Friday, October 15, 2010

Obama Throws Pass to Wrong End Zone

If LGBT citizens have worried about the Obama administration's commitment to their civil rights, maybe felt a little skeptical, they don't have to wonder any more. After a judge ruled that Don't Ask Don't Tell was unconstitutional the Obama administration has asked for a stay, insisting that they need to continue to kick gays and lesbians out of the military, at least for a little while longer. The Pentagon has stopped firing them but the administration wants to start again:
WASHINGTON — Saying it would appeal a ruling striking down the law that bans gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the United States military, the Obama administration on Thursday asked the federal judge who issued the ruling for an emergency stay of her decision.

In a 48-page court filing, Clifford L. Stanley, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, argued that the military, particularly in wartime, should not be required to “suddenly and immediately restructure a major personnel policy that has been in place for years.” Mr. Stanley said the injunction would disrupt efforts to prepare for a more orderly repeal of the policy.

“The stakes here are so high, and the potential harm so great, that caution is in order,” he said.

Mr. Stanley’s declaration was the centerpiece of a set of administration filings before Judge Virginia A. Phillips of Federal District Court. Last month, she declared the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law to be unconstitutional, and this week she issued an injunction requiring the military to stop enforcing it immediately. Obama Seeks Stay on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Ruling

What "potential for harm" is there? There are gays and lesbians in the military, all over the place, the policy is simply that they have to remain in the closet.
The Log Cabin Republicans, the group that brought the lawsuit against the policy, vowed to fight the administration’s appeal of Judge Phillips’s ruling before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the request for an emergency stay of the injunction.

“We are not surprised by the government’s action, as it repeats the broken promises and empty words from President Obama avowing to end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ while at the same directing his Justice Department to defend this unconstitutional policy,” said Dan Woods, a lawyer representing the group. “Now that the government has filed a request for a stay, we will oppose it vigorously because brave, patriotic gays and lesbians are serving in our armed forces to fight for all of our constitutional rights while the government is denying them theirs.”

The Obama administration's ongoing sacrifice of principle to the Great God of Bipartisanship has resulted in the administration doing just the opposite of what they were elected to do. The irony of Republicans insisting on gay rights while the Democrats are trying to limit them is not lost on anyone on either side of the aisle.
“I agree with the basic principle that anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces and make sacrifices on our behalf, on behalf of our national security — anybody should be able to serve, and they shouldn’t have to lie about who they are in order to serve. And so we are moving in the direction of ending this policy,” [Obama] said.

But, he added: “It has to be done in a way that is orderly, because we are involved in a war right now. But this is not a question of whether the policy will end. This policy will end, and it will end on my watch. But I do have an obligation to make sure that I’m following some of the rules. I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there. I’ve got to work to make sure that they are changed.”

This is the way the US process of checks and balances works. It is orderly, it is constitutional, and somebody hands you a victory it's okay to accept it. The judge has ruled, and that is a valid way for law to evolve in our society, it is not as if obeying the judge's order would be breaking the law, as Obama implies. It's easy, as the Pentagon has shown: just stop firing people.

Here's the administration's justification for appealing...
[Stanley] argued that ending the policy would require training of military service members, as well as a reworking of dozens of policies and regulations involving issues like “housing, benefits, re-accession, military equal opportunity, anti-harassment, standards of conduct, rights and obligations of the chaplain corps, and others.”

“Amending these regulations would typically take several months,” he said. “To change all of the implicated policies and underlying regulations will require a massive undertaking by the department and cannot be done overnight.”

The military has stopped the firings, meaning that the judge's order is being obeyed. It didn't take any training, reworking -- come on, how would housing be affected? How is "military equal opportunity" affected? Why would any standards of conduct have to change? We'll watch this one and see where it goes.

32 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

you know the old TTF tactic of characterizing Republicans as fringe extremists?

looks like it failed...

"Likely voters in battleground districts see extremists as having a more dominant influence over the Democratic Party than they do over the GOP.

