Monday, July 14, 2008

Good Story on Page One of the Post Today

I'm sure you saw this on the front page of The Post this morning, but we should be looking at it together. I'm a baby boomer, approximately one million years old, we used to have to play the old crank-handle video games when I was a kid. When I was in high school -- and I went to a pretty big school -- I don't remember there being one gay kid. There certainly wasn't anybody who was out about it, and I don't even remember there being rumors. It wasn't something we hushed up, it was just something that never occurred to us. I'm sure there were gay kids at my school, and I'll bet it occurred to them, but for most of us homosexuality was something exotic and weird, something they might have in New York City or someplace, there wouldn't be somebody at our school like that!

So it has been amazing to me to watch my own kids growing up through high school and accepting their gay and lesbian friends without question. It isn't something they make a big show of, they have some friends who speak Spanish, some with jobs, some with cars, tall ones, short ones, some who are gay. A bunch of kids hanging out together don't seem to distinguish in any noticeable way. I'm not saying all teens are like that today, but I have seen a gigantic shift since my generation came through the torture of adolescence. Nowadays it looks like the worst pressure comes from adults, not necessarily family but sometimes.

Front page of The Post:
School's out, and Saro Harvey and his best friend, Samantha Sachs, are hanging out in his Arlington County bedroom. She is slouched across his bed, and he is poised on a chair, posture-perfect, wearing dark, skinny jeans and a ruffled shirt meant for a girl. A rust-orange purse he sometimes carries hangs behind the door.

The 15-year-olds were voted most popular last spring in their section of ninth grade at Wakefield High School. Still, Saro knows there are those on and off campus who don't like him, who never will.

He has grown so used to the stares and laughter of strangers that their insults slip off his 118-pound frame like an oversize shirt.

I think I've dealt with it so much my whole life that it really doesn't bother me anymore, not as much as it used to," Saro says. "If you have a birthmark on your leg for so long, you don't even notice it."

Saro, who first said he liked boys to a classmate in sixth grade, is like many of today's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youths who openly discuss their sexual orientation and identity with friends, and sometimes family, before entering high school. In doing so, experts say, these youths are escaping the isolation of generations before them but also finding themselves vulnerable to harassment -- or worse. A California eighth-grader who expressed interest in asking another boy to be his valentine was fatally shot in February in a case that drew national attention. Owning His Gay Identity -- at 15 Years Old

There's a nice video at The Post web site, too. Follow the link to watch it.

Skipping down ...
While children are coming out younger, studies show that they are doing so in schools where staff members have received little training in the area, where their fellow students use such language as "That's so gay" every day to express dislike, and where anti-bullying policies often don't exist or don't specifically protect students on the basis of sexual orientation.

In May, Maryland became the 11th state to enact a law to protect schoolchildren from being bullied because of sexual orientation. The District has had such a law since 1973; Virginia does not have one.

It seems kids are coming out at a younger age, as the stigma wears off and being gay ceases to be something you have to hide. Much as some Family Blah Blah types don't like to think it, a lot of gay and lesbian and transgender people know they're different at an early age. There are social pressures to conform, but less than there used to be.
A generation ago, the typical coming-out story for a young person involved a college student and distraught parents, said Lindy Garnette, executive director of Metro DC Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Now, she said, the more likely scenario involves a minor living at home, and the questions from parents have evolved from panicky to pragmatic. "What do I do when my 16-year-old lesbian daughter wants her girlfriend to spend the night?" some have asked. "What about if she wants to go to an all-girl sleepover?"

Emily Harvey, Saro's mother, said she long believed that her son was gay. When he told her at the end of eighth grade that he liked boys in addition to girls, she said it was a relief.

"I think he really became complete the day he told me that," she said. "It really made him be more comfortable in all aspects of life."

I'm afraid this is getting a little long, but there is one more section that I think is really interesting -- the parents.
What did surprise her, however, was "how far out there" he was in style and expression. She said she sometimes asks him to tone it down, not because it bothers her, but because she has seen how it bothers others. She notices the stares from strangers and the way children ask innocent, yet hurtful, questions, such as, "Is he a girl?"

"For an average kid," Emily Harvey said, pausing on the adjective before continuing, "for an average kid, you don't really have to say, 'Maybe the ruffled shirt is not a good idea.' If he was going through a punk stage and dyed his hair purple, it would not be the same conversation as, 'Maybe you shouldn't carry my purse to school.' "

"I worry about him all the time," she added. "All the time."

Her immediate fear: Will someone hurt him? Her long-term concerns: Will he find someone who loves him for him? And if he does, will he have the same rights as everyone else?

Saro's father, James Harvey, said he loves his son but confesses that he has faced his own prejudices as he watches Saro change.

"Sometimes I have the feeling I want to toughen him up," James Harvey said. "It's something I completely don't understand."

He said he struggles to grasp what "triggered" Saro's interest in the same sex. Had his son been molested? he questioned. Could this be just a phase?

The mother is caring and protective, the father would like to get a handle on how this happened.

107 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very interesting article in deed.

At my school we did two homeroom activities titled "Words Can Hurt". Our theme this year was "Respect".

"That's so gay" and "he's the blackest white guy I know" were among some of the phrases discussed. Some students use these phrases not knowing that they have a negative connotations so bringing these to light deemed helpful.

Something else that would create a more conducive learning environment for all students is to reminds students that phrases such as those above can in deed be hurtful to another person (even though they may think it's an innocent remark).

Whenever I hear such phrases, I simply remind students, "The word gay is not a synonym for 'stupid'".

They first try to say that that's "not what they meant" and apologize.

Our students in Montgomery County are fair-minded and thoughtful. Sometimes they just need a reminder (don't all teenagers??).

Nobody is born hating- they are taught hate.

July 14, 2008 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ut-oh!

Looks like trouble in Lunatic Land!

"(July 14) -- A new Newsweek poll shows that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama leads Republican rival John McCain by just 3 percentage points, a statistical dead heat -- and a sharp drop from the 15-point lead Obama held in June."

July 14, 2008 3:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth when half the story serves your purposes and you are an unaccountable cloaked coward?

...Princeton Survey Research Associates, which conducted the poll for NEWSWEEK, says some of the discrepancy between the two most recent polls may be explained by sampling error.

...the poll suggests underlying strengths for the Dem. Concerns that he would be unable to unite the Democratic Party after the bruising fight against Clinton appear to be unfounded. Only 17 percent of former Clinton supporters say they will vote for McCain in the general election, and 13 percent of undecided voters are former supporters of the New York senator. But 61 percent of registered voters who support Obama say they support him strongly, compared to just 39 percent who say they strongly support McCain. At a similar point in the 2004 presidential race, only 53 percent of supporters of Democratic nominee John Kerry said they supported him strongly.

The new poll suggests white voters continue to be a challenge for Obama, with McCain leading the Democrat in that category 48 to 36 percent. Some of Obama's lag in white support may be explained by continual confusion over his religious identity. Twelve percent of voters surveyed said that Obama was sworn in as a United States senator on a Qur'an, while 26 percent believe the Democratic candidate was raised as a Muslim and 39 percent believe he attended an Islamic school as a child growing up in Indonesia. None of these things is true.

July 14, 2008 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth when half the story serves your purposes and you are an unaccountable cloaked coward?"

Yes, especially if you are cloaked in a Mayberry apron. Here's some parts of the story that make Aunt Bea a little squeamish:

"A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama's glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month's NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.

Obama's rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment for the Democratic candidate. Having vanquished Hillary Clinton in early June, Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience--an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who'd slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama's reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.

More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. This is a major concern since Obama's outsider credentials, have, in the past, played a large part in his appeal to moderate, swing voters. In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In June's NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.

Obama's overall decline from the last NEWSWEEK Poll, published June 20, is hard to explain. Many critics questioned whether the Democrat's advantage over McCain was actually as great as the poll suggested, even though a survey taken during a similar time frame by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg showed a similarly large margin. Princeton Survey Research Associates, which conducted the poll for NEWSWEEK, says some of the discrepancy between the two most recent polls may be explained by sampling error.

At the time of the last poll, pundits also noted that a large lead in the polls doesn't always guarantee a general-election victory. Many warned that Democrat Michael Dukakis led George H.W. Bush by as much as 16 points in some 1988 polls and then went on to lose that year's presidential contest.

But perhaps most puzzling is how McCain could have gained traction in the past month. To date, direct engagement with Obama has not seemed to favor the GOP nominee. McCain has announced major initiatives on energy and the economy but failed to dominate the conversation on those issues."

note: opinion of the unplugged media source; perhaps the voters noticed

"McCain's biography still appears to be his greatest asset, with 55 percent of voters saying they have a favorable opinion of the Arizona senator, compared to 32 percent who have an unfavorable opinion."

July 14, 2008 3:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like Roberts and Alito will gettin' some new golf buddies!

July 14, 2008 3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man, this is as good as razzleberry pudding!

The public view of Obama is changing fast.

The newest New Yorker magazine has him and his wife on the cover dressed as Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist girlfriend with an American flag buring in the fireplace.

That'll be at newstands for a while!

July 14, 2008 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh no Anon, I like the parts that say "Obama LEADS McBush" just fine.

So tell us, Anon, in your estimation, why did the GOP want the 60 year old lady librarian with the sign reading McCain=Bush removed from a McCain fundraiser? I thought the GOP was proud of their frat boy.

