Sunday, January 27, 2008

Sunday Morning: Music and Falsehoods

Chilly out today, but it's not too bad, it's sunny and there's no wind. I walked the dog and he was glad of it -- everybody slept in and there was nobody to pay attention to him. Last night we went out to a place in Silver Spring called the Quarry House and heard a couple of bands. Nice place, in a local-bar sort of way, in fact I really like it there. The place has been there seventy years, since right after Prohibition was repealed. It's in a basement under an Indian food restaurant right on Georgia Avenue, and they have live bands at the end of this long skinny room back around the corner from the door. Place was jam-packed with the most interesting crowd. I can't think of a way to describe the crowd there, they're all ages, all walks of life. To describe them, maybe the word "friendly" works, it's like a place full of friends, and they talk to you the first time like they've always known you.

I mentioned to my wife that it seemed impossible that there would be a place like that in Rockville, where we live. The bars up here are either functional and self-conscious, or they are neighborhood bars where the customers eyeball you suspiciously if you come in for a drink and to listen to the jukebox for a while, there's never been a friendly happy place like this where everybody treats you like a friend. What do you think is the difference? I asked her. Her answer surprised me: "These are Democrats," she said. She's about as political as I am, but she's got a point. Our county stretches from the edge of the city out to farmlands. The parts closer to DC, like where this bar is, we call "downcounty," and it does turn out to be more liberal. Upcounty, like in Germantown and Damascus, it's more country, more like a Red State. I think I prefer to drink downcounty.

Like this bar, I love this. It's called the Quarry House, but on Sunday they change the name to "The Queery House," with the motto, "Out of the closet, into the basement." There were a few gay people there last night, obviously comfortable in a mostly-straight crowd; I guess tonight the proportions will change. As far as I'm concerned, this is how it should be.

If you go, you have to have the tater-tots.

We missed the first band, but the second band, 7-Door Sedan, was really good. It was a nice kind of distorted-guitar, big-fat-backbeat, three-and-a-half-chord rock and roll that you can't help liking. It sounded like all original material, songs with good and ambiguous hooks. You can sing along after the first verse but you have no idea in the world what it means. I think it would be fun to be at a party with that band playing in one room. The last band was probably good, too, but they were too loud, this room is not a place for Marshalls. The lead guitar was too loud so everybody turned up to accommodate, and then the PA kept feeding back because the vocals were too loud and they were echoing off the walls. It's too bad, too, because at one point the guy was playing some really interesting-sounding stuff, some licks that sounded modal or outside the key in a surprising and interesting way, and I wanted to hear what else he was going to do. I've been told to turn down my share of times, I've got nothing against loud music, but in this case the amplifier simply overpowered the room -- this has always been my concern with Fender Twins, they tend to have too much presence at a distance and it's hard to play onstage at the right volume, and this was a Marshall I think (lots of people standing in front of the bandstand, but I thought I saw the logo), which has the same potential problem. We finished our drinks in the other room of the bar and went to go to the pirate bar across the street but they seemed to be closed. Too bad, we'd seen a pirate walking around in the parking garage and that sounded reasonably fun. Especially if they served a pasta appetizer, if you know what I mean.

I am still decompressing from something I read on the Internet yesterday. When I first came across this web site I got angry and banged out a bunch of stuff which I decided later to un-write. Luckily I hadn't posted it yet, so I could do that. I'm usually pretty laid back, but this is infuriating.

A lawyer from the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, did all the talking for the anti-gay groups in the hearing about the MCPS sex-ed curriculum a couple of weeks ago in Rockville. Now they have a web page telling their side of the story. It starts like this:
ANN ARBOR, MI – In oral arguments last week, the Thomas More Law Center asked Maryland state circuit court judge William Rowan III to overturn a Maryland Board of Education ruling that approves of public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, teaching 8th and 10th graders that homosexuality is innate—meaning they are born that way. The schools also show how to use condoms in anal and oral sex.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represents Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, the Family Leader Network, and the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays. John Garza, of Garza, Regan & Associates of Rockville, Maryland, is acting as local counsel.