44 percent of likely voters say the Democratic Party is more dominated by its extreme elements, whereas 37 percent say it’s the Republican Party that is more dominated by extremists.

The polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland conducted the survey between Oct. 2 and Oct. 7.

More than one in every five Democrats (22 percent) in The Hill’s survey said their party was more dominated than the GOP by extreme views.

Forty-three percent of independent voters said the Democratic Party is more dominated by its extreme elements, compared to 37 percent who thought that about the GOP.

The data surprised Democratic strategists since media attention has focused on the Tea Party.

They said it suggests problems for a Democratic Party seen as too liberal.

“That’s real trouble for Democrats,” said Jim Kessler, founder of Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank.

“All the press coverage has been about how these Tea Party candidates are fringe ideologues, and there have been high-profile examples,” he added. “Yet, still, you have independents saying, ‘I think the Democrats are more extreme than Republicans.' "

Polling data from districts in Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington state, West Virginia and Wisconsin show that Democratic leaders are having trouble convincing voters that the GOP is extreme.

“It is a reflection that the Democrats in government are very liberal faces: Reid, Pelosi and Obama,” said Vin Weber. “The leading faces of the Republicans aren’t as well-known.”

Democratic strategists have tried to change that, working to raise the profile of John Boehner, who will likely replace Pelosi as Speaker the House.

But the effort has shown little success.

Liberal Democrats say that Fox News, Glenn Beck and conservative broadcasters who criticize Obama, Reid and Pelosi as extremists have an enormous influence on public opinion.

“Democrats haven't nominated anyone like Sharron Angle or Rand Paul or Christine O'Donnell or Rob Johnson or Joe Miller for the Senate, much less the myriad of wackos in House races across the country,” said Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos, a large liberal blog. “We don't have media figures like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh calling the shots."

“But they have their alternate world built by Fox News. Is that a problem? Sure.” said Moulitsas.

The survey also showed that Democratic voters want their representatives to work harder to compromise with Republicans.

Fifty-eight percent of Democrats said they would urge the lawmaker they supported to “look for compromises across the aisle

Kessler, of Third Way, said many Democrats think their party has shifted too far left.

Republicans, by and large, are not looking for their representatives in Congress to compromise.

Sixty-two percent of Republican voters said they would urge their lawmakers to stand firm on principles, while only 32 percent wanted them to compromise.

Independent voters reflected Democrats in wanting to see more compromise in Washington. 56 percent wanted to see more Democratic efforts to achieve compromise."

October 15, 2010 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law was allowed to move forward by a Florida federal judge today.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson rejected a Department of Justice (DOJ) request to dismiss the case and denounced the government’s “Alice in Wonderland” defense.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst , said the DOJ received a wakeup call today.

“When the Florida suit, and others like it, were first filed around the country, liberals laughed and said they were frivolous and would be dismissed,” he said. “Well, they’re not laughing now.”

Vinson criticized Democrats, President Obama and the DOJ for talking out of both sides of their mouths:

“Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check.

“The plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed.”

Vinson ruled that health care is not a tax – undermining the DOJ’s defense that Congress has taxing authority – and that it must be defended as a “penalty” under the Commerce Clause.

“The real issue in the constitutional debate over health care is, ‘Can Congress make you purchase a product – in this case, health insurance – simply because you are alive? If the answer is ‘Yes’ then we have reached the point where Congress’ power has no limits. Our Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves to hear that disappointing news.”

October 15, 2010 10:29 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

With respect to DADT, I think most people would agree that the best way to get rid of it would be for Congress to repeal the DADT statute.

Were the Obama Administration to simply abandon an appeal of Judge Phillips' decision would enable Congress to duck the issue. The fact of the matter is that a large majority of Americans want to dump DADT, and clear majorities in the House and Senate agree. Whatever the outcome of the elections in November, not a single race will turn on DADT.

