouldn't be hard at all for MCPS to trot out some actual experts, some professors and doctors who will read the statements of the AMA, the APA's (both Psychiatric and Psychological), and other groups. They can't win on this. No one expects "scientific proof" for everything in a health class, especially since any scientist will tell you that nothing in science is ever proven.
(2) it teaches students that anal sex is just another sexual option without warning students of the increased HIV/AIDS risk of anal sex, even with a condom.
They're off on the wrong foot here, distorting the curriculum content before they've even gotten into the courtroom yet.
"Anal sex" is mentioned in one place in the sex-ed classes. It is mentioned in the condom lesson, because in fact it is good practice to use a condom for anal, as well as vaginal, sex. Nowhere is it said or implied to be "just another sexual option."
The CRC thinks that anal sex is something that gay men do. To them, it's nothing but a dirty way to spread HIV. Let me note that one, not all gay men engage in anal sex, and two, lots of straight people do. Do the numbers: it is overwhelmingly a heterosexual thing to do. A recent survey reported by the CDC found that 3.7 percent of men have had anal sex with another man; forty percent of men and thirty-nine percent of women have had anal sex with someone of the opposite sex.
We should also point out that there is an STD section to the Health curriculum, where health risks are discussed. I understand that section will come under review in the next year or so. If there is not enough about the special risks of anal sex in these days of AIDS, then that should be corrected. But so far the CRC and the Thomas More Law Center have not mentioned the STD section -- this latest appeal concerns the new lessons, which are about sexual orientation and condom use.
(3) it labels as "homophobic" children who hold traditional religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality.
Homophobia is not mentioned at all in the eighth grade classes. In tenth grade a definition is given: Homophobia—"an extreme or irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." (Random House Webster’s Dictionary, 2001)
There is also a paragraph in a textbook chapter that says:
Homophobia is a fear or hatred of people believed to be homosexual. The term is used broadly to describe any range of negative attitudes toward or about gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgender people. Homophobia may be shown in ways as mild as laughing at a gay joke or as severe and violent as gay bashing or murder. Like any other prejudice, homophobia is learned. Children are not born hating; they learn to hate and fear from messages they receive while growing up.
OK, now look at that, and show us where "children who hold traditional religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality" are going to be labeled homophobic.
Homophobia is an attitude, which can be demonstrated in a lot of ways. Laughing at gay jokes: homophobia "may be shown in ways as mild" as that. Bashing and murdering gay people: homophobic. Considering them sinners and praying for their souls: not mentioned. The only thing I can see here is that the suers want to imply that there is a "traditional religious or moral belief" that gay jokes are funny. How far can they get with that?
(4) it teaches students that transgenderism is just another "sexual orientation," even though transgenderism has been classified as a mental disorder.
I don't know what they think they're going to gain here. True, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual has a section on Gender Identity Disorder. Some people live their whole lives feeling that they are in the wrong body. Do the suers deny that? I don't see how they could. Is it a mental disorder? Well, this is an interesting question. It's got to be terribly painful to live every day feeling you are a fake, that your life is a lie, and knowing that people are not addressing the real you. Also remember, by diagnosing the situation as a disorder, it may be possible to get insurance companies to pay for the treatment, which sometimes is sexual reassignment surgery.
These guys like to say that it's a mental disorder, but it's not clear what mileage they hope to get out of that. I think -- this is just a guess -- that they must believe transgender people decide to be that way, like a fashion statement or something. And again, it might be too difficult for some people to imagine that God would make somebody that way.
There is, in truth, something not-perfect about the way the curriculum throws gender identity topics in with sexual orientation. Gender identity is who you are, orientation is who you're attracted to, they're two different things. But I don't think the religious right's lawyers would come to town to sue the district for violating the strict hierarchical form of the taxonomy.
That's their four points, that's what they say they're taking to court.
The strategy since Day One has been to wear the county down. Keep whining, keep complaining, keep suing, and eventually it will just be too expensive and too much hassle; then the majority will give up the fight and the nutty ones can have their way.