Montgomery educators were forced to defend their new sex curriculum that promotes anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality and transvestitism despite strong opposition from several pro-family groups. The controversial new curriculum was adopted as a result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups. Homosexuals 'Born That Way' and Erotic Sex Taught to 8th and 10th Graders Challenged by TMLC

Does anybody really think "The schools also show how to use condoms in anal and oral sex?" Does anybody who has seen the curriculum believe it "promotes anal sex" or any of these other things? Transvestitism? Are you kidding me?

You see why I got mad?

For more than three years we have been fighting against our local anti-gay nuts who will repeat any statement that supports their point of view, whether it has an element of truth to it or not. The new MoCo sex-ed classes do not show how to do anything having to do with anal or oral sex. The condom-use video does say to use a condom when you do that, but you have to figure out how to do it on your own. It's good medical advice, for instance, that's why the CDC says:
Use a new condom with each sex act (e.g., oral, vaginal, and anal).

The CDC also doesn't say how to use it for anal and oral sex. The medical consensus is that anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex when it comes to transmitting diseases; since about 40 percent of adult Americans have anal sex, this is appropriate advice for a sex-ed class: protect yourself. Only a nut or a liar describes that advice as showing someone how to have anal and oral sex.

You have to wonder about TMLC's insistence that "homosexual advocacy groups" have pressured the school district into changing their classes. There never is a name of a group, they just hint at this vague conspiracy theory. Can anybody think of one "homosexual advocacy group" that did anything like pressuring the school district? One?

The gay-advocacy groups have wisely watched this one from the sidelines. They didn't have to pressure the Montgomery County school district, because the people who live here -- straight as well as gay -- want to have an objective, fair, and kind curriculum. You don't have to be a "homosexual advocate" to think that the schools should teach facts and that it's good to show respect to people.

Later these guys hit that note again:
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This is another example of our public school system being used as an indoctrination arm of homosexual advocacy groups..."

I can't imagine feeling so helpless in my life that I have to blame everything on shadowy groups that are secretly controlling the world. It would be different if the More Law guys could show us an example, but no, they just blame "homosexual advocacy groups" in general. Thomas More Law Center readers are told that these groups are using the public schools to indoctrinate people. Please -- think that through. How would they do that? Why would they do that? Why are these paranoids talking about "homosexual advocacy groups" instead of something real, like the Bavarian Illumati, or the CIA/alien plan to put microchips in all our brains? There's really a serious question in there -- why "homosexual advocates," of all things?

Sadly, we know there are people who read this junk and believe it.

Unbelievable -- no regard for the truth. Look at this:
...Initially, a Federal District Court enjoined the county schools from implementing the curriculum in 2005 because the lesson plan criticized religious “fundamentalism.”

However, following the federal court ruling and injunction, the county board merely omitted the anti-religious references, and began teaching the controversial health curriculum to all 8th and 10th grade classes...

Even the CRW didn't think to come up with a lie as bold as this one.

Anybody can look at the news stories, the documentation, and see that every word of the new sex-ed classes was re-written. The entire earlier curriculum was thrown out and replaced. Yet these guys tell their readers the school board "merely omitted the anti-religious references, and began teaching" the same stuff. I don't know how to compute this kind of dishonesty. It's not a mistake, it's a lie. These people will say anything.

Here's another one:
That sexual orientation is innate—homosexuals are born that way—is a theory that has been rejected by courts in several states including Maryland. Maryland’s highest appellate court issued an opinion in a 2007 civil union case, holding the proposition that homosexuality is innate is not supported by credible evidence.

In court they said they were referring to the case of Conaway v. Deane. You can read the ruling HERE. Search the PDF for the word "innate." You won't find it. Nothing was said about innateness in that case. The courts do not rule on matters of scientific theory, you don't ask them to decide between the wave theory and the particle theory of light, for instance, when experiments support both. And they don't tell us how gay people got that way.