July 14, 2008 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You must have missed the memo, Anon.

The McCain campaign joined in piling on The New Yorker. "We completely agree with the Obama campaign that it's tasteless and offensive," said campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds.

July 14, 2008 4:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...55 percent of voters saying they have a favorable opinion of the Arizona senator, compared to 32 percent who have an unfavorable opinion."

And voters have a slightly more favorable opinion of Obama:

...Obama's favorable/unfavorable gap is virtually identical at 56 to 32... "

Shame on you! You are just full of half truths today.

July 14, 2008 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're a hoot, Bea!

I posted one sentence from the article.

Your response: he's hiding the truth and then you post up a bunch of out of context parts of the article, acting like everything's great.

How sad!

Here are the important parts of the article:

The race is a dead heat

McCain has the momentum

McCain leads among independets

Voters believe Obama is cynically changing positions for political advantage

Let me know if I got any of that wrong.

Believe me. At Obama HQ, they're in panic mode today!

Let's see,

Kerry

Gore

Dukakis

take me disappearin' through the smoke rings of my mind

down the foggy ruins of time

July 14, 2008 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, especially if you are cloaked in a Mayberry apron.

Or any of these aprons for that matter, eh Sybil Hardly-a-man?

the rag man
L man
Uncle Fester
Sheriff Andy
Gomer
The Lightning Man
Deputy Fife
Opie Taylor
rolling thunder
Ever-spying eyes
007

I'm always Aunt Bea while you always duck accountability.

July 14, 2008 4:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

please, beatrice

how do we know you don't post with other names?

you're a anonymous and we just saw a good example of you trying to mislead about a poll that clearly shows McCain leading among independent voters and that over half the electorate believes Obama is a cynical flip-flopper

Obama's glow is gone, the electorate has moved back to the same position as the last two presidential elections-

and we know how those turned out!!

July 14, 2008 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

McBush has the soft support because of his long standing rift with the religious wrong.

61 percent of registered voters who support Obama say they support him strongly, compared to just 39 percent who say they strongly support McCain

And here's what Dobson said about McBush. He said if the race came down to McBush vs. Hillary or Obama, "I simply will not cast a ballot for President for the first time in my life.

July 14, 2008 4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

glad you can find some strands of consolation to keep you from pulling your hair out, Beatrice

it's more fun at the end of the day if the other side thinks they might win

as for us:

when we party, we party hardy

July 14, 2008 5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, that the country has been convinced that Obama is a flip-flopper with no energy plan, and, btw, energy independence is what this election will be about, we can move on to our big Obama stopper:

HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE!

How did the Dems get themselves into this mess again?

Were did all the intelligent liberals go?

Long time's passin'

July 14, 2008 5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

please, beatrice

how do we know you don't post with other names?


You don't, but anyone can see how long I've been using this name by clicking on the HOME button above, scrolling down to the SEARCH box, and typing in "Aunt Bea." You'll get thousands of hits. Search for any one of your monikers and you won't, you no account cloaked coward.

July 14, 2008 5:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee, you really take this Obama worship seriously, don't you?

July 14, 2008 5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually it was you who worshipped the idea of a President Huckabee back in your "secret santa" days. Sorta miscalculated there, huh Syb?

July 14, 2008 5:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, it was fun driving you guys up the wall about that for a while.

You won't find me spouting epithets at the mere suggestion that his poll numbers were down.

I can't believe the Dems are going to blow this election. It was all in your grasp.

Right there for the taking.

All you had to do was make a reasonably responsible choice.

Instead, we get some clown who hasn't even served a full term as Senator.

Amazing.

July 14, 2008 6:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Back to the original post.

It was a good article, fairly accurate about the experiences that some kids have in our inner suburbs.

For youth from less accepting families, coming out can be a nightmare, or being discovered can be downright dangerous. It is a terrible thing to hear the people who raise you and care for you tell you that you are going to hell. At our LGBT youth bar-b-cue in Arlington this weekend, a young man told me that his family was moving to Turkey so he would not be influenced by American attitudes to LGBT people. He had concerns about whether he really was going to hell, so he buys at least some of the claptrap. Given my history, I can sympathize in a complete way.

Derrick, it sounds like your school does some real work combatting bullying, in all its manifestations. Could they do a better job? What would you keep and what would you change?

Robert (blogging, as always, as myself)

July 14, 2008 6:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert-

We really didn't do too much with bullying until I became part of the Instructional and Leadership Team at my school. I was the Elected Faculty Rep. and appointed leader of the Student Wellness Committee this year (we have many committees teachers take part in at my school, as required contractually). I saw this as a real opportunity to help make a change. I think we have started some very positive conversations amongst students and teachers and administrators alike-- Students felt like they had a voice to speak out about things that offend them.

Such issues were phrases like, "that's retarded", "that's so gay", "you're such a Jew", etc, etc.

My Gay-Straight Alliance, my content department and the teacher members of my committee all met with different minority students at my school and we came up with some great homeroom activities (as well as a survey, group discussions questions and two Power Point Presentations).

I found some great examples for lesson plans from www.teachingtolerance.org. However, I wanted to use authentic situations having to do with my school so we "tweaked" the lesson plans a bit so that everything would be more relevant.

I have always had a very positive and supportive administration at my school. We don't tolerate bullying in Montgomery County Public Schools .

Something I would have changed about this past school year is getting more parents involved. I did have about 18 parents who helped tailor lesson plans (and they were gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, black, white, Asian, etc...) but I would like even more parent involvement next time we do something like this.

July 14, 2008 7:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

derrick.
homeroom presentations ?
discussing tolerance ?
of the gay lifestyle ?
with no notice to parents and no opt-out ?
How interesting.

July 14, 2008 9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes Derrick,

What were you thinking???!! Not giving a chance for the KKK and Nazi parents to opt out of your subversive tolerance classes??!!

Peace,

Cynthia

(I hope folks here can recognize sarcasm.)

July 15, 2008 12:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, AnonBigot-

Sexual orientation is part of our non-discrimination clause. And, for your liking, we even talked about tolerance for the "ex-gay" community. We addressed that although we may not agree with each other, we have to respect each other.

Next AnonBigot is going to say that we can't teach our students that using the "N-word" offensive and hurtful and socially unacceptable.

Dear, I teach lessons on the pluperfect subjunctive... should I get parent permission for that?

Oh, and the pronunciation of "I put" in Spanish in the preterit tense is "puse" (sounds like poo-say). Damn, forgot to get parental permission for that too. Or should I just change a language so that dumb people like you are happy?

Sorry! Nope! That is not how language works.

As I mentioned, I love having parents involved in their child's learning. That is why I send out a class newsletter once a month and encourage parents to keep in close contact with me (as I do with them).

Listen, I don't feel a need to have to defend myself against your stupid remarks. I believe that we need to give the educational system back to the teachers and not some policy makers who draft unrealistic laws like No Chile Left Behind-- because while it make look great on paper, most of the people who drafted the law have never been on the other side of the classroom (in front teaching).

No Child Left Behind? No problem! Because with our current Administration in the White House, we're not going anywhere!


AnonBigot, your extreme ignorance is EXACTLY the reason why young people carry out hate crimes, harass each other, and make school life for other youngsters a living Hell during their school years.

If you are not going to be part of the solution, you are most certainly part of the problem. You and, sir, have many, many, many problems.

July 15, 2008 6:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Listen, I don't feel a need to have to defend myself against your stupid remarks."

Oh yeah, we can tell.

Some anon asked a couple of questions without much commentary and you feel the need to launch into a harangue.

The real point is when are school administrators going to catch on to your using your position to vent a bunch of imagined offenses of your childhood.

If some kid in school has homosexual feelings, he should be taught to keep it to himself at school.

End of problem.

July 15, 2008 7:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Iraq war is fading as an issue. Once a concern, a new Washington Post poll shows only half of Americans would support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

The Obama camp will be in a second day of panic, however, about an even more significant finding:

Less than half of Americans believe Obama would be a good commander-in-chief. The number for McCain: 72%.

Americans are famously good at seeing through a phony and Obama's recent attempts to attack McCain's military career have been noticed.

The tide has turned in this election.

The jackass party has blown it again.

July 15, 2008 7:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hahaha. You are SO OFF YOUR ROCKER, AnonBigot.

It's very entertaining and VERY sad at the same time.

I'll be sure to pray for the unhappy life you lead that makes you hate others (and obviously yourself) so much.

July 15, 2008 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush's refuses to set up a timeline for withdrawal because he first wants, among other things, a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to establish the basis for a long-term presence of US troops in the country. Most Iraqis want us gone and that's why Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demands US withdrawal timetable

Back to the original post:

Teens today are fortunate they have teachers like Robert and Derrick, teachers who support all teens' rights to be heard in the classroom and who don't let their personal feelings prejudice them. Thank you both. No teen should be taught to keep feelings about him or herself to him or herself. Experts agree, even Warren Throckmorton agrees that gays can lead happy and healthy lives. What Anon is advocating is that we teach kids to internalize homophobia. That's only going to lead to problems like depression and suicide. Teens should be free to discuss their feelings with their teachers, parents, clergy, whichever trusted adult they feel comfortable discussing them with.

I hope Saro's dad doesn't fall for the NARTH lie that his son is gay because he was a bad parent and I hope he can come to an understanding with his son instead of disowning him like Obama's last unsuccessful opponent, Alan Keyes did when his daughter, Maya Keyes, came out before leaving to study at Brown University.