When Congress returns for its lame duck session after the election, it will have to deal with the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes the DADT repeal. The House has already passed it. The Senate did not vote because the Republicans -- including the two putatively pro-gay rights Senators from Maine -- blocked a vote before the election. Harry Reid apparently wanted a quick vote so his people could get back home and campaign, and the Republicans wanted the opportunity to propose amendments -- which would have kept the Democratic incumbents stuck in Washington. That is why the vote was deferred, even though there is a clear majority in the Senate for repeal.

If, after the election, the Republicans are still able to filibuster the National Defense Authoritzation Act to block repeal of DADT, then the Obama Administration will have to make the decision it has (legitimately) sought to avoid: Simply accept Judge Phillips' decision or accept the continuation of DADT. If the Administration continues to defend DADT at that point, then I will join Jim in his condemnation of the decision. Until then, however, I understand the tactics, and the tactics are not unreasonable.

(PS: It is always easier to implement a change when you are not under a court order to do so. That is why efforts to stem resegregation in Montgomery County were more successful than in other communities -- communities that, unlike Montgomery County, were under court orders. So the DOD statement to the court is not off the wall.)

October 15, 2010 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there is active segregation in MCPS, David

let me know if need examples

btw, read the story on the front page of the Post today about a study showing that economic desegregation is more successful than the Jerry Weast tactic of pouring money into schools in lower income districts

"The Senate did not vote because the Republicans -- including the two putatively pro-gay rights Senators from Maine -- blocked a vote before the election. Harry Reid apparently wanted a quick vote so his people could get back home and campaign, and the Republicans wanted the opportunity to propose amendments."

so Reid made characteristic tactical errors

no reason to think he won't again as a lame duck

no, you can't tack this on to anything you want and expect it to pass

"WASHINGTON (Oct. 15) -- The Obama administration is set to report Friday that the federal budget deficit exceeded $1 trillion for the second straight year, providing critics of government spending with fresh ammunition ahead of the midterm congressional elections.

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year that ended Sept. 30 will total $1.29 trillion.

Soaring deficits have become a problem for Democrats in an election year focused on the weak economy.

Republicans have tapped into voter angst over the deficits, using the $814 billion economic stimulus and $700 billion Wall Street bailout to paint President Barack Obama and his party as big spenders."

October 15, 2010 11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NEW YORK (Oct. 15) -- Fox News' Bill O'Reilly caused quite a stir when he appeared on ABC's "The View" Thursday arguing against the construction of Park51, the so-called "ground zero mosque" with such vehemence that he caused two of the show's outspoken, and liberal, hosts, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, to leave the stage.

Later in the evening, he took to his own show, "The O'Reilly Factor," to defend his remarks.

"No one I know, no one, wants to insults Muslims," O'Reilly said. "But almost everybody I know is tired of the political correctness surrounding the 9/11 attack. The truth is that if moderate Muslims would stand with America against radical Islam, the terrorists couldn't exist. But obviously that isn't happening."

October 15, 2010 12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"WASHINGTON—A late effort by Democrats to match record fund raising by conservative organizations has come up short, leaving the party more reliant than usual on the campaign efforts of labor unions."

"The White House is escalating its assault on corporate political donors, claiming that Democrats merely favor "disclosure." To understand their real goal, consider what happened to Target Corp. when it exercised its First Amendment rights.

In July, the superstore donated $150,000 to a group called MN Forward, which used the funds to support the gubernatorial candidacy of Republican Tom Emmer. The donation helped pay for an ad highlighting Mr. Emmer's positions on taxes and spending, issues relevant to the state's business climate. Because Mr. Emmer was also a critic of gay marriage, however, within weeks the retailer found itself on the national left's political hit list.

MoveOn.org led the attack, organizing a petition and crafting a TV ad telling shoppers to boycott the chain. Soliciting donations to the anti-Target crusade, MoveOn warned that "Target became one of the first corporations to take advantage of the Citizens United decision when it donated to a far-right candidate for governor in Minnesota." It added, "If we don't fight back, this will be just the tip of the iceberg." Citizen's United is the January Supreme Court decision that said unions and companies can donate to independent political groups.