Here's their summary of the case:
Thus, the six year battle boils down to two questions posed by Bolling in this latest court skirmish: Can the school board legally teach students that homosexuality is innate despite rulings to the contrary by the state’s highest court? And, can the health lessons discuss sex acts other than copulation?

There is no court ruling about whether homosexuality is innate, in Maryland or any other place. And the health lessons under consideration don't discuss any sex acts, including copulation. It would be weird to teach students how to put on a condom without telling them when you'd wear one. You wear it when you're having oral, anal, or vaginal sex. They want to say that this violates a law against teaching "erotic techniques." The judge will decide what he thinks, but I think common sense takes a pretty clear position here.

I was really pretty mad when I first saw this. I hate it when people lie; I can't even stand to watch some I Love Lucy episodes where she's trying to cover up something so Ricky doesn't catch her, it makes me nervous. A lot of people have put a lot of work into developing this curriculum, and you hate to see idiots like this spreading falsehoods to run it down. You should've seen what I wrote the first time! I wasn't very articulate, you might say, I was just banging on the keys. Well, I've settled down a little bit now.

37 Comments:

Blogger Tish said...

This seems to be the core of the argument against the condom demonstration:

Bolling argued that if a sexual act is not done for a procreative purpose, it is an erotic technique.

Let's be clear - it is not the job of our public schools to teach our children that some religions do not approve of non-procreative sex.

Bolling's argument is religious only. There is no scientific or medical standard that makes sex with birth control "erotic," and sex without not erotic. (And as a happy mom I'm not going to agree with the implication that procreation is boring.)

January 27, 2008 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know, I said this before - I just find it so humorous that there is even a thought process that gets them to this idea: Procreative sex is, by definition, not an "erotic technique."

It's typical stuff, though. Carefully parsed language to imply things that aren't there, but that sound really inflammatory. Nothing particularly clever; in fact I would expect a better quality of lying from such an august-sounding institution as The Thomas More Law Center.

Someone should tell them that "transvestitism" isn't an actual word. Then they would sound more smarter.

January 27, 2008 4:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Jim -
question for you...

When did Barney Frank become a member of the religous right and a bigot ?

January 27, 2008 5:00 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

don't try to change the subject or manipulate the question, anonymous

January 27, 2008 5:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
Recall/CRC/CRABCDEFG has said they are fine with the condom demo. So this "law" center has to lie and say the condom demo shows how to use a condom for oral and anal sex- leading one to think that something is there besides the putting the condom on the penis. I've read the info, seen the video and if this is teaching erotic techniques-well, these lawyers and CRABCDEFG have some sad, boring lives. I guess their moms told them to "think of England" and their husbands said "Brace yourself, Michele(Theresa, Steina)"

So this is probably just a Thomas More movie quote but he says " it profiteth a man nothing if he gain the whole world and lose his soul, but for Wales??". This is said when a former secretary of his lies about More but has been given the overseeing of Wales in return. Perhaps we whould tell these lawyers the same thing - "but for Recall?"

January 27, 2008 6:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You have to wonder about TMLC's insistence that "homosexual advocacy groups" have pressured the school district into changing their classes. There never is a name of a group, they just hint at this vague conspiracy theory. Can anybody think of one "homosexual advocacy group" that did anything like pressuring the school district? One?"

Yes. TTF.

When the school didn't want to include unsubstantiated assertions that homosexuality is not a disease and is innate, TTF pressured them into doing it. They are homosexual advocates because they believe the welfare of gay people is more important than give complete and accurate information to high school students.

January 27, 2008 10:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The public accomodations exemption was suggested for the federal ENDA...

by Barney Frank.
When did Barny Frank become a bigot ? Was he a hateful right-wing bigot for adding this exemption ? Federal ENDA below :


SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General- This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices
of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society
which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching
or spreading of religious doctrine or belief.
(b) Certain Employees- For any religious corporation, association,
educational institution, or society that is not wholly exempt under
subsection (a), this Act shall not apply with respect to the employment of
individuals whose primary duties consist of teaching or spreading religious
doctrine or belief, religious governance, supervision of a religious order,
supervision of persons teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief,
or supervision or participation in religious ritual or worship.
(c) Conformity to Religious Tenets- Under this Act, a religious corporation,
association, educational institution, or society may require that applicants
for, and employees in, similar positions conform to those religious tenets
that such corporation, association, institution, or society declares
significant. Under this Act, such a declaration by a religious corporation,
association, educational institution or society stating which of its
religious tenets are significant shall not be subject to judicial or
administrative review. Any such declaration made for purposes of this Act
shall be admissible only for proceedings under this Act.