July 15, 2008 9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glad to amuse you, Derrick.

Here's some more merriment:

Schools should pass dress codes requiring students to dress in a gender specific manner. These guys who wear mascara and ruffly shirts to school make a spectacle of themselves and are disruptive. Send them home to get dressed appropriately.

Also preposterous and provocative are these stories you hear about some guy flirting with another guy in school. A straight guy is properly offended by the suggestion that he might be open to such an advance. Such behavior by gay kid is offensive and requires a visit to the principal's office.

Also, gay-straight clubs have no place in schools and should be disbanded. The kids should be encouraged to participate in healthy extracurricular activities that contribute to their preparation to take their place worthily in society. Any teacher who have sponsored such clubs should, of course, be reassigned to clerical work for a probationary period.

I agree with you, Derrick. It's kind of entertaining to think of ways we could get this gay problem out of taxpayer supported schools.

If anyone else has any more fun ideas for countering the gay assault on the public schools, let's hear 'em!

July 15, 2008 9:13 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Anonymous said…
"Some anon asked a couple of questions…"

Thank you for the clarification between yourself, and yourself, Sybil.

"If some kid in school has homosexual feelings, he should be taught to keep it to himself at school."

Excellent point Sybil, only boys can have “homosexual feelings.”

Where were you when the health curriculum was being crafted?

July 15, 2008 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bush's refuses to set up a timeline for withdrawal because he first wants, among other things, a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to establish the basis for a long-term presence of US troops in the country."

Looks like half of all Americans agree with him and the number is growing.

"Most Iraqis want us gone and that's why Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demands US withdrawal timetable"

Actually, he's concerned with a violent minority.

Well, President McCain, who has the trust of the American people, unlike some major party candidates we won't mention, will work out a solution for everyone.

July 15, 2008 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Teens today are fortunate they have teachers like Robert and Derrick, teachers who support all teens' rights to be heard in the classroom and who don't let their personal feelings prejudice them."

Ha Ha Ha Ha, ho ho ho ho, hee hee hee!

I gotta hand to you, AB.

You've got a wicked sense of humor!

"Thank you both. No teen should be taught to keep feelings about him or herself to him or herself. Experts agree, even Warren Throckmorton agrees that gays can lead happy and healthy lives."

I think he was probably referring to adults. Kids are forced to go to schools where dangerous kids from all kinds of backgrounds lurk to prey on any sign of weakness. Encouraging them to tell everyone they're gay is not a smart move. It might make a lot of blowhard liberal bloggers feel impressed with themselves to suggest such a thing but the kids actually have to go to school every day.

"What Anon is advocating is that we teach kids to internalize homophobia. That's only going to lead to problems like depression and suicide."

So could any other restraint on inappropriate behavior. Learning discretion is part of growing up.

The social problems connected with being out will probably be more likely to cause "depression and suicide".

"Teens should be free to discuss their feelings with their teachers, parents, clergy, whichever trusted adult they feel comfortable discussing them with."

Sure, how else can they get help?

July 15, 2008 9:29 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

"Any teacher who have sponsored such clubs should, of course, be reassigned to clerical work for a probationary period."

And now for the unabridged version of the sentiment:

Any teacher who have sponsored such clubs should, of course, be reassigned to clerical work in a prison for a probationary period, until such time as it is determined that they should be executed as the Bible commands.

July 15, 2008 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Any teacher who have sponsored such clubs should, of course, be reassigned to clerical work in a prison for a probationary period, until such time as it is determined that they should be executed as the Bible commands."

Hate to shock you, emslob, but alot of inner city schools might as well be prisons for the kids assigned to them. The problem could be remedied by school choice and a voucher system but this is yet another case where Obama doesn't support a program in the best interest of kids from lower income families.

These teachers who have pushed these gay sex clubs in public schools might eventually be reassigned to teaching duties after a period of reflection as long as they aren't gay themselves and there is no proof that any kids were harmed by the activities.

Just a thought.

July 15, 2008 9:45 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

"Schools should pass dress codes requiring students to dress in a gender specific manner. These guys who wear mascara and ruffly shirts to school make a spectacle of themselves and are disruptive. Send them home to get dressed appropriately."

Let’s not forget hair style. These guys who wear long hair to school also make a spectacle of themselves and are also disruptive. Send them home so they can be sent to a barber to get a haircut! (And if it’s a girl with short hair, send her home to get a weave!)

The lord thy God will not tolerate such follicle insubordination…

July 15, 2008 9:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It depends on community standards, emslob. The point is not to be a disruptive influence. I don't anyone's is particularly distracted by long hair.

Don't be so close-minded.

July 15, 2008 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(I’m going to try Emproph’s directions for embedding links here, if it doesn’t work I apologize and I’ve added the link at the end.)

Umm, it seems Bush is already looking at pulling out troops early – are we not reading the papers?

There is a lot for status quo supporters to crow about in this article, but I guess since talking about troop withdrawal sounds too much like Obama, it’s getting ignored.

It seems while Bush was looking for Weapons of Mere Delusion in Iraq, the real enemy was biding his time and gaining strength hiding in Pakistan, and now “More American and allied troops died in Afghanistan than in Iraq in May and June, a trend that has continued this month.”

What Bush and his cronies still don’t realize is that they are fighting this war on Osama Bin Laden’s terms, not there own. Osama’s “air force” consisted of a couple dozen guys and a box of razor blades – and airplanes that AMERICAN companies paid for. His “Navy” consisted of a pontoon boat filled with explosives that nearly sunk the USS Cole. The US is spending BILLIONS of dollars a year trying to fight “The War on Terrorism” with satellites, stealth fighters and bombers, new IED resistant trucks, and in the mean time, Bin Laden is writing out orders on Post-It Notes from somebody’s basement in Pakistan. Bin Laden isn’t playing to “win” in any military sense Bush understands, he is “bleeding the beast,” and watching our lumbering-oaf tactics around the world do more damage to our international reputation than he could ever do alone.

It doesn’t even matter if we eventually “catch him” or even kill him – because then he’s a martyr. His face is on t-shirts around the world, inspiring young people to redress the brutal stupidity that our government now promulgates in “The War on Terror.”

Going to war in Iraq couldn’t have been better for Bin Laden – now he’s divided his enemy’s attention, and kept him busy elsewhere for years. Now US troops are strained and we’ll have to play a game of “musical brigades” trying to keep him and his ilk in both Afghanistan, and Iraq, and possibly Pakistan as well under control. In the mean time Bin Laden’s message (and our naïve response to it) has inspired do-it-yourself terrorists as far away as London to make their own car bombs and drive them into airports. We are playing a deadly international game of “Whack-A-Mole” with Bin Laden, and he knows very well that the “collateral damage” we do in the process will provide him all the sympathy and military support he needs to drag this on for decades.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/13/america/13military.php?page=1

Peace,

Cynthia

July 15, 2008 10:07 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Sybil said…
"Also, gay-straight clubs have no place in schools and should be disbanded.”

and:

“these gay sex clubs in public schools"

Were those two separate thoughts, or were you actually suggesting that “gay-straight clubs” were indeed “gay sex clubs?”

And thus, that they exist to foster sex between straight students and gay students?

July 15, 2008 10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"it seems Bush is already looking at pulling out troops early – are we not reading the papers?"

This is true, C, but the point is not to get committed to it and let the enemy strategize. Obama is foolishly, partly because of inexperience and partly because of a desire to cater to his base, proposing committing to a course of action without regard to future developments. A perfect example is how he is giving a major speech on Iraq today before he visits Iraq. Wouldn't the American public be more interested in what he has to say after he's visited and gotten some first-hand knowledge rather than before?

Bin Laden, btw, has not been strengthened by our actions in Iraq. While there have been some abuses by U.S. troops, the Iraqi people and the entire Muslim world has been able to contrast conditions where U.S. troops are in control and those where al-qaeda has influence.

The result: al-qaeda no longer has much support in the Muslim street. That's why the tide has turned and we are now winning.

July 15, 2008 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, AnonBigot-

Here in the USA we have a separation of Chuch and State. I don't think God would be very happy if you try to use His law to discriminate against your brothers and sisters.

Doesn't the KKK try to do the same thing against African-Americans (use God's Word)??

I actually CARE about the well-being of student-- Straight, gay, black, white, rich, poor...etc.

You on the other hand only care about maintaining some old stories that have nothing to do with today's society. You want to push your views on others and attempt to convert them to fit your view of the world. That is also quite backwards.

Your radical views against our constitution; you don't believe that all men are created equal and you don't believe that all should have liberty. Since your ideals are quite unconstitutional, they would not be allowed in a public school setting.

You're a sad man, AnonBigot.

July 15, 2008 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I actually CARE about the well-being of student"

If you did, Derrick, you wouldn't be encouraging them to come out at a young age and tell people they are gay. You do that to advance your agenda not because they are better off. Again, they are stuck in a situation and have to make the best of it. They generally don't have the opportunity to move on like adults do.

BTW, those who persecute gays rarely do so out of any religious conviction. Christians would be trying to convert them not beat them up. The danger to gay kids lies from insecure bullies who want to reassure themselves about their own worth by preying on the weak. If the gay thing wasn't there, they'd find something else.

