The CRC's Statement
I'm glad that CRC finally decided to participate in the process of evaulating a new sex-ed curriculum, rather than hanging around the edges of the playground shouting through the chain-link "I'm gonna sue you guys! I'm gonna sue you if you don't play by my rules!"
Both PFOX and CRC got on the committee without following the board's procedures. The school board had announced that each organization should submit three names, and said that committee members could not have served on previous citizens advisory committees. OK, so CRC just had to submit one name, and it just had to be somebody who'd been on the committee already: doubly-disqualified.
In the meantime, PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) submitted one name, and the school board accepted that.
Finally, this week, the CRC submitted one name, and the school board accepted that.
TeachTheFacts.org submitted three names, as did all the other groups represented on the committee.
Why is this an issue?
Simple. Our two "extras" (now that we know you didn't really have to put in three names) could have applied as individuals. They were good people, would have looked good on paper, might have been accepted for membership on the committee. If we had refused to follow the rules we could, theoretically at least, have had two or even three members on that committee. Instead we submitted those names as part of the TTF package.
But the committee will move forward, even with illegitimate representatives at the table.
There is a little information to be gained in seeing how the CRC spins this. And "spin" doesn't quite evoke the level of straining evident in this little piece of text, as they try to make their months-long tantrum sound civic-spirited and magnanimous. Their statement:
Well, first of all, the citizens advisory committee (CAC) was proceeding "in accordance with Maryland Law." They held a seat vacant, just like they'd promised in the settlement agreement. Not the committee's fault nobody was sitting in it.
What do you suppose they mean, "in response to the BOE first agreeing to accept..." their candidate? So, they went in and gamed the system behind closed doors? What if we'd done that? What if we'd met with the school board, got them to tell us who they'd accept, and then submitted the other two names as independent candidates?
I understand the board trying to avoid conflict, but why would they meet privately with this anti-MCPS group, and make deals with them? And what other deals did they make? I do hope the board will come out in the open and tell us about it.
That phrase "after considerable reflection," nice piece of work. They could've said, "After talking with our out-of-state lawyers who said we didn't have a case..." They could've said, "After re-reading the settlement agreement..." They could've said, "After all our members abandoned us, except a couple of blog trolls ..."
That phrase "after considerable reflection," that's good. Makes it sound like you're thinking, y'know?
Oh, and it is so nice that they're "allowing the Advisory Committee to proceed lawfully." Mmm, the committee has been proceeding lawfully for a while now, in case nobody noticed. But it's so much nicer now that they're being "allowed" that privilege by the CRC.
Dr. Jacobs describes herself as an infectious disease specialist. Mainly, in conversations among ourselves, it comes out that most TeachTheFacts.org members more-or-less agree with her message, that students need to be aware of the health risks of sexual behavior. Most of us don't see sex as something that is mainly disgusting, dirty, and gross, but nobody opposes teaching about sexually transmitted disease and how to prevent it. Now, her tangents about "genital mutilation," about "homosexual behaviors," her ... unique ... statistics about condom effectiveness, we don't see eye-to-eye on those things, but that's why you have a committee, instead of just one person making decisions. To get a range of perspectives.
Both PFOX and CRC got on the committee without following the board's procedures. The school board had announced that each organization should submit three names, and said that committee members could not have served on previous citizens advisory committees. OK, so CRC just had to submit one name, and it just had to be somebody who'd been on the committee already: doubly-disqualified.
In the meantime, PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) submitted one name, and the school board accepted that.
Finally, this week, the CRC submitted one name, and the school board accepted that.
TeachTheFacts.org submitted three names, as did all the other groups represented on the committee.
Why is this an issue?
Simple. Our two "extras" (now that we know you didn't really have to put in three names) could have applied as individuals. They were good people, would have looked good on paper, might have been accepted for membership on the committee. If we had refused to follow the rules we could, theoretically at least, have had two or even three members on that committee. Instead we submitted those names as part of the TTF package.
But the committee will move forward, even with illegitimate representatives at the table.
There is a little information to be gained in seeing how the CRC spins this. And "spin" doesn't quite evoke the level of straining evident in this little piece of text, as they try to make their months-long tantrum sound civic-spirited and magnanimous. Their statement:
Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC), in the interest of expediting the important work of the Citizens Advisory Committee(CAC) and allow the CAC to proceed in accordance with Maryland Law, has withdrawn Henrietta Brown, its representative, in response to the BOE first agreeing to accept as CRC representative Dr. Ruth M. Jacobs as the CRC's representative. The June 27, 2005 Settlement Agreement guaranteed a representative from CRC a seat on the new CAC committee; however, the BOE subsequently enacted a requirement that previous Advisory Committee members, such as Mrs. Brown, could not serve on the new Advisory Committee. This requirement continues to be disputed by CRC as a violation of the Settlement Agreement. After considerable reflection, however, CRC, in consultation with Mrs. Brown and Dr. Jacobs, determined that the best interests of the Montgomery County Schools and the children of Montgomery County would be served by naming Dr. Jacobs as its representative and allowing the Advisory Committee to proceed lawfully with its important work.
Well, first of all, the citizens advisory committee (CAC) was proceeding "in accordance with Maryland Law." They held a seat vacant, just like they'd promised in the settlement agreement. Not the committee's fault nobody was sitting in it.
What do you suppose they mean, "in response to the BOE first agreeing to accept..." their candidate? So, they went in and gamed the system behind closed doors? What if we'd done that? What if we'd met with the school board, got them to tell us who they'd accept, and then submitted the other two names as independent candidates?
I understand the board trying to avoid conflict, but why would they meet privately with this anti-MCPS group, and make deals with them? And what other deals did they make? I do hope the board will come out in the open and tell us about it.
That phrase "after considerable reflection," nice piece of work. They could've said, "After talking with our out-of-state lawyers who said we didn't have a case..." They could've said, "After re-reading the settlement agreement..." They could've said, "After all our members abandoned us, except a couple of blog trolls ..."
