Thursday, May 12, 2005

Da Noive a Some People

The school board has apparently hired a law firm to represent them in the suit over the sex-ed curriculum. OK, that's encouraging, they're not just laying down and giving up, we approve of that.

But sometimes you just gotta blink and look twice.

The CRC, who sued the board in the first place, has posted a message on their web site, bold and italicized:
CRC: 'It's a Complete Waste of Taxpayer Money'...
Imagine suing the county and then complaining when they have to spend money defending themselves.


Now, this makes sense:
TTF: 'It's a Complete Waste of Taxpayer Money'...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Considering that if they had simply listened when first warned or perhaps, oh, I don't know MET EVEN ONCE WITH A GROUP OF HUNDREDS OF PARENTS they could have avoided those costs, I'd say CRC is dead on.

Oh, and then there's the fact that you were earlier referring to MCPS lawyers. If they already have lawyers, why are they hiring more?

May 12, 2005 7:07 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

You might have forgotten, but MCPS' lawyers lost a case they should have had in the bag. Definitely a good idea to bring in somebody that knows what they're doing.

Also, there is no sense in the school board meeting with bizarro groups like Ex-Recall and PFOX. "Regular" Montgomery County parents can go to a BOE meeting and address the board if they have something to say, there's no need for special meetings. I for one do not want to see a fringe group like CRC getting special attention from the school board.

May 12, 2005 9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apparently that "fringe group" had some very valid arguments, which you yourself are finally admitting after the judge's ruling.

You know, those "fringe groups" who care about those "fringe rights" like the Constitution.

May 13, 2005 2:33 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

The argument that students will be telepathically affected by information in teachers' background reading materials hardly qualifies as "very valid." Oh, it won them a ruling, it was clever and apparently unanticipated, and for lawyers that's as good as "valid."

May 13, 2005 3:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home