July 15, 2008 11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

insecure bullies who want to reassure themselves about their own worth by preying on the weak

It's good to see Anon has some self awareness. Therapy can help you be confident without putting others down, Anon, you should try it

July 15, 2008 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

not putting anyone down

just countering a fairy tale being taught as fact in our public schools

BTW, the idea that disagreement is a form of violence is a disturbing aspect of postmodernist thinking

this is the problem with much of the gay complaint about bullying; saying homosexuality is deviant or deficient is not bullying

July 15, 2008 11:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the latest from TTF's good friend, Dinesh:

"Modesty is one of my great virtues, and that is why I am always worried when people praise me too much. I'm starting to become concerned I'll end up like that atheist megalomaniac Nietzsche, whose autobiography Ecce Homo contains such chapter titles as "Why I Am So Wise" and "Why I Write Such Good Books."

This past weekend I debated atheist Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, at the FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas. Hitchens is probably America's leading atheist and is widely regarded as unbelief's best debater. Richard Dawkins raves about Hitchens' oratorical prowess. Entering the debate, the odds seemed stacked against me: the organizers warned me that the vast majority of the 1,000 libertarians in the audience would be in Hitchens' camp.

Yet when the debate was finished the moderator called for a vote on "who won the debate." By a show of hands, I did! In order to be magnanimous, I said that what really mattered was how many people were on each side prior to the debate. But Hitchens burst in to say that he would have lost anyway! Later several atheists came up to me and said that although they were rooting for Hitchens, they had voted for me because they felt I had prevailed decisively.

I also spoke at a special luncheon event at FreedomFest. My talk was introduced by atheist Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic magazine and author of Why Darwin Matters. Shermer commented that with the passing of William F. Buckley, I am one of the leading defenders of conservatism and freedom in America. He also added, "Whatever your beliefs, you should read Dinesh's book What's So Great About Christianity. It is the best defense of Christianity that has ever been published."

In addition to dealing with atheist accolades, I also have to contend with the same from fellow conservatives and Christians. The July-August issue of the American Spectator contains a review of my book written by Matthew Kenefick. With the title, "C.S. Lewis, Move Over," the review begins this way: "In his new book What's So Great About Christianity Dinesh D'Souza stakes his claim as one of the great Christian apologists." The review ends thus: "In any case, D'Souza has written a book that both G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis would have appreciated and that perhaps even Billy Graham and Pope Benedict XVI could agree is a masterpiece of modern apologetical writing destined to set the standard for years to come."

With comments like this, I am in serious danger of getting a big head and losing my reputation for self-effacing modesty. I suppose I should take consolation from the fact that I have some vitriolic detractors on this blog. But what credibility do these poor fools have with their unimaginative insults and wishful "Hitchens owned you!" declarations? Then an audience biased in favor of Hitchens votes me the winner and Hitchens himself admits that he lost the debate!

Atheists like to think of themselves as akin to champions of the round earth, confronted by religious ignoramuses who keep insisting that the earth is flat. But is it even conceivable that a round-earth advocate should lose a debate to a flat-earth advocate? To put the question differently, if atheists are truly the party of reason, and believers like me are truly the party of "blind faith," how come reason keeps getting its butt kicked?"

July 15, 2008 12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama's reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage."

You know, this Obama flip-flop scandal says a lot about his character. Martin Luther King famously said "I look forward to the day when my children will judged by the content of their character and not the color if the skin." All of us need to strive for this. Martin would want it that way!

Right, David?

Obama's flip-flops also have some other sand stuck to them that hasn't been widely recognized as yet:

When Obama changes his position to appeal to the general public by moving in the direction of Republicans, he is tacitly acknowledging that the consensus in the media is mistaken. The country hasn't moved left. Their problem with the Bush administration is about competence not ideology. We're still in the Reagan era. This is still Reagan country.

Thank you very much!

That's the facts!

July 15, 2008 12:57 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

“(I’m going to try Emproph’s directions for embedding links here, if it doesn’t work I apologize and I’ve added the link at the end.)

Umm, it seems Bush is already looking at pulling out troops early – are we not reading the papers?”


Apology accepted.

Because clearly you should have hyperlinked it as "Bush is pulling out troops early..."

In addition, and as someone I admire around here recently said…

“I hope folks here can recognize sarcasm.”

July 15, 2008 1:11 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

"It depends on community standards, emslob. The point is not to be a disruptive influence. I don't anyone's is particularly distracted by long hair."

The problem with that, anon, is that “community standards” is an appeal to “majority rules.”

If that’s your argument, then argue the merit of it. But don’t pretend that the basis of it goes anything beyond the notion of Argument by Popularity Contest.
--
Which, upon writing this, it occurs to me that this is why this country was designed as a representative-democracy, a republic.

Precisely and specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority, and for the express purpose of the maximization of freedom for all.

The form of “let-the-people-vote-democracy” that you ascribe to, is the antithesis of this, because it is based on suppressing the freedom of others.

Ultimately, it seems that you think your beliefs should trump the first hand understanding of others, but more important than that, it seems that you are unwilling to even admit this.

How is the promotion of a “majority rules” outlook to be understood as the best way to maximize freedom for all, if those who believe in it, cannot even be honest about it?

Further, how is this less of a “disruptive influence” than those of us who would accommodate for your prejudice against us?*
__
*See accomodation section of the "gay agenda."

July 15, 2008 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You really want to discuss flip flops, Anon? Sure, OK, let's review the flip flop score:

Obama 3

McBush 61 and counting

not putting anyone down

just countering a fairy tale being taught as fact in our public schools


You put down LGBT people regularly right here on this blog for all to see. You think it's a good idea to replace scientific consensus about human sexuality with fairy tales about changing sexual orientation even though attempts to change orientation have been documented to more often lead to harm than success.

July 15, 2008 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You really want to discuss flip flops, Anon? Sure, OK, let's review the flip flop score:

Obama 3

McBush 61 and counting"

Bea, Bea, Obama's got more than three.

It's not just changing position that has turned off Americans but the crass and shameless manner in which he u-turned as soon as the primaries ended.

Give us the score for McCain since January and let's examine a few of the big ones, if any exist.

"not putting anyone down

just countering a fairy tale being taught as fact in our public schools

You put down LGBT people regularly right here on this blog for all to see. You think it's a good idea to replace scientific consensus about human sexuality with fairy tales about changing sexual orientation even though attempts to change orientation have been documented to more often lead to harm than success"

"Scientific consensus" must have a basis. There are no replicated tests in which the gay agenda is validated. Scientific consensus holds that a number of innate and environmental factors, some biological, some emotional contribute to faulty gender attraction. The agenda holds that same sex attraction, when it exists, is unavoidable. The gay lunatics misuse science and take it out of context.

The real fairy tale however is that homosexuality is a wonderful and healthy aspect of the human rainbow. It's actually an unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle.

July 15, 2008 2:09 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

"There are no replicated tests in which the gay agenda is validated."

So there have been “tests” in which the gay agenda™ has been validated, but they just haven’t been “replicated.”

Could you possibly provide some links to, and/or evidence of those “tests,” anon?

I didn't think so. It must be wierd to think that whatever you type automatically comes true..

July 15, 2008 2:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there are many tests of this kind, emslob

none have been replicated

you'd almost think someone's trying to pull a fast one

they have been discussed here ad infinitum

read the past blog entries

let us know when you're done

July 15, 2008 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Derrick

It sounds like a great program y'all have going there. That's awesome that you got parents involved in planning the lessons, as well as students and staff.

In the latest excerpt, Dinesh aggrandizes himself, and then notes that his head may be growing. Self-observation is the first step to real change.

Anonymous' comments are so far off the deep end that I at least can not begin to comment.

There has been some debate about what to call our anonymous. AnonBigot and Sybil have been suggested.

I myself have wondered whether he/she/it is perhaps a paid reactionary activist; or perhaps a machine created by such a person, struggling to pass the
Turing Test
;.

I think maybe he/she/it is channeling a deceased person from history. I think I'll refer to him/her/it as Sir Oswald.

Did I do the hyperlink's right? Always fun to learn new things.

rrjr

July 15, 2008 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The problem with that, anon, is that “community standards” is an appeal to “majority rules.”"

The problem with your problem is that you want to eliminate all decorum or notion of standards of conduct. Your argument would apply to any such notions.

"If that’s your argument, then argue the merit of it."

If that’s your argument, then don't bother to argue the merit of it. There is none.

"Which, upon writing this, it occurs to me that this is why this country was designed as a representative-democracy, a republic."

Actually, their idea is that the common man isn't educated enough to make informed decisions. You can go with that idea but realize you set back the cause of race relations decades. This was used historically to deny voting rights to minorities. Elitism just to push the gay agenda is probably going to backfire or you.

"Precisely and specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority, and for the express purpose of the maximization of freedom for all."

No, this is incorrect.

"The form of “let-the-people-vote-democracy” that you ascribe to, is the antithesis of this, because it is based on suppressing the freedom of others."

No, it is based on the greatest good for the greatest number. Beyond basic human rights, this is our priniciple. There are irreducible rights enumerated to protect individuals but sexual deviancy isn't one of them.