3) CERTAIN SHARED FACILITIES- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived
gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing
facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that
the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not
inconsistent with the employee's gender identity as established with the
employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that
the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is
later

January 27, 2008 10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon said, "When the school didn't want to include unsubstantiated assertions that homosexuality is not a disease and is innate, TTF pressured them into doing it."

So, Anon, do you think being gay is a disease? If so, I recommend a great resource informing us of something different: the APA.

Thank God for groups like TTF... if we did not have these right-minded and caring people advocating for equality, we'd be in deep water being ruled by moronic bigots like yourself. Get some therapy (and read a psychology 101 text).

January 28, 2008 5:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have to wonder about TMLC's insistence that "homosexual advocacy groups" have pressured the school district into changing their classes. There never is a name of a group, they just hint at this vague conspiracy theory. Can anybody think of one "homosexual advocacy group" that did anything like pressuring the school

Hmm... Wasn't PFLAG's lawyer pusing the curriculum in the courtroom-with many others in the wings?
Wasn't GLSEN working behind the scenes to get additional material in the curriculum?
Doesn't TTF get funding from HRC, GLSEN and EM?

Jim your nose is getting longer and longer!

BTW, with respect to the Catholic church. Guess you have never read, Homosexuality and Hope.
Your nose is growing.

January 28, 2008 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon-please. Your nose has grown so much that it's been seven times removed.

January 28, 2008 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous:
Your assertion that GLSEN was "working behind the scenes to get additional material in the curriculum" is completely groundless, unsupportable, and definitely very paranoid. Cite the facts, please. You also said (bodly...not your usual snide assertions) that TTF is funded by other sourses: "Doesn't TTF get funding from HRC, GLSEN and EM?" I will let Jim respond to that, but - once again - you are employing McCarthyite tactics (perhaps he was/is one of your "heroes"?)to bolster your ignorance and bigotry. It is so sad that you actually think you score points for your deluded beliefs and actions. Get a life!!
RT

January 28, 2008 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert

That anon was not the usual one. Probably a TTF-created diversion trying to obscure the well-documented fact that TTF, itself a gay advocacy group, pushed for additional assertions in the curriculum as was mentioned last night in a 10:01 post.

January 28, 2008 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous:
It is interesting how you howl with incredulous dismay when you criticize TTF for using PFLAG representation in court but you say nothing in defense of your phony group (funded, no doubt, by national homophobic organizations) hiring (at an enormous legal cost I would guess) the discredited Thomas More Legal Center to represent your groundless whining about legally adopted curriculum changes. You are so transparent ...using stealth tactics to get your religious views integrated into MCPS curriculum. Be prepared for a counter-suit!
Diogenes

January 28, 2008 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Unsubstantiated assertions," etc.

Silly anonymous.

For some reason that I can't quite understand, some of the opponents of the curriculum seem unable to grasp this simple fact: The assertion to which they continually refer is that the AMA position is that homosexuality is not an illness. The assertion that this is their position is not by any stretch unsubstantiated; it is a part of the AMA's published documents.

The answer to the question "Is homosexuality an illness?" is "The AMA says it is not." Where, exactly, is the unsubstantiated assertion?

Failing to share with students the positions of mainstream medical professionals would be failing to give them accurate and complete information. I think that this mistaken understanding on the part of curriculum opponents has been pointed out numerous times. Why is it so difficult for them to grasp?

January 28, 2008 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David, AMA is concerned with physical illnesses. Their positions both about innateness and the normality of homosexual desire are unsubstantiated. They are opinions.