That phrase "after considerable reflection," that's good. Makes it sound like you're thinking, y'know?
Oh, and it is so nice that they're "allowing the Advisory Committee to proceed lawfully." Mmm, the committee has been proceeding lawfully for a while now, in case nobody noticed. But it's so much nicer now that they're being "allowed" that privilege by the CRC.
Dr. Jacobs describes herself as an infectious disease specialist. Mainly, in conversations among ourselves, it comes out that most TeachTheFacts.org members more-or-less agree with her message, that students need to be aware of the health risks of sexual behavior. Most of us don't see sex as something that is mainly disgusting, dirty, and gross, but nobody opposes teaching about sexually transmitted disease and how to prevent it. Now, her tangents about "genital mutilation," about "homosexual behaviors," her ... unique ... statistics about condom effectiveness, we don't see eye-to-eye on those things, but that's why you have a committee, instead of just one person making decisions. To get a range of perspectives.
posted by JimK at 12:54 PM
18 Comments:
"hanging around the edges of the playground shouting through the chain-link "I'm gonna sue you guys! I'm gonna sue you if you don't play by my rules!""
Puerile nonsense from the MCPS board's rep on the CAC.
"Both PFOX and CRC got on the committee without following the board's procedures."
They made the rules up after the fact. They're lucky they didn't get a citation for contempt of court.
"The school board had announced that each organization should submit three names, and said that committee members could not have served on previous citizens advisory committees. OK, so CRC just had to submit one name, and it just had to be somebody who'd been on the committee already: doubly-disqualified.
In the meantime, PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) submitted one name, and the school board accepted that.
Finally, this week, the CRC submitted one name, and the school board accepted that.
TeachTheFacts.org submitted three names, as did all the other groups represented on the committee."
You see, TTF didn't win a legal settlement against the school board. The settlement was dated before the preposterous rules were concocted.
"Why is this an issue?
Simple. Our two "extras" (now that we know you didn't really have to put in three names) could have applied as individuals."
This is not really an issue since the Board carefully selected people who agreed with TTF anyway.
"They were good people, would have looked good on paper, might have been accepted for membership on the committee."
You mean, Dana? If she had been appointed, it would have been as bad as Fishback's committee which had two reps from River Road Unitarian Church. Besides, isn't some of her research controversial among mainstream scientists?
"If we had refused to follow the rules we could, theoretically at least, have had two or even three members on that committee."
CRC and PFOX followed the rules and then some. The Board understood that. That's why they've got seats.
"Instead we submitted those names as part of the TTF package."
Easy to play along when it's your friends who are trying to game the rules.
"But the committee will move forward, even with illegitimate representatives at the table."
Whose mother are you insulting here?
"There is a little information to be gained in seeing how the CRC spins this. And "spin" doesn't quite evoke the level of straining evident in this little piece of text, as they try to make their months-long tantrum sound civic-spirited and magnanimous.
Well, first of all, the citizens advisory committee (CAC) was proceeding "in accordance with Maryland Law." They held a seat vacant, just like they'd promised in the settlement agreement. Not the committee's fault nobody was sitting in it."
TTF spin alert.
"What do you suppose they mean, "in response to the BOE first agreeing to accept..." their candidate? So, they went in and gamed the system behind closed doors? What if we'd done that? What if we'd met with the school board, got them to tell us who they'd accept, and then submitted the other two names as independent candidates?
I understand the board trying to avoid conflict, but why would they meet privately with this anti-MCPS group, and make deals with them? And what other deals did they make? I do hope the board will come out in the open and tell us about it."
I hate to tell you this, Jim, but I think the CRC leaders are just smarter at playing the game than you.
"That phrase "after considerable reflection," nice piece of work. They could've said, "After talking with our out-of-state lawyers who said we didn't have a case..." They could've said, "After re-reading the settlement agreement..." They could've said, "After all our members abandoned us, except a couple of blog trolls ...""
TTF spin alert.
"That phrase "after considerable reflection," that's good. Makes it sound like you're thinking, y'know?"
Actually, it just sounds more dignified than the drivel you read here, y'know?
"Oh, and it is so nice that they're "allowing the Advisory Committee to proceed lawfully." Mmm, the committee has been proceeding lawfully for a while now, in case nobody noticed."
They weren't in compliance with a court of law- that's unlawful!
"But it's so much nicer now that they're being "allowed" that privilege by the CRC."
Obviously, they couldn't do it without them.
"Dr. Jacobs describes herself as an infectious disease specialist. Mainly, in conversations among ourselves, it comes out that most TeachTheFacts.org members more-or-less agree with her message, that students need to be aware of the health risks of sexual behavior."
Yes, good, you need to emphasize that avoidance of extramarital intercourse is advisable for health reasons. Don't breezily lead them to believe the risks can be easily eliminated.
"Most of us don't see sex as something that is mainly disgusting, dirty, and gross,"
Neither does anyone at CRC. They think it should be engaged in an appropriate way.
"but nobody opposes teaching about sexually transmitted disease and how to prevent it."
As long we teach the real way to prevent it.
"Now, her tangents about "genital mutilation," about "homosexual behaviors," her ... unique ... statistics about condom effectiveness, we don't see eye-to-eye on those things,"
Well, you'll receive an education.
"but that's why you have a committee, instead of just one person making decisions. To get a range of perspectives."
Let's go for a truthful perspective this time. For starters, the kids should not be told the science has concluded that you can't choose whether to be gay or not.
"I will be there along with Jim and the others to make sure she doesn't misinform the group on issues of sex and gender."
Why will you be there, Dana? Does Jim need someone to help him out?
anonymous said:
"I hate to tell you this, Jim, but I think the CRC leaders are just smarter at playing the game than you."