July 15, 2008 4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reasons for representative democracy are two-fold:

1) People don't have the time to learn all they need to know about every issue; thus, we employ representatives to study these things and make informed decisions. Our system of checks and balances, an open press, elections and all that are an effort at keeping any person or group from accumulating too much power, or, Dinesh-style, from getting a big head;

2) the experience of direct democracy in Athens and Rome tells us that the process of having the electorate vote on all laws is inherently unstable; professional politicians are less likely to be swayed by the winds of current excitement, and to look to the long term.

There are a number of essential objections to referenda: most citizens, especially in a large population, don't have the time to become fully informed on each topic, and may vote out of whim, or misinformation; thus, the winner in a referendum becomes the side that has the best advertising campaign, not the side that most people in fact agree with; also, if people don't understand what they are voting on, their votes will tend to divide down the middle, or they won't vote, and the issue will be decided only by people who have very strong feelings about a topic (the same objection is made to caucuses and conventions as opposed to primaries): thus, referenda and caucuses are decided by extremists, and extreme positions get enacted into law, while the electorate may in fact be more moderate; also, referenda in large jurisdictions are simply expensive, giving the need for advertising, so may end up being decided by the side with the most money.

It's worth noting that the only national referendum we have is the presidential election, and even that (much to George Bush's delight) is decided by the electoral college.

I'm sure political theorists could say more about this. It is not a simple question of supporting democracy or not, but rather one of which is the best system of determining policy in a stable and predictable way, while protecting the rights of all citizens.

Who was it who said that democracy was a terrible system, but better than any of the other options (Jefferson?)

rrjr

July 15, 2008 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reasons for representative democracy are two-fold:

1) People don't have the time to learn all they need to know about every issue; thus, we employ representatives to study these things and make informed decisions. Our system of checks and balances, an open press, elections and all that are an effort at keeping any person or group from accumulating too much power, or, Dinesh-style, from getting a big head;

2) the experience of direct democracy in Athens and Rome tells us that the process of having the electorate vote on all laws is inherently unstable; professional politicians are less likely to be swayed by the winds of current excitement, and to look to the long term.

There are a number of essential objections to referenda: most citizens, especially in a large population, don't have the time to become fully informed on each topic, and may vote out of whim, or misinformation; thus, the winner in a referendum becomes the side that has the best advertising campaign, not the side that most people in fact agree with; also, if people don't understand what they are voting on, their votes will tend to divide down the middle, or they won't vote, and the issue will be decided only by people who have very strong feelings about a topic (the same objection is made to caucuses and conventions as opposed to primaries): thus, referenda and caucuses are decided by extremists, and extreme positions get enacted into law, while the electorate may in fact be more moderate; also, referenda in large jurisdictions are simply expensive, giving the need for advertising, so may end up being decided by the side with the most money.

It's worth noting that the only national referendum we have is the presidential election, and even that (much to George Bush's delight) is decided by the electoral college.

I'm sure political theorists could say more about this. It is not a simple question of supporting democracy or not, but rather one of which is the best system of determining policy in a stable and predictable way, while protecting the rights of all citizens.

Who was it who said that democracy was a terrible system, but better than any of the other options (Jefferson?)

rrjr

July 15, 2008 4:44 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Sybil said…

“Your argument would apply to any such notions.”

No it wouldn’t.

“There is none.”

Yes there is.

“Elitism just to push the gay agenda is probably going to backfire or you”

Of course it will, it already is, your supremacist hate-agenda demands it. So what?

“No, this is incorrect.”

No, you’re wrong, it’s correct.

“No, it is based on the greatest good for the greatest number.”

Obviously, but you forgot to add the rest of the sentence:

‘The supremacist hate-agenda is based on the greatest good for the greatest number of those who believe in the supremacist hate-agenda.’

You’re a coward for not being able to admit that.

July 15, 2008 5:08 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

I'm signing off for now, but congratulations to Cynthia and Robert for the bang-up hyperlinks!

I can officially die now...Unless it comes back...

...or should I say, unless one of her personalities comes back...

July 15, 2008 5:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert

You've mentioned a bunch of problems with democracy. Can you document that the reasons you cite were the concerns of the writers of our foundational documents, or is this simply your opinion?

Many of your objections apply equally to any election. A representative can be elected, for example, by those who are passionate or extreme. Would you also like to abolish representative democracy also or do you only want to prevent direct democracy?

Overarching issue: the democracy we have in the state of Maryland includes a process whereby citizens can decline to approve a law by signing a petition and putting it up for direct vote? Are you opposed to our current form of democracy too?

If so, and you think we should solely rely on representatives as infallible arbiters of law, how do you believe these representatives should be selected?

TTF is apparently more radical than I thought.

Sounds like they want to overthrow our form of government!

July 15, 2008 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon-deluxe said:

""Precisely and specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority, and for the express purpose of the maximization of freedom for all."

No, this is incorrect."

emslob said:

"No, you’re wrong, it’s correct."

Really, emslob. Can you show us some evidence of this?

I think you're making it up.

Show us some paper from one of the founding fathers saying this.

July 15, 2008 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's what the founding fathers said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

July 15, 2008 6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right-winged (and usually religous) bigots like AnonBigot only want to rule the lives and liberties and happiness of others-- based on their ignorant, bigoted and slanted view of the world. That's pretty unconstitutional in itself.

July 15, 2008 7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

OK. Now, where is the idea that only "representative democracy" can achieve this?

C'mon.

Help emslob out.

He's floundering here!

July 15, 2008 8:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this anon person seems like a real piece of work. i go to school in montgomery county and i can't believe that he and his bigot friends, crc, have ever had a voice in our sex-ed curriculum. i'm not even gay and i am offended.

July 15, 2008 8:33 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Thanks for the comment, student.

Anon, this isn't hard. Look at the phrase: all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

Let's not fight about what "men" means, if it includes women or all human beings. The point is that all of them deserve rights, not just the majority. If the majority voted on everything, then majority norms would end up encoded in law, and minorities would be persecuted.

The only way "man" has found to overcome this tendency so far is representative democracy.

JimK

July 15, 2008 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Must be pretty hard, Jim, since you don't get it. The reason rights are widespread in America is because we have a Constitution that guarantees them and we have a Judeo-Christian heritage that emphasizes individual worth (check out scripture).

The representative nature of our federal government has nothing to do with it and that's not why the system was set up. The federal government was supposed to be a loose collection of states where a more direct democracy, closer to the people would flourish.

That's why, here in Maryland, laws can't even become official until the citizens have had an opportunity to object.

Viva democracy!

July 15, 2008 9:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"i'm not even gay and i am offended
"

I think you'll find, student, that, among adults, most lunatic gay advocates are not gays but bored liberals looking for a cause.

July 15, 2008 9:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW, I hope everyone caught Obama's speech on Iraq today.

I won't spoil the fun for you but I can't hold back this one quote:

"I always expected that the surge would reduce violence in Iraq"

I wonder how long it will be before he starts saying he invented the internet?

Man, this fall is going to be a barrel of monkeys.

July 15, 2008 9:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nooooo!!!

July 15, 2008 9:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the New York Daily News reported that the Obama campaign altered its Web site to remove a statement that Bush's surge of troops in Iraq "is not working"

July 15, 2008 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh let's see that's 4 for Obama since January 2008 and of the 61 McBush flip flops 48 have happened since January 2008.

So the flip flop score since January 2008 now stands at

Obama 4
McBush 48

McBush even made a trifecta --a flip flop and flip back again -- in 2008. McBush vowed if he was elected President, he'd balance the budget Bush has blown. We all remember the Clinton surplus and realize Bush squandered it like a drunken fool. Every penny spent on Iraq and Afghanistan has been deficit spending, which continues to this day, currently at a rate of over $1s billion a month. OVER TWELVE BILLION A MONTH!!

In Pittsburg PA in April 2008, McBush made a major speech outlining his proposals for the economy where he flipped away from that vow and did not mention balancing the federal budget. Then in June 2008, he flopped back to the vow, saying he'd balance the budget by winning both wars. “The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.”

Of course he also said he wouldn't mind if we were in Iraq for 100 years. That's a long time for the next generation, who will have to pay off all this deficit spending, to wait for deficit reduction, a balanced budget and building surpluses.

But you know, these flip flops will not decide the election. Americans are looking for a leader who will make sure we never have to read headlines like yesterday's Wholesale Inflation Is Worst in 27 Years" again.

In December 2007 (ah the good old days when gas prices were still only $3 a gallon), for the first time the economy overtook Iraq as the top issue in the Presidential race economy = 44% to Iraq = 37%. By July 2008 (with gas prices up to $4.11 a gallon), polling for the top issue in the Presidential race showed the numbers moved to economy = 93% and Iraq = 29%.

It's the economy, stupid.

July 16, 2008 8:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very interesting... I am teaching summer school in DC Public Schools and we have a transgender student who uses the bathroom of the sex she identifies with daily and nothing bad has every happened (she has been at this school for 4 years).

AnonBigot, Theresa, Ruth, Regina just use unethical fear tactics weakening their values by spreading lies in order to make people believe that the worst is bound to happen. This reminds me of the GOP way of getting votes...obviously from people who cannot think for themselves. Sad, sad, sad.

What ever happened to our nation of THINKERS (they are being brain washed by programs such as the one in the documentary "Jesus Camp")?????

July 16, 2008 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh let's see that's 4 for Obama since January 2008 and of the 61 McBush flip flops 48 have happened since January 2008."

Oh dear. I didn't know. Could you give us a list?

I guess the press is just treating this poor Osama person unfairly.