What's interesting is how TTF ignores the mainstream when it doesn't fit it's agenda. The APA includes transgenderism as a disorder. A recent survey of studies on sexual reassignment surgery follow-up finds that it doesn't achieve the desired result, another study shows that one's chromosomes determine one's gender and the institution that pioneered the surgery, no longer performs it. To TTF, these mainstream facts are unmentionable.

January 28, 2008 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This is another example of our public school system being used as an indoctrination arm of homosexual advocacy groups...""
--
This would of course be the same Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center that wants to use THE public school system as a means to indoctrinate all students into believing that creationism is science, via subterfuge-presentation of it being 'Intelligent Design.'

From the transcript of the NOVA episode Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

1) RICHARD THOMPSON (Thomas More Law Center): Bill Buckingham contacted me as a private citizen, and also as someone who was concerned that the biology textbook presented only one side. And he thought there should be other alternative theories involved. And that's when I introduced him to the theory of intelligent design and indicated that I thought that that theory could be taught alongside the theory of evolution and pass constitutional muster.

2) RICHARD THOMPSON: We didn't have to show that, you know, one theory was better than the other, merely that it was a credible theory, and that the students would gain something by understanding the controversy surrounding the theory of evolution and the origin of species.

3) RICHARD THOMPSON: Our aim was not really to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. Our aim was to merely show that there are credible scientists who believed that the empirical data was supportive of intelligent design. That's all we had to show.

4) RICHARD THOMPSON: That's a lawyer's trick, purely a lawyer's trick. Now, you know, was Michael Behe going to read every one of those books before he responded? You know, it was totally theatrics.

5) RICHARD THOMPSON: I think, first of all you, you have to say we had a fair trial. I'm just disturbed about the extent of his opinion, that it went way beyond what, what he should have gone into deciding matters of science.

1) alternative theories - taught alongside

2) We didn't have to show…one theory was better than the other

3) Our aim was not really to disprove

4) was Michael Behe going to read every one of those books before he responded
--
Re #4, Apparently not according to Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, as such a requirement was described by him as being "a lawyer's trick," "purely a lawyer's trick," and "total theatrics."

(ME: In other words, it seems that Richard Thompson is asking whether Michael Behe should have been informed enough to have been qualified enough to take the stand, BEFORE having taken the stand.

Thus the "intelligence" of Intelligent Design proponents - and more specifically, Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, who is now "arguing," via CRW, that it should be TAUGHT in public shools that being attracted to the same gender is a choice.)

--
5) I'm just disturbed about the extent of his opinion, that it went…into deciding matters of science.
--
Not surprising coming from Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, in that the justice's "opinion" pretty much excoriated the Thomas More Center for attempting to HIDE the fact that they were attempting to force religion into the public classroom.
--
These are only his quotes from the entire program, which is mandatory understanding BTW. Lot’s of info here, in addition to being able to watch or read the program online.

January 28, 2008 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for reminding us, Improv, that the case for overturning the MCPS curriculum is so strong that you have to refer to a totally unrelated case to distract attention from that obvious fact.

You're a true friend of CRC!

January 28, 2008 12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Thanks for reminding us, Improv, that the case for overturning the MCPS curriculum is so strong that you have to refer to a totally unrelated case to distract attention from that obvious fact.

You're a true friend of CRC!"

--

They are both attempts by the same law firm to get religion -- via lawsuit -- into the schools.

Do you not agree with this assessment?

January 28, 2008 12:30 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, PFLAG does have lawyers involved in the current case, assisting the MCPS lawyers. You might consider PFLAG to be a "homosexual advocacy group," since they offer support to people with gay family members; even so, they didn't do anything like pressuring the district, they have some good lawyers and they helped the school district defend itself when it came under attack.

GLSEN has a person who takes notes at school board and citizens committee meetings, that's it as far as I know. Pressure? No.

As for TTF getting funding from HRC, GLSEN and EM, the answer there is a negatory, good buddy. We have received grants from some churches, and some individuals have donated money to us. Their mission is different from ours -- these are "gay advocacy groups."