Oh you must mean that sensational lawyer Johnny Garza of CRC (RECALL) who has threatened to sue everyone on the universe but never follows it through because he can't. Even LC had to help him.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Or you must mean that mouth spitter in BOE testimony Ben or less than truthful Theresa the alarmist or Michelle the CRC pres of this sad lot who on occasion when it suits is less than truthful.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
"LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL"
Puerile attempt. Laugh it up but to date, they're the only one who has scored a victory in this cultural clash.
Anon, a couple of things.
The settlement agreement is online, we've all read it, it says the school board chooses, it says the board sets the procedure for applying. MCPS was very careful to adhere to the terms of the agreement, and any bluster to the contrary is just that, bluster. You can say anonymously that they weren't in compliance with the court of law, but that's simply a lie. No one has ever held up the agreement and said where the board supposedly violated it. Because they didn't.
CRC has threatened to sue over and over again, it's like a bad habit. We saw your emails, it was the first thing you thought of, way back last winter. We just noticed the one where you were going to sue Churchill HS for putting up GSA posters. You've threatened our members with legal actions, you've threatened the school board numerous times -- face it, you're suers. Call it "nonsense" if you feel big saying that, but this is a fact. The CRC's only "success" in more than a year of trying to bring down public education in Montgomery County was a 10-day temporary restraining order, the only way you can get anywhere is by bringing in some out-of-town lawyers and pulling a drive-by legal maneuver.
As far as your intimations that the board selected people who agreed with us -- we don't know who chose, and we don't know any of the people on the committee. It just so happens that if you sampled randomly from the County, you'd get people who agree with us. And if you sample from educated people in the county, in this case there are a number of doctors and lawyers on the committee, why, guess what -- you find that yes, they do believe in using reason and facts in the public schools, they do agree with us.
And to clarify, CRC and PFOX don't have seats because they followed the rules. They got seats by settling a lawsuit. You know that.
As far as CRC leaders being better at "playing the game" than us, you're probably right. We're not playing a game.
This comment was totally off the wall: Easy to play along when it's your friends who are trying to game the rules. I can't figure out what that's suppose to mean at all.
I notice you didn't comment on the "blog troll" part of my post.
Keep it up Anon, your presence here is saving us a lot of effort. It is sometimes unbelievable to realize what we're up against here, people walking around in a dream state trying to pull America back into the Dark Ages, but you have been good about demonstrating exactly how that works.
JimK
"The settlement agreement is online, we've all read it, it says the school board chooses, it says the board sets the procedure for applying. MCPS was very careful to adhere to the terms of the agreement, and any bluster to the contrary is just that, bluster."
Actually, the implication is that the procedures would be devised in good faith. The burden of prrof would be on the Board to show why they felt this rule necessary when they didn't last time they set up the committee. Any reasonable party would conclude that the rule was devised solely to water down the rights CRC and PFOX won in a legal settlement.
"You can say anonymously that they weren't in compliance with the court of law, but that's simply a lie."
You've got a nasty habit of yelling "lie" every time someone disagrees with you. If someone told you that's a good PR move, they've mislead you.
"No one has ever held up the agreement and said where the board supposedly violated it."
CRC has said they were in violation from the time they refused to seat the CRC's selection.
"Because they didn't."
Sorry, you're wrong.
"CRC has threatened to sue over and over again, it's like a bad habit."
It's part of our system of redressing grievances. We found long ago, as a society, that it's preferable to armed insurrection. What, do you want to go back to the Dark Ages?
"We saw your emails, it was the first thing you thought of, way back last winter. We just noticed the one where you were going to sue Churchill HS for putting up GSA posters. You've threatened our members with legal actions, you've threatened the school board numerous times -- face it, you're suers. Call it "nonsense" if you feel big saying that, but this is a fact."
If you don't believe in our system, you could always move to Russia. They don't put up with that suing crap there. They get more snow there too. Lots of winter sports opportunities. They like social engineering too.
"The CRC's only "success" in more than a year of trying to bring down public education in Montgomery County was a 10-day temporary restraining order, the only way you can get anywhere is by bringing in some out-of-town lawyers and pulling a drive-by legal maneuver."
A year later and nothing like that revised curriculum that they opposed in in the schools. Sounds like they're winning so far.
"As far as your intimations that the board selected people who agreed with us -- we don't know who chose, and we don't know any of the people on the committee. It just so happens that if you sampled randomly from the County, you'd get people who agree with us."
No evidence exists of that. Their town meeting drew more people than your "forum" of deceit.
"And if you sample from educated people in the county, in this case there are a number of doctors and lawyers on the committee, why, guess what -- you find that yes, they do believe in using reason and facts in the public schools, they do agree with us."
The Board is again violating COMAR by not representing the citizens on the "citizens' advisory committee" and, yes, they deserved to be sued to compel them to comply with the law.
As we've seen numerous times here, you don't accept reason and have ridiculed the very concept of "facts". The truth is that the science hasn't concluded on the matters that you say they have- that's a fact.
"And to clarify, CRC and PFOX don't have seats because they followed the rules. They got seats by settling a lawsuit. You know that."
CRC and PFOX had seats before the lawsuit and after. The Board tried to evade the rules of the settlement. They will answer to the voters.
"As far as CRC leaders being better at "playing the game" than us, you're probably right. We're not playing a game."
Yes, you are.
"This comment was totally off the wall: Easy to play along when it's your friends who are trying to game the rules. I can't figure out what that's suppose to mean at all."
The Board tried to change the rules to favor you because your lonely group of misfits supported them. Since CRC and PFOX got seats without submitting three names, guess who won again.
"I notice you didn't comment on the "blog troll" part of my post."
You keep claiming the pretense of supporting open debate and then constantly complain about my presence rather to address the substance of my comments. maybe you're the "troll". If you don't want anonymous postings, why is your blog designed to accept them?
"Keep it up Anon, your presence here is saving us a lot of effort. It is sometimes unbelievable to realize what we're up against here, people walking around in a dream state trying to pull America back into the Dark Ages, but you have been good about demonstrating exactly how that works."