The attack on Target was especially dishonest because of the company's history on gay issues, which includes sponsoring gay pride events and offering benefits to domestic partners. Only months before, the company received a 100% score on Human Rights Campaign's 2010 Corporate Equality Index, which rates companies on sexual preference policies.

So much for that goodwill. When the company declined to bow to demands from gay lobbies that it make amends for the "harm they've caused" by its donations to MN Forward, HRC President Joe Solmonese announced that the world would now "question Target's commitment to equality."

That says more about Mr. Solmonese than it does about Target. He and his group are willing to put partisanship and left-wing solidarity above their own ostensible priority of gay rights: To wit, electing a Democratic Governor apparently matters more to the Human Rights Campaign than does a corporation's support for benefits for gay couples. By the way, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden also oppose gay marriage. Does that also make them "far-right" candidates whose "commitment to equality" is suspect?

Target's donation had to be disclosed under Minnesota's campaign-finance law, and the company's experience is especially illuminating because Democrats are touting the law as a model for other states and Congress.

Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, seeking similar legislation for his state, recently gave the game away by declaring that "The public's right of boycott is the final check against corporate dominance over our politics." In other words, the point of disclosure is not to inform the voting public. It is to turn corporate donors into political piñatas, embarrass them publicly, hurt their business—and ultimately convince them that the price of donating to non-liberal groups is too high.

Target has stopped giving to MN Forward since it was mugged by the left. Other companies on the cusp of donating also declined once they saw what happened to Target.

That's a shame because it means Democrats and the left are succeeding in their attempt to silence business voices—unless, like Peter Lewis or Goldman Sachs executives, they support Democrats. The next time you hear a Democrat claim to favor "disclosure," keep in mind that what he really wants is more political Target practice."

October 15, 2010 12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

guess what?

Barney Frank, whose seat is in danger in November, is now admitting that the Fannie Mae catastrophe was his fault:

"Mr. Frank is conceding at long last that he missed the looming disasters at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "I was late in seeing it, no question," he told the Boston Globe, though in his redoubtable fashion he also has an excuse.

According to the Globe, Mr. Frank "said in an interview he missed the warning signs because he was wearing ideological blinders. He said he had worried that Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration were going after Fannie and Freddie for their own ideological reasons and would curtail the lenders' mission of providing affordable housing.""

ideological blinders...yes, that's exactly the fault Americans are finding with the Democratic leadership in Congress

thanks for articulating that so well, Barney

hopefully, for the sake of the nation, voters in Frank's district can find someone with better judgment

or someone not playing fast and loose with the ethics rules in Congress:

"Mr. Frank is also being forced to explain his taste for private luxury transportation. The Boston Herald reports that Mr. Frank and his domestic partner travelled to St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands last winter on a private jet owned by hedge-fund operator Donald Sussman. Mr. Sussman is the fiancé of Representative Chellie Pingree, who was also aboard.

The House ethics committee approved Mr. Frank's acceptance of the free trip because of "the relationship between Representative Pingree and Mr. Sussman," according to a December 18, 2009 letter to Mr. Frank from ethics committee Chairman Zoe Lofgren and ranking member Jo Bonner. Normally, Mr. Frank would never be permitted to accept such a gift, but Members are allowed to accept gifts from other Members. So the committee classified the gift from Ms. Pingree's boyfriend as a gift from Ms. Pingree herself: "the Committee deems this an unusual case in which it would be appropriate to grant a waiver of the gift rule under House rule 25, clause 5(a)(3)(T)."

That was certainly accommodating of the ethicists, but the committee may have made an even larger accommodation without even realizing it. Mr. Frank has been using the committee's waiver to justify his behavior, but in seeking the waiver, what did Mr. Frank tell the committee? Nowhere in the letter is there any reference to Mr. Sussman's work in the financial services industry. Yet Mr. Frank was at that very moment drafting a reform of the financial industry, including hedge funds."