It's hard to get excited about defending the school district, partly because this is just so obvious. It's like opposing torture -- who in the world would want to torture people? You feel silly saying you're against it. But, look, it turns out you have to. At some point you have to take a stand and say, they are entitled to their beliefs, but we're not going to let a handful of extremists call the shots in our school district.
Last week a web site was saying that the CRC, PFOX, and the Family Leader Network had filed another lawsuit. I'm not going to link to the site, but it said:
Citizens for Responsible Curriculum (CRC), Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) and Family Leader Network have filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,Case Number 284980 as a result of the sex ed indoctrination curriculum passed by the BOE earlier this year. The parents groups are represented by the Thomas More Law Center a Catholic legal group. Sharon Cox and Pat O’ Neill must be joyous as they got what they wanted, another lawsuit against the BOE. Cox and O’Neill taunted the groups with statements like “bring it on” during BOE meetings. Win or lose this lawsuit will cost taxpayers big bucks which could be used to help special needs children or support other programs.
Well, it wasn't hard to go to the courthouse and find out what Case Number 284980 is. You can see it HERE. It's five pages of a "Civil-Non-Domestic Case Information Report." When you get past the form data, here's what it says:
Petitioners/appellants Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, and Family Leader Network, who were all parties to the agency proceeding, request judicial review of Opinion No. 07-30, dated June 27, 2007, and sent by the Maryland State Board of Education on July 3, 2007, to petitioners. A copy of the opinion is attached hereto.
Not much to it, just asking for review of the state board's decision.
ANN ARBOR, MI – A public school district’s program promoting anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality, and transvestitism as normal sexual variations was recently approved by the Maryland State Board of Education despite strenuous opposition from several pro-family groups. Montgomery County Public School’s controversial sexuality curriculum for eighth and tenth grade students is the result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups.
In response, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it will assist the pro-family groups in their appeal of the Education Board’s decision to the Montgomery County Circuit Court. The Law Center will be assisted by Maryland attorney John R. Garza who has been involved in the curriculum fight for several years.
You may remember the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) as being the group that sued to get the schools in Dover, Pennsylvania, to teach Intelligent Design instead of evolution. The school board up there hired them to push it through.
The judge ruled hard against them. His opinion, which was beautiful, by the way, minced no words, you can read it HERE.
Among other things, he ruled against the Dover school board because:
The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC.
I'm just saying. They lost, partly, because they used these lawyers.
What do they hope to get out of this? Well, here's what they're saying, anyway, at TMLC:
The Montgomery County Circuit Court may overturn the decision of the State Board of Education. The court may also stay the application of the sexuality curriculum while the appeal is pending. If the court affirms the decision of the State Board of Education, the case will be appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
So that seems to be the strategy. They have to go all the way through the current system before they can move the case to a state court (not federal, as they were saying earlier). The plan is to sue again, using Thomas More this time.
Also, we note that the CRC sent out a newsletter yesterday that said:
Donations are desperately needed to help with the legal battle - if the 2,000 of you on this list click the link below and donate just 10.00, that would be an enormous help in defraying our legals costs.
This all makes you think the Law Center isn't really getting behind this with much force.
The Gazette had several letters this week about the sex-ed curriculum. One was from the leader of a Mormon group that opposes the new classes, repeating the same ... old ... cliches about the curriculum.
Here we go again:
While some may give Montgomery County’s new sex education curriculum an A for Acceptance of sexual variations, I would give it a D for Dishonesty because it is written from an advocacy perspective and omits health risks.
Mmm, yeah, a team of doctors from the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote it, they're child advocates, health advocates, research advocates. That's why they wrote it from an "advocacy perspective."
And it "omits health risks" because the health risks are in the Health Risk section of the Health Curriculum, which, I believe, is scheduled to start the day after the condom lesson. Some parts of the Health curriculum were recently overhauled; the Sexually Transmitted Disease section was not part of that, but it's there.