As for the idea that TTF is a "homosexual advocacy group" that pressured the school district, I must say I always get a laugh out of that. Why would we be "homosexual advocates?" Personally, I couldn't care less if somebody is gay or straight, and I figure gay people are plenty able to fight for their own rights, it's not my job and actually not very interesting to me. Sexual orientation happens to be the topic that certain nuts in our community decided to raise a stink about, so that's our fight. And what kind of "pressure" do you think we could put on the school district? We're just citizens, the most pressure we can put on them is just to keep an eye on what they do, and address the board at public comments like anybody else.

[I edited this comment after posting it, when I realized there was an error in it.]

JimK

January 28, 2008 12:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "When the school didn't want to include unsubstantiated assertions that gayness is not a disease and is innate".

If you want to assert that gayness is a disease the onus is on you to prove it. Your assertion that it is a disease is the unsubstantiated one. There was never any evidence that gayness was a disease and considerable evidence to show that its not. Studies begining with the groundbreaking work of Evelyn Hooker in the 1950's showed that gays are indistinguishable from straights in terms of mental health and this has been backed up by scores of studies since then. This is why gayness was removed from the DSM in 1973, it is thoroughly substantiated that it is not a disease. Similarly scores of studies have shown gayness to be linked to various biological factors and none have shown it to be linked to family dynamics, the bankrupt theory of anti-gay religionists. This taken as a whole proves gayness is innate.

Red Baron said "What's interesting is how TTF ignores the mainstream when it doesn't fit it's agenda. The APA includes transgenderism as a disorder. A recent survey of studies on sexual reassignment surgery follow-up finds that it doesn't achieve the desired result, another study shows that one's chromosomes determine one's gender and the institution that pioneered the surgery, no longer performs it. To TTF, these mainstream facts are unmentionable.".

Lies, all lies. You're the one ignoring the mainstream.

The most comprehensive study of post-SRS outcomes is “Sex Reassignment. Thirty Years of International Follow-up Studies” by Friedemann Pf’fflin and Astrid Junge (1992 in German, English translation 1998). Pf’fflin and Junge used data from over 70 studies, in total considering the outcomes of over 2000 patients from 13 countries. They found that outcomes - measured in terms of “subjective satisfaction; mental stability; socioeconomic functioning; and partnership and sexual experience” - of SRS are generally positive. Overall, 71% of male-to-female (MTF) and 90% of female-to-male (FTM) operations had positive results. When they limited their sample only to more recent patients (who benefited from improvements in techniques and procedures over the decades), the results were positive for 87% of MTFs and 97% for FTMs.


That study is now over 10 years old and two more recent studies have shown 100% satisfaction rates:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p005571hmv827611/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g40k461746677054/

"Participants reported overwhelmingly that they were happy with their SRS results and that SRS had greatly improved the quality of their lives. None reported outright regret and only a few expressed even occasional regret.".

The program led at the "institution that pioneered the surgery" that closed its program did so because it was run by an anti-gay religionist. The studies that you refer to claiming that Sexual reassignment surger was a failure deal with babies and children who had the surgery prior to it being known what their internal gender was. Of course it is a mistake to perform such surgery on people before they've had a chance to express their own desires as to what their gender should be. Sexual reassignment surgery on adults has been an overwhelming success and continues to be as the quality of surgeries improves.

January 28, 2008 1:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And I should add that John Hopkins is virtually all alone in having closed its program. Sexual Reassignment surgery is done more widely than ever and is available at a large number of clinics throughout the world.

January 28, 2008 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is great;
Shirley Phelps-Roper of the Westboro Baptist Church telling her side of the story on sexual orientation of her nasty hate-mongering group.

Go here:
1. www.hot995.com

2. and then look on the page under "Kane Show on Demand" and then under that you will see:

3. "Crazy gay-hating woman".


If I do say so myself, it's pretty damn sick.

January 28, 2008 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's sickest of all is that no one would have ever even heard of Westboro except they get so much attention from gay nut groups. The singular focus by gay groups shows how hard it is to find any church like this. They are not a typical church any more than NAMBLA is a typical gay group.