Wow!

at least, even if he wins, he won't be chairman of such a key committee and he won't be allowed to do further damage to the nation's economy

that 2006 election, giving Democrats control of Congress, was very costly for America

October 15, 2010 1:46 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

David

Ignoring the junk posted by Anon in between... Everybody agrees that a legislative solution is best. But in the meantime, the courts have ordered the firings stopped, and the administration is asking the court for a stay, meaning they can continue to fire gays and lesbians until Congress changes the law -- is that analysis incorrect?

JimK

October 15, 2010 4:02 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Re segregation in MCPS, please note that I did not say that there are not some schools that have what the lawyers might say are disproportionate numbers of minorities. What I said -- and I'd assume this is something that conservatives would like to hear -- is that a government entity acting in good faith to minimize segregation is more likely to have success if it is not overseen by a court. Sadly, in too many places, government entities did not act in good faith, and thus the courts were the only branch of government that was able to act to avoid segregation.

October 15, 2010 4:03 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I can not find words to express the extent of my sense of betrayal by a man whom my community fought hard to elect, and whose inauguration we celebrated as the beginning of a new era in American politics.

I would just as soon not hear Anonymous' response to this.

October 15, 2010 4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

personally, I think students should be able to choose their public schools

but I don't have a large objection to the segregation that happens because of neighborhood demographics

in MCPS, however, the school board has actively pursued segregation to appease certain constituents

there are cases in MC where white kids live within blocks of a minority school and are bused to a majority white school

there are minority neighborhoods further from the minority school and closer to the majority white school that could take those buses instead

MCPS has exacerbated segregation and has NOT acted in good faith

based on the study in the Post this morning, this policy is harmful and MCPS shouldn't be surprised if they face lawsuits over the damage caused

they whine about being sued all the time but they bring it on themselves

btw, to summarize the posts that Jim calls "junk":

1. voters think Democrats are extremists

2. a Federal judge says the Obama administration reasoning on why Obamacare is constitutional is like something from Alice in Wonderland

3. we finished the fiscal year with the second straight trillion dollar deficit

4. Bill O'Reilly says that although moderate Muslims did not perpetrate 9/11, they also haven't stood with America in opposition to radical Islam so a mosque at ground zero is inappropriate

5. Democrats want corporate donors to be publicly listed because they want to organize boycotts against them, not to help voters judge the message

6. Barney Frank has now confessed his complicity in the demise of Fannie Mae and the great recession of 2008

this "junk" helps explain why the American voter is currently alienated from the Democratic Party

btw, any word on what happened at Dana's trial this morning?

October 15, 2010 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I can not find words to express the extent of my sense of betrayal by a man whom my community fought hard to elect, and whose inauguration we celebrated as the beginning of a new era in American politics.

I would just as soon not hear Anonymous' response to this."

Robert, the reason many Democrats voted for Ronald Reagan in the 80s is not because they agreed with him a 100% but because, unlike the Democrats, you could trust that he believed what he said so at least you could work with him.

A similar phenomenom is happening now.

Vote for your local Tea Party candidate.

At least you can have a good faith conversation with them.

With Democrats, it's never clear what's on the agenda.

"I'll pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

October 15, 2010 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama's is now turning on government workers:

"Friday, October 15, 2010; 3:16 PM

Facing Republican complaints about big government and federal salaries, President Obama said Friday that agencies might leave some vacancies unfilled as his administration looks for ways to save money.

He also won't rule out furloughing employees, as has happened in some states.

Speaking to members of the Trotter Group, an organization of black columnists, Obama said his team has examined pay levels, "and the data we get back indicates that lower-skilled Federal workers are overpaid relative to the private sector."

Obama said that just as people and companies across the country have had to be cautious about spending, "government should have to tighten its belt as well. We need to do it in an intelligent way. We need to make sure we do things smarter."

Obama has asked agencies to develop plans for cutting budgets 5 percent. But how that would be done would be decided on a case-by-case basis, he said.

"In some cases, they may say we don't need to fill vacancies," he said.

Obama said he wants to achieve "the best possible service at the lowest possible price to taxpayers."