The condom video tells kids to use a condom for vaginal, anal and oral sex. A diverse group of 270 Montgomery County physicians signed a petition stating that a quote from a U.S. Surgeon General on the risks of anal intercourse even with condoms should be included in the curriculum. This petition was rejected by the Citizens Advisory Committee and the school board!
For some reason, the CRC and their friends are just dying to get the schools to talk more about anal sex. The video says to use a condom for anal sex because that's sound medical advice. There's no need to go into graphic detail in 10th grade about how you do that, they just need to know to use the condom correctly.
And the quote from the Surgeon General, oh come on. We've talked about that HERE, among other places. That was nearly twenty years ago. The guy wasn't even Surgeon General when he made the statement they want to include. There was a new, unexplained AIDS epidemic, something nobody'd ever seen, the country was in a panic. It was good advice then, it's bad advice now.
The doctor's petition, oh boy, here we go again; this is like whack-a-mole, one says it then the other one pops up and says it. We talked about that petition HERE, HERE, and HERE. Those doctors didn't know what they were signing. At least one wrote to the school district to retract her signature. I talked to another one, who said he and his partners felt tricked when they found out what the CRC's Ruth Jacobs had gotten them to sign. They did not agree with it, or with the CRC's position, at all. I know there are lots of others, but they're doctors, they're too busy to deal with it.
Would you reject the medical advice of 270 physicians and a U.S Surgeon General on a life and death health issue?
On several occasions the latest medical studies from the NIH Consensus Conference on condom protection rates were presented to the CAC and school board. These valuable statistics, which would motivate most teens to choose abstinence, failed to be included in the curriculum. Students are simply told ‘‘using a condom correctly and consistently greatly increases the chance that it will be effective in preventing pregnancy and many STIs/STDs.”
No, the "latest medical studies from the NIH Consensus Conference" were not presented to the committee. One sentence, taken out of context, was presented. You can read about that HERE -- scroll down near the end -- or see the report itself HERE. The report says, among other things:
... These data provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms for reducing sexually transmitted HIV.
Which is one reason the curriculum recommends using them.
Would you define 85 percent protection from HIV/AIDS and a mere 25 percent protection from HPV, the leading cause of cervical cancer, as ‘‘effective?”
Uh, 85 percent, yes, that's definitely worth doing. (You should see how these numbers are calculated.) The 25 percent is nonsense. HPV can be transmitted by any skin-to-skin contact, it can be transmitted sexually or any other way. If you wore a condom over your whole body, it'd work. Covering a few inches of skin might not, but it sure won't hurt any.
Why would school officials hide the health risks of sexual activity from students?
They "hide the health risks" so students can "find them" in the STD section, the next day.
Parents would be wise to keep their children out of these classes.
RoseMarie Briggs, North Potomac
The writer is executive director of the Family Leader Network and a MCPS parent.
They just keep doing this, distorting, whining, complaining. That's why we can't let up. They substitute their slogans for facts, and people who pick up the newspaper can't tell the difference -- who (besides us) would go to the trouble of looking up all this stuff?
The petition was a hoax, the Surgeon General was a long time ago, the consensus conference supports the use of condoms, 85 percent protection is worth doing, the curriculum has a whole section on the health risks of sex.
If you don't care about your children learning how to protect themselves from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, then go ahead, keep them out of these classes. It's an easy option to take, just don't sign the permission slip. Please, really -- only sign it if you actually want your children to get this education.
This happened a couple of weeks ago, but I just noticed the story:
(CBS) HIALEAH A man making a trip from Puerto Rico to South Florida to raise money for his religious education remains hospitalized Monday after he was struck down by a bolt of lightning which flew from clear blue sky on Sunday. He was selling religious materials when he was hit.
Hailu Kidane Marian was working with members of his religious group, selling religious materials door-to-door in a Northwest Miami-Dade neighborhood, when the bolt from the blue struck him down.
"I heard a boom, and I looked and the guy jumped back, and he just laid there, stiff," said witness Maria Martinez.