Since CRC wants to keep the sex-ed curriculum in its current state, I suppose you're saying we're in the Dark Ages now. I don't think anyone would agree with you- even in Takoma Park. As it is, you have shown a preference for taking us back to pagan times.
"I'll be there, Anon, because it's my right to be there, and there should be as many mainstream voices around the table and inside the room as possible."
Yeah, you're the poster child of the mainstream.
"I also expect that if Jim doesn't know the answer, he just won't make it up, ask his preacher, or consult the Bible. He'll consult with the experts."
As long as they tell him what he wants to hear. Did you see his reaction when I actually quoted the experts from the pherenome study?
"As for my research results, yes, some of it is controversial, and it isn't relevant to a high school curriculum anyway, but my understanding of sex and gender is not. Ruth Jacobs is out of her league on those issues."
Actually, she'll be more about the dangers of the behaviors that TTF wants to encourage. The one who will counter your controversial nonsense about innateness is Peter Spriggs.
Did you guys see the headline? Laura Bush endorsing the Secretary of State for our next President. Won't happen though. Republican voters, who are very judicious, will think she needs more experience and McCain will get the nomination. Rice will be his veep though, because of her intelligence and the constituencies she'll deliver. That will give Republicans victory in 8 of the last 11 prez elections. (of course, if its close we'll decide the election at the Roberts-Alito Supreme Court.) When we this tide ever turn?
Any reasonable party would conclude that the rule was devised solely to water down the rights CRC and PFOX won in a legal settlement.
That may be one way to look at it. My view is that the board made those rules to ensure that they maintained control of the process. It shouldn't have been that hard for CRC to find three people who would speak for your point of view. In all cases, the board is empowered to constitute the committee, including this time. They had to specify a rule that was irrelevant for previous committees -- most of the time the process works the first time through. So the rules would be different in this case, and this was a wise decision by the board, to make sure the committee would not be derailed by known disruptors.
You've got a nasty habit of yelling "lie" every time someone disagrees with you. If someone told you that's a good PR move, they've mislead you.
I grew up accepting that people were teling the truth, but have learned in the last year that some people will say anything to get their way. Some CRC leaders have said things that were so obviously lies, sometimes repeated faithfully by the press; sometimes it makes you think they're living in a different world, where truth is just another, not very important, aspect of dialogue. Sometimes I'm wrong when I think somebody's lying, but mostly not.
...part of our system of redressing grievances...
That's fine, there's no law against being habitual suers. It's just that normal people try to work something out among themselves first, and can accept losing sometimes.
"forum" of deceit??? Uh, yeah, sure, very deceptive.
The truth is that the science hasn't concluded on the matters that you say they have...
There is one issue that you want to argue, which cannot be resolved. That is whether such-and-such is a "choice" or not. You can argue back to quantum entanglement that there is no choice at all in the universe, that everything is deterministic. Or you can argue from some social constructionist or even the metempsychosis point of view that everything is a choice, including illness and features such as eye color. Whatever, it boils down to a Wittgensteinian "language game."
Whether something is a choice or not is irrelevant. It bolsters a certain case, that is, it is less nice to hate people for things they didn't choose than for things they have brought upon themselves. But really, it doesn't make sense to hate people for the way they are, when that way doesn't hurt you in any way, whether they chose it or not.
Science can answer the question of choice in terms that I have described before, say, working from Wegner's research on conscious will, but the answer is not consistent with the folk-psychology view held by most people, and will not be acceptable to you, either.
The Board tried to evade the rules of the settlement. They will answer to the voters.
Huh. Yeah. That RecallMontgomerySchoolBoard thing really went over big with the voters, didn't it?
If you don't want anonymous postings, why is your blog designed to accept them?
I think it is obvious that TTF is interested in establishing a dialogue on the subject of the MCPS sex education curriculum. There are numerous Anons in this discussion, and it is hilarious when one Anon tries to argue with the other one -- both too ashamed of their opinions to put a name with them, even a fictitious one. I disagree with your point of view, but as I said, it's good that you express it here -- otherwise people might think we were making this stuff up.
Didn't somebody accuse us once of faking the Anonymous comments, to make ourselves look good? It is a workable theory. Frankly, it never occurred to me that real people actually think like you do, I thought it was some stereotype, like out of "Deliverance" or something. So, yeah, I disagree with you entirely, but it's illuminating that you're here.
...I suppose you're saying we're in the Dark Ages now...
The world has changed. Some people still want to pretend that being gay is a moral choice, but almost everybody understands that it's just how some people are. Most of us have gotten over the idea that gay or transgender people are freaks or perverts or, as you guys call them, "sodomites," and have figured out that they're just people. History is a story of the expansion of perspective, from a narrow subjective, ethnocentric tribal viewpoint to a wider, inclusive, objective perspective. Nobody has to lose their identity in the expanded context, nobody is the less for it, but many people gain, and society gains by their inclusion in all our processes.
JimK
anonymous in third group as usaul should be renamed "fantasy anon."
It sure would be a fantasy to think Jim, Dana or any TTF member would think Jacobs as anything but a weird CRC'r who has been begging for that seat on CAC (and certainly not CRC's first choice). While Sprigg is on thru PFOX it was the only way he could get on there. PFOX had no one else either. Both CRC/PFOX will keep on learning that those two choices are laughable. Jim will be just fine..in fact more than fine on CAC.
Let's all remember CRC and PFOX will now find themselves on a CAC with very little power or input while school system has all the power and approval.
Looks at all the time MCPS has been moving along wihout the new CAC. Tells you how my the new CAC will have in any say.
Jim K said:
"and it is hilarious when one Anon tries to argue with the other one -- both too ashamed of their opinions to put a name with them, even a fictitious one"
Hey Jim anonymous is a fictitious name.
Being ashamed...?????
Do not think I would go there.
Jim
Thanks for the restrained response. I think the anons that support do as much damage to your case those who don't. A couple of comments:
"My view is that the board made those rules to ensure that they maintained control of the process."