The president said about layoffs, "if that's the only way to achieve the savings, then we have to make some decisions.""

October 15, 2010 5:12 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Perhaps we can change the constitution so Arnold Schwarzeneggar can run. He didn't go to court in support of Proposition 8, because he thought it was unconstitutional. Apparently President Obama thinks that discrimination against LGBT people is something that should be up for a vote, not a matter of right and wrong. Ugh.

October 15, 2010 6:30 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

1. As to Jim's question, as he noted in the original post, the Pentagon has announced that it would suspend enforcement of DADT in response to Judge Phillips' order. That is not the same thing as actively eliminating DADT, which would involve more than a simple abstaining from enforcement. In the meantime, the Administration has filed papers asking that Judge Phillips' order be suspended. It remains to be seen what would happen if the order is suspended prior to Congressional action to eliminate DADT. I would guess that, given the current circumstances, the suspension of enforcement would remain in place. The suspension would only be lifted if Congress failed to act to repeal DADT AND the Administration chose to continue to pursue appeal -- and even then it might not be lifted until the appellate courts deal with the issue. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that if Congress fails to act, the Administration will not continue the appeal.

2. Anon, your argument as to how MCPS fosters resegregation makes no sense at all. How could it be that drawing boundaries to increase integration results in resegregation?

We lived downcounty prior to August 1986, and we chose to enroll our older son at Rosemary Hills Primary School (we then lived a bit northeast of the Rosemary Hills Cluster, but wanted an all-day kindergarten). Rosemary Hills was K-2, and was paired for 3-6 with North Chevy Chase and Chevy Chase Elementary schools. The purpose was to foster integration.

As PTA co-president, I saw the test results for Rosemary Hills. Students from the high income areas of the RH/NCC/CC area scored as high as their counterparts in other high income areas in the County. Students from the low income areas scored much higher than their counterparts in other low income areas of the County. I should note that as part of the RH program, classes were limited to about 20 students, and each class had an aide in addition to the teacher. The results at RH were strong evidence that quality integrated education can work.

It is also noteworthy that in the 1982 BOE elections, a main issue was whether or not to proceed with this voluntary integration program. Candidates who were in favor of the program won -- just as in 2006, candidates who are in favor of the health education revisions on respecting differences in human sexuality won. I love Montgomery County.

October 15, 2010 6:56 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

1. As to Jim's question, as he noted in the original post, the Pentagon has announced that it would suspend enforcement of DADT in response to Judge Phillips' order. That is not the same thing as actively eliminating DADT, which would involve more than a simple abstaining from enforcement. In the meantime, the Administration have filed papers asking that Judge Phillips' order be suspended. It remains to be seen what would happen if the order is suspended prior to Congressional action to eliminate DADT. I would guess that, given the current circumstances, the suspension of enforcement would remain in place. The suspension would only be lifted if Congress failed to act to repeal DADT AND the Administration chose to continue to pursue appeal -- and even then it might not be lifted until the appellate courts deal with the issue. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that if Congress fails to act, the Administration will not continue the appeal.

2. Anon, your argument as to how MCPS fosters resegregation makes no sense at all. How could it be that drawing boundaries to increase integration results in resegregation?

We lived downcounty prior to August 1986, and we chose to enroll our older son at Rosemary Hills Primary School (we then lived a bit northeast of the Rosemary Hills Cluster, but wanted an all-day kindergarten). Rosemary Hills was K-2, and was paired for 3-6 with North Chevy Chase and Chevy Chase Elementary schools. The purpose was to foster integration.

As PTA co-president, I saw the test results for Rosemary Hills. Students from the high income areas of the RH/NCC/CC area scored as high as their counterparts in other high income areas in the County. Students from the low income areas scored much higher than their counterparts in other low income areas of the County. I should note that as part of the RH program, classes were limited to about 20 students, and each class had an aide in addition to the teacher. The results at RH were strong evidence that quality integrated education can work.