Paramedics say Marian was not breathing and his heart was not beating when they arrived, but they were able to revive him and rushed him to Jackson Memorial hospital, where he was in critical condition Sunday night. Religious Book Seller Struck By Lightning
It's strange that they don't say what religion he was. With a name like "Hailu Kidane Marian" he could be anything.
Hailu Kidane Marian was selling the texts to raise cash for his Christian community.
I don't know how they'd know, but ... there it is.
Members of his religious group waited outside the hospital throughout the night for word of his condition.
"He's unconscious, he's in a coma," said Francisco Perez, leader of the Puerto Rico-based group. "It's difficult what happened, you know, but what can we do? Things happen in life, but we still believe in God."
Well, I wouldn't think one little guy being struck down by lightning on a sunny day would shake your faith any, no. "Things happen in life."
I don't know how you figure this. These are religious people, so I suppose they believe that God created the lightning. You would think there was some universal rule of justice at work here, or does God work randomly? (Einstein swore not.) I don't know how you rationalize something like this. How do you say "The Lord works in mysterious ways," and then call this an accident?
You know, this just happened to somebody else, too. I remember hearing about this one:
This is the second incident in as many months of someone being struck down by lightning from a clear sky in South Florida.
Last month David Canales, a gardener who worked in the Pinecrest area, was killed when lightning apparently struck him from a rainless sky. Two co-workers standing nearby were unhurt.
CBS Miami Meteorologist Jeff Berardelli said 'dry lightning', which can strike even when the sky is clear, can be very dangerous because victims are not expecting it and don't prepare as they might with a storm threatening.
Measurement of lightning strikes in the area Sunday showed only a few bolts compared to the last few days, making Marian especially unlucky to be struck by one of them.
Nobody else was injured when the bolt flew from the sky.
Yes. I think we'd agree, he was especially unlucky.
I see an updated news story that says the poor guy has died. So, was it an act of God?
Interesting article in The Blade about the new sex-ed curriculum in the District of Columbia.
Proposed new standards for developing health and sex education curricula for the District of Columbia Public Schools call for teaching eighth grade students that some "feel romantically and/or sexually attracted" to people of the same gender.
The 43-page draft document, Health Learning Standards, also calls for teaching sixth grade students that "people, regardless of biological sex, gender, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity and culture, have sexual feeling and the need for love, affection and physical intimacy."
It's interesting that The Blade expresses disappointment that the curriculum fails to note that homosexuality is not an illness. Over here in MoCo, we almost had that problem, too, but Superintendent Jerry Weast added some wording at the last moment that addressed this problem. Actually, the best interpretation is probably that Montgomery County set a new standard, which DC is being compared against. Some psychologists call this "the ratchet effect."
On the other hand, sixth-graders in Washington will be introduced to an inclusive perspective of sexuality, while our sixth graders are still going to be kept in the dark about variations in sexual orientation and gender identity.
Last month, Montgomery County, Md., public school officials gave final approval to a controversial, gay-inclusive sex education program that allows teachers to tell students who ask that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder or mental illness.
The proposed D.C. school standards cover a wide range of health-related issues aimed at students from kindergarten to grade 10, with specific gay-related topics starting in the sixth grade.
School officials said the proposed standards are not the same as a school curriculum and that a new sex education and health curriculum would be developed in the near future based on parameters set by the standards.
And dude, let me tell you, having just gone through this whole thing on the citizens advisory committee, this is a slow bureaucratic process.
The standards include instruction on "disease prevention and treatment" that cover AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Sexual abstinence is recommended, but the standards also call for informing students in upper grades that the use of condoms is important for those who are sexually active.
"Reflecting a strong consensus among educators, these standards establish high expectations for all students," states an introduction to the draft document. "They detail the knowledge and skills that students need to maintain and improve their health and wellness, prevent disease and reduce health-related risk behaviors."
Somehow I can't imagine the CRC opening up a DC chapter. Heh. Just can't picture that, no.
You remember a month or so ago we were talking about the strange situation in Silver Spring, where a corporation claimed that it owned a chunk of downtown and wasn't going to let people take photographs there. July Fourth a couple hundred photographers showed up, doing my rebellious little heart good.