Gee, hope he doesn't get a reputation.

"So the flip flop score since January 2008 now stands at

Obama 4
McBush 48"

Actually, that nice Osama has now clarified that he now is back to his original position on Iraq.

That's a relief.

They're all out to get him, you know. Read the editorial page of the supposedly liberal Washington Post today: "The message that Obama sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome --that Iraq must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves."

Whose side are they on, anyway? They act like Osama is inexperienced or something. He's been a Senator for four years! And for two of those he's been travelling the country helping people understand complicated stuff.

"McBush even made a trifecta --a flip flop and flip back again -- in 2008. McBush vowed if he was elected President, he'd balance the budget Bush has blown.

We all remember the Clinton surplus and realize Bush squandered it like a drunken fool."

Yeah!

That nasty Newt Gingrich who forced Clinton to accept welfare reform and the budget offset agreement acts like he's the one whose Contract with America balanced the budget.

Let's go back to a big surplus where the government takes more from our wallets than they need. That's good old-fashioned Democrat thinkin'

"Every penny spent on Iraq and Afghanistan has been deficit spending, which continues to this day, currently at a rate of over $1s billion a month. OVER TWELVE BILLION A MONTH!!"

A travesty. We should have stopped that expensive WWII too. Spend all our money here- on condoms or something cool like that. From here on, Democrats should commit to only short term gains. That long-term thinking is for losers.

"In Pittsburg PA in April 2008, McBush made a major speech outlining his proposals for the economy where he flipped away from that vow and did not mention balancing the federal budget."

I'm sure, since he's a Republican, he did something bad but is not mentioning something the same as flipping on it?

Just asking.

"Then in June 2008, he flopped back to the vow, saying he'd balance the budget by winning both wars. “The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.”"

So, he said he'd balance the budget and then he didn't mention it and then he said he'd balance the budget.

I see what you mean. He's just like Osama.

Oops! I mean he's worse than Osama.

"Of course he also said he wouldn't mind if we were in Iraq for 100 years. That's a long time for the next generation, who will have to pay off all this deficit spending, to wait for deficit reduction, a balanced budget and building surpluses."

Well, I know that if we occupied Iraq, kind of like we're doing in Japan and Germany and South Korea, we'd be a stabilizing force and it would be a strategic investment, but that's not the important point. Even if the amount is not all that much in the future, we could use whatever that amount is to run education programs here in our country explaining what gender identity is. McCain has too much "experience", thinking the policies that have made the lone superpower in the world should just...continue.

"But you know, these flip flops will not decide the election. Americans are looking for a leader who will make sure we never have to read headlines like yesterday's Wholesale Inflation Is Worst in 27 Years" again."

Be careful, Aunt Bea. Those lousy Republicans might point out that the last time inflation was this bad was before the Reagan era started and that core inflation isn't near as bad as wholesale. We don't want them pointing out that an historic 27 years of prosperity and pretty much uninterupted economic expansion began when the FDR era ended.

We don't want to confuse the voters. That's why we have representative democracy- so Democrats can keep the voters from becoming confused.

"It's the economy, stupid."

It sure is. Let's make sure no one remembers how bad things got during the last Democrat era (1932-1980). We don't want to confuse them.

Of course if things do get as bad as they were in the Carter era, we won't have to worry. The people will know what to do: throw the bum out!

Wait a minute...the incumbent isn't running and the Republicans have nominated his longtime rival in his party.

Keep it on the downlow.

shhhhh....

July 16, 2008 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" - THIS IS NOT YOUR BLOG SITE... YOU ARE NOT ITS MODERATOR...YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MONOPOLIZE THE CONVERSATION HERE! We are sick and tired of your pseudo-moralizing, holier-than-thou attitude, and consistent snide and offensive remarks. GO AWAY! Find some other site more in keeping with your ludicrous right-wing slant on everything and everybody and give the readers there the pleasure of having you spout their red-neck, neo-fascist thinking. Somebody said that you are the cist on the hindquarters of humanity. You are worse than that! You don't have one ounce of humanity in your being.
An "Anonymous" fan

July 16, 2008 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

My thoughts on government are based on what I learned in school about our constitutions system of checks and balances (3 branches, bicameral legislature, electoral college, no referenda); it is clearly designed for a certain stodginess and slowness in making decisions, and encourages compromise and negotiation. Personally, as much as I'd like to see it, our country hasn't fared too well when all three branches are controlled by one party.

My thoughts also stem from studying Athenian and Roman government. They were inherently unstable. The Roman republic was stable so long as the authority of the Senate was recognized, but when demogogues began to appeal directly and exclusively to the popular assemblies, and to manipulate them by a variety of methods, the republic unravelled and was succeeded by a series of military dictatorships.

Did the founding fathers have this in mind? I have no research or links to show you (you are welcome to go hunt for them if you'd like): here's a wikipedia article you can read, though: Separation of Poweres .

Here are some Criticisms of Referenda

Do I think referenda and plebiscites are a bad idea in almost all circumstances? Yes; they are the devices of demogogues and dictators. In a stable democracy, IMHO, the proper response to disagreement with representatives is to vote them out of office

Student: thanks for writing in and supporting your lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peers. Straight allies make all the difference in the quality of life of gay youth. Good for you!

July 16, 2008 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Anonymous" - THIS IS NOT YOUR BLOG SITE... YOU ARE NOT ITS MODERATOR...YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MONOPOLIZE THE CONVERSATION HERE! We are sick and tired of your pseudo-moralizing, holier-than-thou attitude, and consistent snide and offensive remarks. GO AWAY! Find some other site more in keeping with your ludicrous right-wing slant on everything and everybody and give the readers there the pleasure of having you spout their red-neck, neo-fascist thinking. Somebody said that you are the cist on the hindquarters of humanity. You are worse than that! You don't have one ounce of humanity in your being.
An "Anonymous" fan"

I think this fellow might work at a very busy post office.

This is why that anonymous feature of the blog is so important!

Scary that this guy is walking the streets.

July 16, 2008 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could you give us a list?

I gave it to you twice, but here you go, again. Here's hoping the third time's a charm for our helpless hapless Sybil. McBush 61 Flip Flops

Please tell us you grasp the concept of a hyperlink, those underlined words in blue up there. Just in case, click your mouse on them and you'll be linked to to all 61 of McBush's flip flops. No thanks necessary, you are quite welcome.

welfare reform and the budget offset agreement acts

Too bad Clinton's GOP controlled Congress never passed the balanced budget amendment they said they would. Clinton would have signed it into law. That might have prevented Bush's GOP controlled Congress from blowing past all those budget offset agreements and spending the surplus like drunken sailors!

BTW, Bush would have vetoed a balanced budget agreement because he had too many cronies to pay off -- from the Treasury!

but is not mentioning something the same as flipping on it?

Just asking.


When you're a candidate for President and you're giving a speech on your economic policies and you don't mention balancing the budget, which you already said was important and you'd do it, voters might think you've changed your mind.

Well, I suppose it's possible that given his age, voters might have thought McCANE had a senior moment AKA a brain fart and just plum forgot!

Just answering! This is fun! Have you got some more questions or comments? Why yes, yes you do...

Those lousy Republicans might point out that the last time inflation was this bad was before the Reagan era started

I hope they do point it out! It'll remind everyone that the party that's in power when the economy tanks is the party that loses power in the next election.

How'd you like those photos and headlines that were so numerous, they didn't fit above the fold in today Washington Post?

"AN ECONOMY THROWN INTO TURMOIL"

"THE ENERGY PUZZLE"

"BANK SHARES TUMBLE"

"FANNIE, FREDDIE FALTER"

"DARK DAY AT GM"

And how'd you like that poll reported on the front page of today's Washington Post? Did you like all those facts and figures as much as you liked the opinions in yesterday's editorial?

Here's what the poll found about the economy:

Asked whom they trust more to handle the economy, 54 percent named Obama, while 35 percent said McCain. Obama also holds double-digit leads on dealing with the federal budget deficit and on immigration. On social issues such as abortion and same-sex civil unions, 56 percent prefer Obama, 32 percent McCain.

Oops! Looks like all your pet issues this week go to Obama!

McCain has too much "experience", thinking the policies that have made the lone superpower in the world should just...continue.

Which policies do you mean, calling our allies "old Europe" while announcing "my way or the highway" or working with our allies with mutual respect? I'm sure continuing Bush's policies (old Europe and the highway) will work out great for McBush in the election since Bush's overall approval rating hit another record low in Post-ABC polling: Twenty-eight percent said they approve of the way he is handling his job, while 69 percent disapprove, including 56 percent who strongly disapprove.

McBush is so old he has to rely on the old ways and he can't think outside the box to find new solutions. Heck, he can't even use a computer! In fact, he's so old today's Washington Post poll found:

Another area of vulnerability for McCain is his age. He will turn 72 this summer and would be the oldest first-term president. More than 4 in 10 Americans said they thought McCain's age would hurt him

July 16, 2008 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do I think referenda and plebiscites are a bad idea in almost all circumstances? Yes; they are the devices of demogogues and dictators."

I think you're wrong, Robert. Referenda are indeed a check on the powers of representatives, giving ordinary citizens an element of control over their government and providing an option if the representatives breach their pact with us.

"Demagogues and dictators" often come from the ranks of representatives.