It is also noteworthy that in the 1982 BOE elections, a main issue was whether or not to proceed with this voluntary integration program. Candidates who were in favor of the program won -- just as in 2006, candidates who are in favor of the health education revisions on respecting differences in human sexuality won. I love Montgomery County.

October 15, 2010 6:57 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

As to Jim's question, as he noted in the original post, the Pentagon has announced that it would suspend enforcement of DADT in response to Judge Phillips' order. That is not the same thing as actively eliminating DADT, which would involve more than a simple abstaining from enforcement. In the meantime, the Administration have filed papers asking that Judge Phillips' order be suspended. It remains to be seen what would happen if the order is suspended prior to Congressional action to eliminate DADT. I would guess that, given the current circumstances, the suspension of enforcement would remain in place. The suspension would only be lifted if Congress failed to act to repeal DADT AND the Administration chose to continue to pursue appeal -- and even then it might not be lifted until the appellate courts deal with the issue. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that if Congress fails to act, the Administration will not continue the appeal.

October 15, 2010 6:58 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon, your argument as to how MCPS fosters resegregation makes no sense at all. How could it be that drawing boundaries to increase integration results in resegregation?

We lived downcounty prior to August 1986, and we chose to enroll our older son at Rosemary Hills Primary School (we then lived a bit northeast of the Rosemary Hills Cluster, but wanted an all-day kindergarten). Rosemary Hills was K-2, and was paired for 3-6 with North Chevy Chase and Chevy Chase Elementary schools. The purpose was to foster integration.

As PTA co-president, I saw the test results for Rosemary Hills. Students from the high income areas of the RH/NCC/CC area scored as high as their counterparts in other high income areas in the County. Students from the low income areas scored much higher than their counterparts in other low income areas of the County. I should note that as part of the RH program, classes were limited to about 20 students, and each class had an aide in addition to the teacher. The results at RH were strong evidence that quality integrated education can work.

It is also noteworthy that in the 1982 BOE elections, a main issue was whether or not to proceed with this voluntary integration program. Candidates who were in favor of the program won -- just as in 2006, candidates who are in favor of the health education revisions on respecting differences in human sexuality won. I love Montgomery County.

October 15, 2010 6:58 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson has an interesting article in the Huffington Post. There isn’t anything particularly new in what he’s saying, but it’s amazing to hear it coming from someone placed so highly in a Christian Church:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bishop-gene-robinson/how-religion-is-killing-o_b_764568.html

My favorite part:

“Think about it. If Tyler had been heterosexual and instead filmed having sex with his girlfriend, it would still be an inappropriate invasion of his privacy and tasteless to post the video online. And it certainly would have been embarrassing for Tyler and the girl. But chances are he would have been the recipient of some congratulatory remarks from friends about what a stud he was. And if he was straight he likely wouldn't have contemplated -- not to mention successfully accomplished -- his own suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge.

No, Tyler was a victim -- not of an inner disturbance of depression or mental illness--but of an external and in part religiously inspired disdain and hatred of gay people.

Despite the progress we're making on achieving equality under the law and acceptance in society for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, why this rash of bullying, paired with self-loathing, ending in suicide? With humility and heartfelt repentance I assert that religion -- and its general rejection of homosexuality -- plays a crucial role in this crisis.

On the one hand, Religious Right hatemongers and crazies are spewing all sorts of venom and condemnation, all in the name of a loving God. The second-highest-ranking Mormon leader, Boyd K. Packer, recently called same-sex attraction "impure and unnatural" in an act of unspeakable insensitivity at the height of this rash of teen suicides. He declared that it can be cured, and that same-sex unions are morally repugnant and "against God's law and nature."

Just as many gay kids grow up in these conservative denominations as any other. They are told day in and day out that they are an abomination before God. Just consider the sheer numbers of LGBT kids growing up right now in Roman Catholic, Mormon, and other conservative religious households. The pain and self-loathing caused by such a distortion of God's will is undeniable and tragic, causing scars and indescribable self-alienation in these young victims.”

His attitude gives me hope for the Christian faith.