January 28, 2008 1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, what those people do is bizarre and outrageous, and it wouldn't make sense to ignore it. Their web site explains the religious philosophy that underlies it: Calvinism. Nobody has ever tried to imply that all Christians are like that -- obviously most are not nearly that extreme.

It is pretty incredible to see you try to blame "gay nut groups" for the behavior!

January 28, 2008 2:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron, Westboro Baptist church is what you get when you take your bible seriously. They are merely following their bible exactly as its laid out for them

January 28, 2008 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is pretty incredible to see you try to blame "gay nut groups" for the behavior!"

Didn't blame you for their behavior. I'm blamed you for assisting them by giving them the publicity they crave.

January 28, 2008 2:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Red Baron, Westboro Baptist church is what you get when you take your bible seriously. They are merely following their bible exactly as its laid out for them"

No, like you and the Pharisees, they are following a legalistic form of religion based on rules rather than principles. They have more in common with Muslims than Christians. They apparently ignore the fact that Jesus came to fulfill the law.

January 28, 2008 2:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I don't follow any religion Red Baron. The only true moral principle is "do whatever you want but hurt no one". Westboro Baptist just takes their bible more seriously than you do.

January 28, 2008 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, Anon. Since you are "preaching the Lord's words" does that mean now you are free from Hell? I don't know about you, but my God is a loving God full of love, not HATE. God hates nobody--PERIOD.

January 28, 2008 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Their positions both about innateness and the normality of homosexual desire are unsubstantiated. They are opinions.

Proving my point once again that you don't understand what is in the curriculum. There's a link to it on this website, you could always try reading it.

Let me spell it out for you again: You may not agree with what the AMA says (and the same goes for the APA, AAP, and so forth. ALL mainstream medical associations say the same thing), but you can't claim that they don't say it. "Homosexuality is not an illness" is the position of the AMA, APA, et al. Calling that fact unsubstantiated is ridiculous. If you disagree with the AMA, take it up with them and leave the schools alone.

January 28, 2008 3:31 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I'm blamed you for assisting them by giving them the publicity they crave.

Anon, I don't know why you're using the second-person there, I'm not a member of any "gay nut group." And this web site doesn't give the Westboro people any publicity, except maybe if somebody talks about them in the comments. I've hardly mentioned them in the blog.

JimK

January 28, 2008 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
What's sickest of all is that no one would have ever even heard of Westboro except they get so much attention from gay nut groups. The singular focus by gay groups shows how hard it is to find any church like this. They are not a typical church any more than NAMBLA is a typical gay group.
---------------

And what’s even sicker than sickest of all is that without the attention they get from these gay nut groups, we gay nut groups would have no conception of what it means for a group to be anti-gay AND non-hypocritical, at the same time.

At least Westboro doesn't attempt to hide their hatred behind comparisons with NAMBLA.

They at least have the guts to say "We flat out hate you!"

January 28, 2008 3:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought Mr TM brought it up, Jim, not you.

January 28, 2008 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"I thought Mr TM brought it up, Jim, not you."

Well thank goodness that's been settled. Now you can finally get back to ignoring everything else that's been said.

January 28, 2008 4:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did in deep bring it up, Anon-Con.

I think I will elaborate what I said earlier by your means: not understanding what you are saying.

I don't see the difference between CRW/CRC/PFOX/CRG and Westboro Baptist, Anon. To me, and the majority of the SANE public, all you people do is use religion as a crutch to uphole your fragile attempt of promoting hate through legal means.

I just don't see the difference between the groups. They all use hate to promote their Red Neck Agenda. Just doesn't make sense...

January 28, 2008 5:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red baron said "What's sickest of all is that no one would have ever even heard of Westboro except they get so much attention from gay nut groups.".

So, according to Red Baron, the problem is not with what Westboro Baptist does or believes, the problem is making people aware of it. In other words there's nothing wrong with a Christian group calling for the death of gays, the problem is in complaining about that and making it apparent to the world. You're sick Red Baron.