I think it's bad policy to try to control advisers. They shouldn't be using this mechanism to gauge community reaction rather than control perceptions.
"So the rules would be different in this case, and this was a wise decision by the board, to make sure the committee would not be derailed by known disruptors."
Nobody disrupted the process before. Opponents had to go to court to stop it- and there were more opponents on the CAC last time out.
"Sometimes I'm wrong when I think somebody's lying, but mostly not."
My advice would be just argue the substance and assume they're mistaken.
""forum" of deceit??? Uh, yeah, sure, very deceptive."
Well, Dr. Wertsch was a little loose with the facts. Playing to the audience.
"Whatever, it boils down to a Wittgensteinian "language game."
Whether something is a choice or not is irrelevant."
So let's not say that next time out. We have to concern ourselves not just with being "technically" right but on what impression is being given to he kids. If they got the wrong one, they might make some bad decisions with serious consequences.
"It bolsters a certain case, that is, it is less nice to hate people for things they didn't choose than for things they have brought upon themselves. But really, it doesn't make sense to hate people for the way they are, when that way doesn't hurt you in any way, whether they chose it or not."
And I think that's the approach to take. Let's just tell kids they're not there to make judgments and then pick on others based on their judgment. Don't tell them who they should or should not dislike, though. I think they'll think they're entitled to feel any way they want and resent the intrusion.
"Science can answer the question of choice in terms that I have described before, say, working from Wegner's research on conscious will, but the answer is not consistent with the folk-psychology view held by most people, and will not be acceptable to you, either."
And the issue of free will vs choice is a dispute among theologians too.
"That RecallMontgomerySchoolBoard thing really went over big with the voters, didn't it?"
I don't know that it's been tested at the voters' booth. It was abandoned because there isn't a mechanism for it under the County Charter. The timing of announcing the proposed changes to the curriculum seemed suspicious though.
"I think it is obvious that TTF is interested in establishing a dialogue on the subject of the MCPS sex education curriculum. There are numerous Anons in this discussion, and it is hilarious when one Anon tries to argue with the other one -- both too ashamed of their opinions to put a name with them, even a fictitious one. I disagree with your point of view, but as I said, it's good that you express it here -- otherwise people might think we were making this stuff up."
Yeah, that dueling anons stuff is surreal. OK, I'm making up a name and sticking with it. It's my new year's resolution.
"The world has changed. Some people still want to pretend that being gay is a moral choice, but almost everybody understands that it's just how some people are. Most of us have gotten over the idea that gay or transgender people are freaks or perverts or, as you guys call them, "sodomites," and have figured out that they're just people. History is a story of the expansion of perspective, from a narrow subjective, ethnocentric tribal viewpoint to a wider, inclusive, objective perspective. Nobody has to lose their identity in the expanded context, nobody is the less for it, but many people gain, and society gains by their inclusion in all our processes."
You're being so civil in presenting your view, I'm giving it a pass today. Have a good weekend.
Somewhere Man
"there were more opponents on the CAC last time out."
There were more opponents and more supporters because there were more people on the CAC last time. The suers' victorious settlement agreement reduced community representation on the CAC from 27 members to 15 members. Please don't try to imply the suers want more community members on the committee. They wanted and got fewer community representatives on the CAC in an attempt to make their two seats a larger proportion of it.
"Well, Dr. Wertsch was a little loose with the facts. Playing to the audience."
Like Sprigg, Knight, Kerns, and Dwyer stuck to the facts and didn't play to the audience last March? Oh that's precious, Man. For those of us who attended both events, there was no contest between which was loosest with the facts and who played to their audience. Scott Davenport, a gay man who attended the CRC hatefest, said he felt like a Jew in Nazi Germany. No one was was made to feel persecuted by the speakers at TTF's forum. And don't forget, CRC leaders were tripping all over themselves trying to distance themselves from their speakers' words. No one at Teachthefacts.org found it necessary to do so after our educational forum.
"I don't know that it's been tested at the voters' booth."
No, not yet, but the 2004 election results from Montgomery County may give an indication of how the vote might go.
2004 county and state election results in Montgomery County, Maryland:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/md/nov/montgomery/
2004 presidential election results in all Maryland counties:
http://www.elections.state.md.us/SBE_Election/pages/president.html
"Yeah, you're the poster child of the mainstream." "your lonely group of misfits"
Shame on you for insulting people. On this Sunday morning, I encourage you to ask yourself WWJD?
"your controversial nonsense about innateness"
It is "most experts in the field" who "have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice," (a quote from the 8th grade revised curriculum) which you refer to as "controversial nonsense about innateness." ID supporters already tried the "teach the controversy" argument and here's what Judge John E. Jones III said about that it: "...ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard..."
"CRC wants to keep the sex-ed curriculum in its current state"
And that's one of their biggest problems. Medical researchers discover new truths all the time but CRC doesn't believe the students in Montgomery County deserve the latest up-to-date information about human sexuality. They prefer our teenagers be taught old outdated information instead. This runs counter to the vast majority of MCPS parents who want their students to learn the latest information available, particularly in areas that relate to health and well being.
"The truth is that the science hasn't concluded on the matters that you say they have- that's a fact." "the kids should not be told the science has concluded that you can't choose whether to be gay or not."
The following four facts about sexual orientation are from Myths and Facts section of the revised curriculum:
1. All major professional mental health organizations affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
2. Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice.
3. Sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon during early adolescence and does not prove long-term sexual orientation.
4. Having homosexual parents/guardians does not predispose you to being homosexual.
Please show us where these facts say "science" has concluded anything on these matters.
"Sounds like they're winning so far." "Laugh it up but to date, they're the only one who has scored a victory in this cultural clash."
Yeah, and the important words in the statements above are "so far" and "to date." You're obviously worried your "win" is only temporary. Why else would you waste so much of your time and energy trying to convert this "lonely group of misfits" to your beliefs? From what I've read on this popular and well-regarded blog, CRC's blog has been static for months and most participants have been banned. But we're the lonely misfits?