In any case, the idea that individual rights is connected inseperably to a represenative form of democracy doesn't seem to have any logic to it.

"In a stable democracy, IMHO, the proper response to disagreement with representatives is to vote them out of office"

There are times when it's imperative to take charge immediately. 23-07 is a bill so heinous, it requires this treatment. TTF doesn't want the referendum because they know darn well that these Councilmen have broken their pact to represent their constituents and that their constituents will call them on it.

That's the facts!

July 16, 2008 4:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW, Bea, good try but you can't really pull that kind of thing off.

Maybe if I have some time tonight, I'll write some responses to make you look stupid.

Oops! You've already taken care of that.

I feel so unneeded!

July 16, 2008 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL Bub-bye

July 16, 2008 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert said: "Do I think referenda and plebiscites are a bad idea in almost all circumstances? Yes; they are the devices of demogogues and dictators."

Robert -- I notice that you said that referendums are a bad idea in 'ALMOST ALL" circumstances. Which circumstances would make it a good idea? The County Council, with a month-and-a-half notice, virtually and literally redefined the essence of humanity -- man and woman -- relegating the most beautiful aspect of human life (femaleness and maleness) to the trite test of "what do I perceive myself to be in this moment, in this month, in this year?" -- and you don't feel that this is cause for monumental concern, worthy of a public vote?

July 16, 2008 4:53 PM  
Blogger A Teacher's Perspective said...

AnonBigot-

Your form of adult ADD is far due for some medication.

Stop being such an attention whore. Nobody wants to give you the light of day.

July 16, 2008 4:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Stop being such an attention whore. Nobody wants to give you the light of day."

Someone's bitter.

Sorry, TP, but someone has to call the gay agenda what it is.

July 16, 2008 7:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brilliant retort, "Anonymous" I am so laughing from your scintillating sense of humor!!
On top of being the expert on just about everything in the universe, you are a comic. Who knew?
An "Anonymous" fan

July 16, 2008 7:43 PM  
Blogger A Teacher's Perspective said...

Yes, AnonBigot- here is the Gay Agenda in America:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

July 16, 2008 8:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I appreciate you Anonymous.
That last post was a great one.

Keep it up ! You really make this blog entertaining.

I also love the way the TTF's are jumping all over you with insults and never addressing the arguments or refuting your points....

Very telling :-)

A different anonymous.

July 16, 2008 8:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, I was just thinking, what this blog needs is another idiotic Anon to say the same things as the other Anon. Wouldn't that be perfect?

July 16, 2008 9:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, AnonBigot- here is the Gay Agenda in America:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""

Well, yes, they are created equal. They are also equally accountable for their own character and actions. There is no call in America for any group's desires to receive special protection. Sexual deviance doesn't deserve special protection.

July 16, 2008 10:12 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

"Sexual deviance doesn't deserve special protection."

Correct. But what you’re proposing is that people like you should be given the “special protection” to legally define certain Americans as sexually deviant, simply because you say they are.

Which is why you hate the equal protection that our democracy represents. However, you are willing to use that democracy, and usurp it’s equal protection clause in order to further your supremacist agenda.

So when you say that "There is no call in America for any group's desires to receive special protection," you're quite full of it, as this is precisely what you're asking for.

It’s all, already been done before: Jews are diseased, Jews are a minority, yet have all the money…eat babies, etc.

Little has changed, you use the exact same lies that were used back then to foment and instill hatred. Same bullshit, different decade, only the pariah has changed.

And since your first love is the love of hatred, and since it’s no longer publically acceptable to blame “the Jews” for murdering God, you now blame the gays for “mocking nature.”

As though your continual mockery of truth and love is something that should be upheld as a standard in comparison.

It’s really quite pathetic when you think about it. Well, obviously not when you think about it.

July 17, 2008 5:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon said (as he has ad nauseam):

“Sexual deviance doesn't deserve special protection.”

I don’t recall any laws being put into place protecting sexual deviants. The law people have been arguing about lately on this site is Bill 23-07. This protects people from discrimination based on their gender identity. It goes on to define gender identity as:

“Gender identity means and individual’s actual or perceived gender, including a person’s gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity, or behavior, whether or not those gender-related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with person’s assigned sex at birth.”

To emphasize, this law is about protecting people base on their “gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity, or behavior.” It says absolutely nothing about protecting anyone based on their sexuality. One might argue that “behavior” could be construed to mean “sexual behavior,” but existing Montgomery County code already protects people based on their “sexual orientation,” so if that’s what it actually meant in this case, it would essentially be re-iterating what is already in MoCo code. Kind of a waste of time to re-write the same existing protection with just a different term, don’t you think?

So when you keep referring to “sexual deviants,” are you complaining about existing anti-discrimination code that protects people based on their sexual orientation? That law was passed some number of years ago, and it isn’t up for a referendum to try and repeal it.

Bill 23-07 doesn’t say anything about one’s sexual orientation, so I’m having a hard time figuring out how it would protect anyone based on their sexuality – deviant or otherwise.

Are the constant references to “sexual deviants” an attempt to make it APPEAR that Bill 23-07 protects sexual deviants? I must say, it certainly seems so. Or were you referring to me personally as a sexual deviant? As someone who is non-sexual (both before and after my transition so far), I can certainly understand people thinking that my sexuality is different from the average person’s, but most people would not choose to denigrate me by the label “sexual deviant” based on that knowledge of my sexuality. In fact, there are many people that would applaud me for my lack of sexual activity given the fact that I am not married. You might find it interesting to note that I dated a Mormon for 6 years and there was no sexual activity involved – we weren’t married, so that was simply not permissible, and it was never attempted.

So just exactly to whom are you referring with your incessant rants about “sexual deviants?” Because right now, these repetitive references sound like an obsession… is it really about precious bodily fluids?

I would like also point out that in Ruth Jacob’s recent post to the Gazette forum, she conveniently left out part of Bill 23-07’s Gender Identity definition. She stated “Bill 23-07 defines gender identity as an ‘‘individual’s actual or perceived gender, including a person’s gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity or behavior.”

If one looks at the law (Bill 23-07) again, you’ll find that there is actually a comma after “behavior,” and that it goes on to say “whether or not those gender-related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with person’s assigned sex at birth.” I guess if she left that important fact in there, it would have been harder to argue that the law “enfolds female impersonators, cross-dressers, drag kings, androgynous individuals, queer youth, pre-op transsexuals, and those who have had sexual-reassignment surgery” without pointing out the law also protects ordinary soccer-moms who gave up wearing make-up years ago and cut their hair short; eschewing make-up, dresses, and feminine trappings of their youth for a more practical expression of their gender identity that fits within their time constraints as a mother, job holder, and wife.

Peace,

Cynthia

July 17, 2008 7:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"what you’re proposing is that people like you should.... legally define certain Americans as sexually deviant, simply because you say they are."

No, emslob, homosexuality is considered a deviance but most of the world today and throughout history. It's the consensus of mankind. I didn't make it up.

"Which is why you hate the equal protection that our democracy represents."

You're quite wrong about that. I believe all men deserve equal protection under the law. You don't seem to comprehend that anti-discrimination laws represent special protection.

"So when you say that "There is no call in America for any group's desires to receive special protection," you're quite full of it, as this is precisely what you're asking for."

Could you elaborate on your confusion here? Perhaps we could help you out.

"It’s all, already been done before: Jews are diseased, Jews are a minority, yet have all the money…eat babies, etc.

Little has changed, you use the exact same lies that were used back then to foment and instill hatred. Same bullshit, different decade, only the pariah has changed.

And since your first love is the love of hatred, and since it’s no longer publically acceptable to blame “the Jews” for murdering God, you now blame the gays for “mocking nature.”"

I could care less what homosexuals do as long as they don't try to make laws giving themselves special protection and requiring that we all endorse them. Indeed, I don't think most homosexuals are doing that. I think it's a bunch of bored liberals trying to find a cause that are behind things like 23-07.

To compare homosexuality with Judaism is pretty ridiculous. Could you tell us more about what ways you think the two are similar?

"As though your continual mockery of truth and love is something that should be upheld as a standard in comparison."

Ah... and when did I mock "truth and love"?

"It’s really quite pathetic when you think about it. Well, obviously not when you think about it."

Think about what? Do you actually have any coherent thoughts or are you just tossing off a bunch of one-liner cliches from a collection of things you've read or heard?

July 17, 2008 7:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I could care less what homosexuals do as long as they don't try to make laws giving themselves special protection and requiring that we all endorse them. Indeed, I don't think most homosexuals are doing that. I think it's a bunch of bored liberals trying to find a cause that are behind things like 23-07.

You are so confused, Sybil! Bill 23-07 is NOT about sexual orientation, it's about gender identity. MoCo already has an anti-discrimination law protecting people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Even homophobes are protected, as long as they don't break any other laws.

To compare homosexuality with Judaism is pretty ridiculous. Could you tell us more about what ways you think the two are similar?

The way they are similar is that at different times, each of these minority groups has served as the pariah for majority groups to rail and discriminate against. I bet you can think of other minority groups that have been discriminated against by the majority too if you really put your mind to it.

Do you actually have any coherent thoughts or are you just tossing off a bunch of one-liner cliches from a collection of things you've read or heard?

Good question, for you to ask yourself.