January 28, 2008 6:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This article is from www.nbc4.com. What is interesting is that I grew up near St. Cloud State University in Minnesota. Scary. This is EXACTLY why we still need to push the practice of tolerance for all people and their differences.



ST. CLOUD, Minn. -- Bisharo Iman hoped college in St. Cloud would be different than attending high school there - no more taunts of "Go back to your country" aimed at her Somali dress, no more being slammed into lockers.

"I did get away from it - for a while," said Iman, a junior business major at St. Cloud State University.

That was before a frightening six-week stretch in November and December when vandals carved or scrawled more than a dozen swastikas and other racist images on campus walls, elevators and bathroom stalls.

The spate came as a setback to this central Minnesota university, which has spent more than $1 million, thousands of hours and untold energy in recent years trying to undo its reputation as hostile toward racial and ethnic minorities, an image so entrenched that some refer to the surrounding town as "White Cloud."

"Do I groan and say, 'Goodness, not again?' Of course I do," said Earl Potter, president of the school situated in a quiet, overwhelmingly white city of about 60,000 on the Mississippi River that has seen an influx of Somali immigrants. "But you have to look at our country, and how we still struggle with some of our more unfortunate legacies. These are complicated issues for everyone."

As a new term starts, St. Cloud State has responded with a series of new initiatives, including an all-day unity rally, aimed at reassuring minority students that they are safe and easing the concerns of faculty, donors and potential students.

The first two swastikas appeared in mid-November, carved into the wall of a computer lab in the Student Cultural Center, a popular gathering place for minorities among the 17,000 students at the university, the state's second-largest.

"The fact they did it here, you feel more targeted," Iman said, reclining on a couch with friends in the bustling center.

About a dozen reports followed, including several more drawings of swastikas, a Ku Klux Klan hood and a burning cross. Some of the more disturbing allegations came from a minority student who said a group of young white men spit at her and another gave her a Nazi salute.

St. Cloud police are investigating, but Sgt. Jerry Edblad said there are no suspects and that such cases are tough to crack without direct information from witnesses.

Many of the later images turned up in dormitories, leading investigators to think they were the work of students. Investigators also believe some of the later vandalism was committed by copycats.

The school has plastered over the swastikas in the Student Cultural Center, but their effects linger.

"What I would hope is that people would connect the dots," said Myrle Cooper, a retired St. Cloud State professor who is black. "This is hardly a rare occasion."

In 2002, Cooper and another black professor sent letters to several dozen high schools and churches in the Twin Cities urging minority students not to attend St. Cloud State, warning of a "long and sordid record of racism." He said he'd do the same today.

About the same time as Cooper and his colleague were writing their letters, St. Cloud State settled a federal class action lawsuit filed by current and former faculty members who alleged that school officials had discriminated against Jews and other minority groups for years. As part of the settlement, the school established a Jewish Studies and Resource Center, increased campus security, upped diversity training and reformed discrimination-complaint procedures.

Yet the problems persisted. An anonymous survey of faculty members contained anti-Semitic remarks. The university's neighbors found anti-Semitic and racist fliers on their cars.

The most common explanation as to why St. Cloud State seems to have had more racial trouble than other universities in historically liberal-minded Minnesota is summarized by Rabbi Joseph Edelheit, who came to campus after the 2002 settlement to lead the Jewish Studies program.

"This is central, rural Minnesota. When my classes start tomorrow, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, there will be people who walk in who've never met a Jew before," Edelheit said.

"There is some reality to the reputation of St. Cloud as a place that struggles with diversity," conceded Potter, the president.

Campus leaders speak of wanting to lead the way for the surrounding community, and minority enrollment has risen from 6.2 percent in fall 2006 to 6.8 percent in fall 2007.

It remains a circular problem, however. That student body studies at the feet of many faculty members, including Edelheit, who commute 75 miles from the Twin Cities, a choice some of the teachers make because of St. Cloud's image.

"I live in the Cities because I need a larger Jewish community," Edelheit said. "I live in the Cities because I can't imagine living in a community that cannot support its own synagogue.

January 28, 2008 8:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home