"Actually, it just sounds more dignified than the drivel you read here, y'know?"
You keep talking about "free will." Why don't you feel free to practice what you preach and use your free will to avoid what you call "the drivel you read here, y'know?"
Christine
"My beliefs about sex and gender identity have a pedigree going back, medically speaking, nearly 100 years now."
Could you summarize briefly what those beliefs are? Some of the stuff you've said here, if I understand it, seems kind of sexist.
Somewhere Man
"There were more opponents and more supporters because there were more people on the CAC last time. Please don't try to imply the suers want more community members on the committee. They wanted and got fewer community representatives on the CAC in an attempt to make their two seats a larger proportion of it."
I think you missed my point, Christine. Jim was saying the Board had to change the rules to keep the opponents from "disrupting" the process. I was just saying that didn't happen before so why would it now? A process to achieve a predetermined result is a little pointless anyway. The whole problem here is that MCPS is trying to follow the letter of the law while subverting it's purpose.
""Well, Dr. Wertsch was a little loose with the facts. Playing to the audience."
Like Sprigg, Knight, Kerns, and Dwyer stuck to the facts and didn't play to the audience last March? Oh that's precious, Man. For those of us who attended both events, there was no contest between which was loosest with the facts and who played to their audience."
I mean, it's sad. The officer of a group that's called "Teach the Facts" is accused of being a little "loose" with the facts and the only defense she offers is "they did it too".
"Scott Davenport, a gay man who attended the CRC hatefest, said he felt like a Jew in Nazi Germany."
This is classic propaganda from the gay advocacy groups. Trying to discriminate whether a behavior is right or wrong, as all people are called to do, is now the equivalent of racism to those who disagree with you. Unbelievable farce! An insult to the victims of this Darwinian assault on humanity.
"No one was was made to feel persecuted by the speakers at TTF's forum. And don't forget, CRC leaders were tripping all over themselves trying to distance themselves from their speakers' words. No one at Teachthefacts.org found it necessary to do so after our educational forum."
Well, again, Wertch's presentation failed to qualify, in any way, things that peer-reviewed papers qualify. There is bias afoot in the mainstream scientific community. That CRC tried to clarify their position when they disagreed with a speaker and you didn't is to their credit.
"No, not yet, but the 2004 election results from Montgomery County may give an indication of how the vote might go."
You shouldn't assume that Democrats will unconditionally support the gay agenda. Remember Kerry and Edwards in the last presidential debates, trying to exploit the fact that Cheney's daughter, working in his campaign, is gay. No principles.
"Shame on you for insulting people. On this Sunday morning, I encourage you to ask yourself WWJD?"
That's always a good idea.
""your controversial nonsense about innateness"
It is "most experts in the field" who "have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice," (a quote from the 8th grade revised curriculum) which you refer to as "controversial nonsense about innateness." ID supporters already tried the "teach the controversy" argument and here's what Judge John E. Jones III said about that it: "...ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard...""
I don't know that "most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice,". We just read a recent study on pherenomes where the authors clearly stated they had not concluded that. I suspect that most experts would agree the evidence is inconclusive.
""CRC wants to keep the sex-ed curriculum in its current state"
And that's one of their biggest problems. Medical researchers discover new truths all the time but CRC doesn't believe the students in Montgomery County deserve the latest up-to-date information about human sexuality. They prefer our teenagers be taught old outdated information instead. This runs counter to the vast majority of MCPS parents who want their students to learn the latest information available, particularly in areas that relate to health and well being."
I said this in response to Jim's assertion we want to move the clock back. The new research is inconclusive. If we want to teach kids about that, fine. The biggst new development in the last couple of decades since sex-ed began to be taught in schools is an explosion of the prevalence of sexually transmitted disease and the emergence of a new invariably deadly one that can be directly linked to society's tolerance of sexually immorality in the late 70's.
"The following four facts about sexual orientation are from Myths and Facts section of the revised curriculum:
1. All major professional mental health organizations affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
2. Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice.
3. Sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon during early adolescence and does not prove long-term sexual orientation.
4. Having homosexual parents/guardians does not predispose you to being homosexual.
Please show us where these facts say "science" has concluded anything on these matters."
The first two clearly state it and the other two imply it. The biggest problem here is that the statements are qualified or nuanced in any way and could be easily misinterpreted by students in ways detrimental to their well-being.
"Yeah, and the important words in the statements above are "so far" and "to date." You're obviously worried your "win" is only temporary. Why else would you waste so much of your time and energy trying to convert this "lonely group of misfits" to your beliefs?"
I'm one of the misfits who feels compelled to counter ignorance where ever it exists. If I caused you to open your mind and question your false ideas for even a second, it was worth it. I'm not that worried.
"From what I've read on this popular and well-regarded blog, CRC's blog has been static for months and most participants have been banned. But we're the lonely misfits?"
Well regarded by who?
"There were more opponents and more supporters because there were more people on the CAC last time. Please don't try to imply the suers want more community members on the committee. They wanted and got fewer community representatives on the CAC in an attempt to make their two seats a larger proportion of it."
I think you missed my point, Christine. Jim was saying the Board had to change the rules to keep the opponents from "disrupting" the process. I was just saying that didn't happen before so why would it now? A process to achieve a predetermined result is a little pointless anyway. The whole problem here is that MCPS is trying to follow the letter of the law while subverting it's purpose.
""Well, Dr. Wertsch was a little loose with the facts. Playing to the audience."
Like Sprigg, Knight, Kerns, and Dwyer stuck to the facts and didn't play to the audience last March? Oh that's precious, Man. For those of us who attended both events, there was no contest between which was loosest with the facts and who played to their audience."
I mean, it's sad. The officer of a group that's called "Teach the Facts" is accused of being a little "loose" with the facts and the only defense she offers is "they did it too".