Well, now the County Attorney has issued a ruling on the matter. It's eight pages long, but you get the whole thing, really, on page 1:
QUESTION
Do Ellsworth Drive, and its adjoining sidewalks and walkways, and other public areas (collectively, "Ellsworth Drive") constitute public fora such that PFA Silver Spring, LC, is limited in implementing restrictions on the First Amendment rights of users of Ellsworth Drive?
ANSWER
Ellsworth Drive constitutes a public forum. Thus, PFA Silver Spring, LC may only implement reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on protected speech which are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serving a significant purpose, and which allow for reasonable alternative avenues of expression, or content-based restrictions which are narrowly tailored to serving a compelling purpose.
The Washington Post's Marc Fisher has been watching this story. He elaborates:
In an elegantly reasoned and clear opinion, Assistnt County Attorney Nowelle Ghahhari reminds the Peterson Companies, the developers of the highly successful downtown project, that the land upon which their development sits is public and that the developer has the right only to close Ellsworth Drive to vehicular traffic from time to time, not pedestrian traffic. Citing court cases in which judges have defined public fora as "those places which 'by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate'," the opinion says that streets and sidewalks are clearly such public places. Photo Freedom Update: MoCo Tells Silver Spring Developer to Let People Shoot
This makes me feel a little better. People over here in Rockville were looking at our lovely new Town Center, wondering if there was going to be a problem there, too -- and where else? You could just imagine a kind of situation where corporations owned all the public space, and your Constitutional rights didn't apply anywhere.
Looks like that's not going to happen, in Montgomery County at least.
My kids both drive. Already both of them have been involved in fender-benders when they were driving, and one was a passenger in a serious crash where luckily no one was hurt. Insurance is unbelievable. If you've got teenagers, you know what I'm talking about.
Yesterday's WTOP web site had a really scary story.
WASHINGTON - Text messaging is a "hidden equation" in a number of crashes and is expected to be more of a problem as more people learn to do it while driving, according to American Automobile Association Mid-Atlantic.
A survey of 1,000 16- and 17-year-olds finds 46 percent of them say they send text messages while driving. The AAA-Seventeen Magazine survey also finds 51 percent of teens talk on cell phones while driving.
Is adolescence a form of mental illness, or what? Why in the world would anybody text message while they're driving?
I saw a guy driving with Harry Potter propped up on the steering wheel the other day, that was dumb. Basically, if you've got the stomach for it (little joke there, I say, a little joke), you can do that without any hands. And he was stopped at a light when I saw him, not that there's any excuse for reading while you're driving. But texting, it seems to me, requires both hands and your eyes, and your attention.
Police in New York believe text messaging played a part in a recent crash that killed five high school grads.
"I think it's hidden equation in a goodly number of crashes," Townsend says, adding that he expects text messaging will become "increasingly problematic."
"Given the busy schedules that all Americans have, we expect to see more and more people foolishly trying to do this maneuver while trying to drive."
Kids these days. When I was their age, we used to have to use the old crank-handed cell phones, remember? You couldn't text-message on those while you were driving, I tell you.
Now here's something to think about.
Townsend predicts more accidents will occur as older drivers start texting.
"All you have to do is take your eyes off the road for three seconds and you double the probability of getting in a crash," Townsend says. "And, at least one of your hands will be off the wheel."
I don't know, I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that "older drivers" might be smarter than that.
Oh, never mind.
This is serious stuff. Talk to your kids about this, OK? Some things just need to be against the rules.
It strikes me as very weird to think that human beings are evil to the core, with a veneer of morality, and disagreement about this may be an important part of the controversy we have found ourselves immersed in here in Montgomery County, in a number of ways. I suppose the idea goes back to the idea of original sin, or at least the story of Eve and that apple is used to explain and rationalize Veneer Theory: we are all fundamentally sinful. But I think it's deeper than that, and I don't think that America can ever get well again until we learn to accept human nature in a more positive light.