July 17, 2008 8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm tired of reading comments by Sir Oswald the Anonymous

Derrick and other MCPS teachers: if y'all are still reading this thread, I'd be interested in hearing what your schools do in combatting harassment, including but not exclusively anti-lgbt harassment. I feel that my school system's trainings for teachers and programs for students and parents are inadequate.

rrjr

July 17, 2008 9:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What does identity mean? What is “non-sexual”? Based only what a person tells you? And not on reality? Please explain what “appearance, expression, image, identity or behavior” means

Another anonymous

July 17, 2008 9:31 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

DiffAnon, I think the way to think of it is this: sexual orientation is who you like, and gender identity is who you are.

As for your question about "what the person tells you" versus "reality," there is a factor you're leaving out, which is the subjective experience of the individual. You hear people say they feel like a skinny person in a fat body, old people often feel younger than they are, there are all kinds of ways we can feel differently from how we appear. Some people have a subjective experience of their gender that does not correspond to the appearance of their body.

This has nothing to do with what sex of person they are attracted to.

JimK

July 17, 2008 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another Anonymous asked:

“Please explain what “appearance, expression, image, identity or behavior” means”.

Definitions are readily available at www.dictionary.com. I’ve linked to them below. Most words have multiple definitions and some of them do not apply in this case, like them mathematical use of “identity.” However, I’m sure these definitions will provide hours of fodder for discussion.

appearance;

expression;

image;

identity;

behavior;


Enjoy,

Cynthia

July 17, 2008 9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous...A different Anonymous...Another Anonymous.

It looks like Sybil's off her meds again.

the rag man
L man
Uncle Fester
Sheriff Andy
Gomer
The Lightning Man
Deputy Fife
Opie Taylor
rolling thunder
Ever-spying eyes
007

July 17, 2008 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That you feel it so important to identify which anon comments can be matched up shows how threatened you feel your lunatic notions are by the common sense of the anons. You can't argue with the ideas and the personal attacks you usually resort to just make you look bad so the last resort is to try to scan for any inconsistency that might help out your cause.

When you think about it, that's a compliment.

Thanks for the endorsement, B.

July 17, 2008 11:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe if I have some time tonight, I'll write some responses to make you look stupid.

Speaking of personal attacks, is that your response designed to make me look stupid? Sorry Sybil, but IMHO it just makes you look arrogant and self-contradictory. You never criticize the personal attacks you make yourself.

July 17, 2008 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's a response to a tone you've set. We can start being civil any time you'd like to. I'm flexible.

I may seem arrogant to you but facts are facts and that's what TTF's all about!

July 17, 2008 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Montgomery County's own PFOXer, Peter Sprigg, is quoted in the Post with his own definition of marriage: Census Won't Count Gay Marriage

I wonder whether he knows Sir Oswald the Anonymous and his buddy "Other Anonymous", whom we may refer to as, perhaps, Vidkun

rrjr

July 17, 2008 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think I did that link wrong; here's another attempt:

Census Won't Count Gay Marriage

rrjr

July 17, 2008 12:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And more thoughts...

"That you feel it so important to identify which anon comments can be matched up shows how threatened you feel your lunatic notions are by the common sense of the anons."

No it doesn't. You're the one who sets the nasty tone here, day after day using your favorite words to describe your fellow human beings: "lunatics" and "deviants" to name two. If you really want to begin a civil discussion of the issues, maybe you should use the vocabulary words in the MCPS "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality" curriculum instead.

Your refusal to identify yourself shows you are so threatened by "your [skipping your nasty word] notions" and hurtful language that you are unable accept responsibility for them.

July 17, 2008 12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You're the one who sets the nasty tone here, day after day"

Bea you've been spouting like a whale here long enough to know this isn't true.

I came here to innocently express my opinions and was viciously attacked day after day.

"using your favorite words to describe your fellow human beings: "lunatics" and "deviants" to name two."

You make too much here!

"Lunatic" is simply someone who goes crazy during a full moon.

Who doesn't?

"Deviant" is someone is deviates from the norm.

Who doesn't?

"If you really want to begin a civil discussion of the issues, maybe you should use the vocabulary words in the MCPS "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality" curriculum instead."

But I don't respect differences in human sexuality. What would I use words to support the notion that all sexual desires and behaviors are morally equivavlent when I don't believe that?

MCPS, btw, is hardly the model for niceness.

"Your refusal to identify yourself shows you are so threatened by "your [skipping your nasty word] notions" and hurtful language that you are unable accept responsibility for them."

It does?

What does your refusal to identify yourself show?

July 17, 2008 4:49 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Sybil said…
“No, emslob, homosexuality is considered a deviance but most of the world today and throughout history. It's the consensus of mankind. I didn't make it up.”

Appeal to popularity contest, in this case, the bigoted heterosexual portion of that popularity contest.

It’s still a logical fallacy.

“You're quite wrong about that. I believe all men deserve equal protection under the law. You don't seem to comprehend that anti-discrimination laws represent special protection.”

If you were truly against ALL anti-discrimination laws, you would have a point, but you’re not, and so you don’t (have a point). Which is why you and your ilk come across as the flaming hypocrites that you are.

“To compare homosexuality with Judaism is pretty ridiculous. Could you tell us more about what ways you think the two are similar?”

I wasn’t comparing the two, I was comparing your lies about us, as similar to the lies told about them.

“Ah... and when did I mock "truth and love"?”

If you don’t know by now why people like me might even perceive this of you, then you’re a goner.

“Think about what?”

Exactly.

“Do you actually have any coherent thoughts or are you just tossing off a bunch of one-liner cliches from a collection of things you've read or heard?”

As Aunt Bea notes, that’s a good question to ask yourself.

Sadly, we realize that you won’t.

It’s truly unfortunate that you are incapable of recognizing the difference between your own behavior, and the projection of your own behavior onto others.

July 18, 2008 6:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What does your refusal to identify yourself show?

Listen Sybil. I use one alias all the time, and even when I, like your favorite old white guy McBush, have a senior moment and forget to type it in the Name/URL box , I come back and tell the readers which comment was mine. Taking responsibility for one's own words is important to some people and apparently not a concept you are able to grasp.

Oh, and to answer your question, it shows I don't trust people like you and your homophobic friends. Maybe you'd come to my house and harass me given the hatred that oozes from you all the time.

July 18, 2008 8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Emslob says:

"Appeal to popularity contest, in this case, the bigoted heterosexual portion of that popularity contest.

It’s still a logical fallacy."

Look, you idiot. You originally said that I was proposing that we "legally define certain Americans as sexually deviant, simply because you say they are".

My response was it was not just me saying that. Deviance is a divergence fron the norm and, yes, "the norm" is a function of numbers. That's not "legal" definition, it's an English definition.

A really smart guy said:

“I believe all men deserve equal protection under the law. You don't seem to comprehend that anti-discrimination laws represent special protection.”

A really stupid guy said:

"If you were truly against ALL anti-discrimination laws, you would have a point, but you’re not, and so you don’t (have a point). Which is why you and your ilk come across as the flaming hypocrites that you are."

Actually, emslob, I think the state can properly confer special protection on certain groups if that is deemed appropriate by a plurality of citizens. I just don't think the state is constitutionally obligated to do so. As a citizen, I certainly won't be voting to specially protect sexual deviancy.

RSmartG:

“To compare homosexuality with Judaism is pretty ridiculous. Could you tell us more about what ways you think the two are similar?”

RStupidG:

"I wasn’t comparing the two, I was comparing your lies about us, as similar to the lies told about them."

Please tell me what lies I've told about "us" that is similar to a lie someone told about a Jew?

"If you don’t know by now why people like me might even perceive this of you, then you’re a goner."

I guess I'm a "goner" then.

"It’s truly unfortunate that you"

I know, I know. It's unfortunate for gay lunatics that I'm around.

July 18, 2008 12:48 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

“Deviance is a divergence fron the norm and, yes, "the norm" is a function of numbers. That's not "legal" definition, it's an English definition.”

Therefore, argument by popularity contest, as I already said, so you agree.

“Actually, emslob, I think the state can properly confer special protection on certain groups if that is deemed appropriate by a plurality of citizens. I just don't think the state is constitutionally obligated to do so. As a citizen, I certainly won't be voting to specially protect sexual deviancy.”

Plurality, again, argument by popularity contest, better known as tyranny of the majority. And again still, it appears that you concur with what I've said.

"Please tell me what lies I've told about "us" that is similar to a lie someone told about a Jew?"

Anti-Jewish vs. Anti-Gay Speech: Comparison, Analysis

Allow me to provide the response to that for you… “Oh, but emslob, that’s all true!”

Moving on...

“I know, I know. It's unfortunate for gay lunatics that I'm around.”

Your flippancy is my point. The tragedy is in the fact that you’re unwilling to have an honest conversation about the most basic of matters.

You’re an ego-addict, being human, most of us are, but the problem is that you’re unwilling or unable to admit this about yourself, and thus project your supremacist designs onto others, ie; "gay agenda" conspiracy theory.

Everything you claim to be true about the “gay agenda,” is precisely what you would accomplish. Shoving your supremacist beliefs down society’s throat, indoctrinating children in to the religious-supremacist lifestyle (ie; abstinence ed, ID science, etc.), destroying the institution of marriage for those who would participate in it, and so on.

The ego may be necessary for human physical survival, but to make the worship of it to be the basis of one’s religion, is to worship pride itself, as God.

July 18, 2008 2:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home