"Scott Davenport, a gay man who attended the CRC hatefest, said he felt like a Jew in Nazi Germany."
This is classic propaganda from the gay advocacy groups. Trying to discriminate whether a behavior is right or wrong, as all people are called to do, is now the equivalent of racism to those who disagree with you. Unbelievable farce! An insult to the victims of this Darwinian assault on humanity.
"No one was was made to feel persecuted by the speakers at TTF's forum. And don't forget, CRC leaders were tripping all over themselves trying to distance themselves from their speakers' words. No one at Teachthefacts.org found it necessary to do so after our educational forum."
Well, again, Wertch's presentation failed to qualify, in any way, things that peer-reviewed papers qualify. There is bias afoot in the mainstream scientific community. That CRC tried to clarify their position when they disagreed with a speaker and you didn't is to their credit.
"No, not yet, but the 2004 election results from Montgomery County may give an indication of how the vote might go."
You shouldn't assume that Democrats will unconditionally support the gay agenda. Remember Kerry and Edwards in the last presidential debates, trying to exploit the fact that Cheney's daughter, working in his campaign, is gay. No principles.
"Shame on you for insulting people. On this Sunday morning, I encourage you to ask yourself WWJD?"
That's always a good idea.
""your controversial nonsense about innateness"
It is "most experts in the field" who "have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice," (a quote from the 8th grade revised curriculum) which you refer to as "controversial nonsense about innateness." ID supporters already tried the "teach the controversy" argument and here's what Judge John E. Jones III said about that it: "...ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard...""
I don't know that "most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice,". We just read a recent study on pherenomes where the authors clearly stated they had not concluded that. I suspect that most experts would agree the evidence is inconclusive.
""CRC wants to keep the sex-ed curriculum in its current state"
And that's one of their biggest problems. Medical researchers discover new truths all the time but CRC doesn't believe the students in Montgomery County deserve the latest up-to-date information about human sexuality. They prefer our teenagers be taught old outdated information instead. This runs counter to the vast majority of MCPS parents who want their students to learn the latest information available, particularly in areas that relate to health and well being."
I said this in response to Jim's assertion we want to move the clock back. The new research is inconclusive. If we want to teach kids about that, fine. The biggst new development in the last couple of decades since sex-ed began to be taught in schools is an explosion of the prevalence of sexually transmitted disease and the emergence of a new invariably deadly one that can be directly linked to society's tolerance of sexually immorality in the late 70's.
"The following four facts about sexual orientation are from Myths and Facts section of the revised curriculum:
1. All major professional mental health organizations affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
2. Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice.
3. Sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon during early adolescence and does not prove long-term sexual orientation.
4. Having homosexual parents/guardians does not predispose you to being homosexual.
Please show us where these facts say "science" has concluded anything on these matters."
The first two clearly state it and the other two imply it. The biggest problem here is that the statements are qualified or nuanced in any way and could be easily misinterpreted by students in ways detrimental to their well-being.
"Yeah, and the important words in the statements above are "so far" and "to date." You're obviously worried your "win" is only temporary. Why else would you waste so much of your time and energy trying to convert this "lonely group of misfits" to your beliefs?"
I'm one of the misfits who feels compelled to counter ignorance where ever it exists. If I caused you to open your mind and question your false ideas for even a second, it was worth it. I'm not that worried.
"From what I've read on this popular and well-regarded blog, CRC's blog has been static for months and most participants have been banned. But we're the lonely misfits?"
Oops,
Signed
the Somewhere Man
Dana
What I'm trying to get to, though, is what do you see as the differences between male and female, other than sexual behavior? Can you describe the differences between the two "brain sexes"? I ask because it seemed to me that those first two waves of feminism had some valid points.
>I think you missed my point, Christine. Jim was saying the Board had to change the rules to keep the opponents from "disrupting" the process. I was just saying that didn't happen before so why would it now? A process to achieve a predetermined result is a little pointless anyway. The whole problem here is that MCPS is trying to follow the letter of the law while subverting it's purpose. <
What "didn't happen before" is that opponents didn't disrupt the process before by filing a lawsuit to stop pilot testing of any CAC-approved and BOE-unanimously-approved curriculum. Perhaps the Board felt these rules would prevent another lawsuit disruption. Ensuring another such disruption does not occur is in the best interest of MCPS students because the BOE should spend its funds on educating the students rather than being forced to fend off histrionic lawsuits. The only "predetermined result" sought is to end up with a CAC- and BOE-approved curriculum so it can be field tested, reassessed, improved if necessary, and implemented. In the meantime, our students must limp along with an outdated health education.
Another thing that "didn't happen before" is the tape recording of CAC meetings. Both CRC's and PFOX's representatives taped these meetings as the now rescinded revisions were made. (Peter Sprigg continued this practice; he brought two tape recording machines to tape the first meeting of the new CAC.) Some health education curriculum revision opponents who sat on the now disbanded CAC have said their suggestions were not properly addressed at those meetings and yet to date, these suers refuse to make audio files and corresponding transcripts of their tapes of the CAC meetings available to the public. As a result, we are all left to wonder why these tapes, which supposedly corroborate their claims of mistreatment at CAC meetings, have not been publicized. Let us hear for ourselves.
The fact still remains that the suers got a smaller CAC in their victorious settlement while claiming there are not enough opportunities for community members to have input in the process. If CRS wanted more community members to have input about the curriculum, why did they negotiate a settlement agreement that reduced membership on the committee?
>""Well, Dr. Wertsch was a little loose with the facts. Playing to the audience."
Like Sprigg, Knight, Kerns, and Dwyer stuck to the facts and didn't play to the audience last March? Oh that's precious, Man. For those of us who attended both events, there was no contest between which was loosest with the facts and who played to their audience."
I mean, it's sad. The officer of a group that's called "Teach the Facts" is accused of being a little "loose" with the facts and the only defense she offers is "they did it too".<
Oops, Man. You apparently missed the fact that recently (Jan. 12, 2006, at 11:40 AM) I reminded our readers that Dr. Wertsch presented the findings of numerous studies about sexuality at the Teachthefacts.org educational forum last September. He discussed studies of humans which show differences in the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus and cochlear functioning between heterosexuals and homosexuals. He noted twin studies which show increased incidents of same-sex attraction within familles. Dr. Wertsch noted that there are animal studies which have documented 450 different species that exhibit same-sex mating behaviors and 10% of Canadian geese nests with same sex pairs. (I wonder which "gay activists" converted these animals to adopt a "gay lifestyle" by pushing the "gay agenda.") It is your apparent misunderstanding of the scientific method that allows you to ignore all data that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions of human sexuality.
BTW, I found another quote about the first pheromone study: "Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, who was not part of the Swedish research team, commented: "It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned." She said the findings clearly show a biological involvement in sexual orientation." http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus6.htm
>"Scott Davenport, a gay man who attended the CRC hatefest, said he felt like a Jew in Nazi Germany."
This is classic propaganda from the gay advocacy groups. <
If you say so. I defer to your expertise in propaganda.
Scott Davenport is an MCPS parent. Are you? Many MCPS parents attended the CRC's March 2005 meeting to learn what they had to say about the new sex ed curriculum. We were all shocked to find a program that had very little to do with the revised MCPS curriculum and very much to do with James Dobson's desire to foment fear of GLBT people so certain political types can use it to divide and conquer this great nation. Only two CRC speakers addressed the curriculum specifics while the other four lamented gay "lifestyles" and "agendas."
State Delegate Don Dwyer of Anne Arundel County capped it all off for the CRC's March 2005 program when he boasted (emphasis mine), "...I’ve been accused of spreading hate and fear among the churches throughout the State of Maryland. Guilty as charged. I am spreading hate and fear. I am spreading the hate of the homosexual activist and I’m spreading my fear of what’s going to happen to this great state and our great nation..." Statements like this didn't make the GLBT audience members feel welcome.
>Well, again, Wertch's presentation failed to qualify, in any way, things that peer-reviewed papers qualify.<
Well, again, Dr. Wetch's presentation pulled together numerous peer-reviewed studies of human sexuality research from the poineering studies of Indiana University's Alfred Kinsey to new millenium studies of neurological responses, twins, families, and animals. All these studies indicate that genetic factors likely influence many facets of human sexuality. How many scientific research papers have you peer-reviewed? Where did you study medicine and human sexuality? I don't really expect answers but pose these questions to illustrate why I conclude that Dr. Wertsch's expertise in the areas of peer review and human sexuality research far outweighs yours.
> There is bias afoot in the mainstream scientific community.<
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. It is my opinion that you have a bias against GLBT people.
> That CRC tried to clarify their position when they disagreed with a speaker and you didn't is to their credit.<
It's "to their credit" that I didn't disagree with Dr. Wertsch? And just how did they try "to clarify their position?" Did they, for example, "clarify" that they did not intend to help Don Dwyer with his stated goal of "spreading hate and fear... throughout the State of Maryland?" And while we are on this topic of spreading hate and fear, has anyone noticed the recent increase in hate crimes in Montgomery County? Here it is, a year after CRC started their public campaign of intolerance to prevent the inclusion of information about GLBT people in our health education curriculum and now we have African American churches and schools, menorah displays, and Gay Straight Alliance posters in Churchill High School vandalized with messages of hate. So what is it this time: coincidence or a "100% correlation?"
There's no need for any TTF.org members to clarify anything Dr. Wertsch, the Chairman of the American Medical Association's Advisory Committee on GLBT Matters said. He said nothing hateful. Instead, he presented a wide collection of historical and current research, clearly and concisely.
>I don't know that "most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice,". <
Rather than having me cut and paste a long section here, I urge you to check out: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm This is an online resource last updated in 2001 entitled "What do professional groups, researchers and studies say about homosexuality." It provides statements by many professional medical and mental health organizations whose members constitute "most experts in the field."
>""CRC wants to keep the sex-ed curriculum in its current state"
I said this in response to Jim's assertion we want to move the clock back."<
You said "CRC wants to keep the sex-ed curriculum in its current state" and that's true. Jim's assertion that CRCers want to move the clock back is also true. MCPS students have been forced to learn from a sex ed curriculum that was originally written in the early 1990s. The belief that outdated and inaccurate information should be presented to our kids in health class is one of the CRCs biggest problems. They want to keep, for example, "Hope Is Not A Method," a film produced in 1992 (14 years ago). This film includes information about contraceptives that are longer available on the market. Why do you and the CRC want our teenagers to get outdated and useless information like that? Many of us wonder what kind of parents want to misinform their own teenagers about how to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancy and STDs.
>"The new research is inconclusive. If we want to teach kids about that, fine."<
In your opinion "the new research is inconclusive." Any single study is often inconclusive. It's the totality of the many avenues of research, for example, from brain structures to brain functions to brain reactions to twin and to animal studies, that help us reach conclusions to determine if hypotheses are supported or not. Dr. Wertsch's presentation at the TTF.org educational forum showed a preponderance of evidence pointing to a genetic influence on sexual orientation.
Here's an interesting fact for you to ponder. The only elected official to attend the CRC's meeting in March 2005 was Mr. Dwyer, a State Delegate from Anne Arundel County. No elected officials attended the CRC's November 2005 public meeting. In contrast, the keynote speaker at Teachthefacts.org's educational forum on September 25, 2005, was Ana Sol Guttierez, a Maryland State Delegate from Montgomery County and a former President of the MCPS Board of Education. In addition, Teachthefacts.org's educational forum was attended by former President and current member of the Montgomery County Council Steve Silverman, former President and Vice President of the Montgomery County Council Ike Leggett, State Senator Sharon Grosfeld, State Delegate Anne Kaiser, and State Delegate Rich Madaleno.
Post a Comment
<< Home