Have a frabjous day,

Cynthia

October 16, 2010 1:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They are told day in and day out that they are an abomination before God."

this is such a typical distortion of the lunatic fringe

churches really don't bring up the topic of homosexuality often

certainly not "day in and day out"

it is only pointed that it is a sin under scripture on the rare occasions when it comes up

the sinfulness of homsexuality is not emphasized over many other sins that the Bible calls "abominations"

there is no "religiously inspired disdain and hatred of gay people"

they are generally treated with the same compassion as other sinners

bullies who commit violence against gays are those who pick on anyone who is different and are rarely reverent religious adherents

even if the church were to suddenly declare homosexuality a biblical lifestyle, there would still be the same level of bullying because homosexuality still wouldn't be the sexual preference of the majority

the same types persecute kids that are too "religious" too

stop feeling sorry for yourselves

Clementi killed himself of his own volition

college campuses are fairly tolerant of homosexuality so it's really a stretch to say he was being bullied at school

btw, anyone know what became of his partner in these videos?

October 16, 2010 5:39 PM  
Anonymous truth comes out of the closet said...

the gig is up, TTF

the kind of unreplicated studies used to support the gay agenda, that you revel in, are now being scrutinized:

"(Oct. 17) -- Walter Schumm knows what he's about to do is unpopular with the liberal elite: publish a study showing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. But the Kansas State University professor has a detailed analysis that past researchers never had.

When one such researcher, Paul Cameron, published a paper in 2006 arguing that children of gay parents were more likely to be gay themselves, the response from the academic press was virulent, to say nothing of the popular press; the Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, equated Cameron to a Nazi.

The gay press, as far back as the 1980s, labeled Cameron "the most dangerous anti-gay voice in America." Though Cameron was the first to publish papers on the dangers of secondhand smoke, the scientific community has abandoned him. The American Psychological Association long since dropped him from its membership for an "ethical" violation.

Today, Cameron is the founder and chairman of the Family Research Institute, whose mission is to publish empirical research on sexuality.

After Cameron's 2006 paper, Schumm listened as the academic community stated certainty of two things: Cameron was an idiotic bigot; and the existing literature showed no societal, cultural or parental influence on sexual orientation.

Schumm began investigating the second premise. "I just want to know the truth," he says. He found it strange that parents can influence so many facets of their children's lives -- but not sexual orientation.

His study, out next month, says gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay.

His study is a meta-analysis of existing work. First, Schumm extrapolated data from 10 books on gay parenting.

Schumm concluded that when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s -- presumably after they'd been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation -- 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. About 5 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.

Schumm next went macro, poring over an anthropological study of various cultures' acceptance of homosexuality. He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, "89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior."

Schumm says he sought out many different works. And across all his data -- the 10 books he consulted, the anthropological study, the scientific articles -- he noticed how lesbians begat more lesbians. In Schumm's study, he quotes from the extant literature the stories of young women, describing how being gay was never frowned upon in their household, and so that "option" was available to them. That said, Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to "try out women."

But couldn't gay men also tell their sons this? Yes, but Schumm says that most gay men have had sex with women, so they understand why their sons might date them. Whereas the literature shows many lesbians "have a hatred of men that's intense," Schumm says.

Schumm says it shouldn't have taken until 2010 to do the meta-analysis. Too often his colleagues impose "liberal or progressive political interpretations" on their studies, which inhibit further inquiry. "It's kind of sad," he says.

As if expecting a political backlash himself, Schumm concludes his study with a quote from philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. "All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.""

October 17, 2010 2:20 PM  
Anonymous truth comes out of closet said...

the gay agenda has been nailed:

"(Oct. 17) -- Walter Schumm knows what he's about to do is unpopular with the liberal elite: publish a study showing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. But the Kansas State University family studies professor has a detailed analysis that past researchers never had.

When one such researcher, Paul Cameron, published a paper in 2006 arguing that children of gay parents were more likely to be gay themselves, the response from the academic press was virulent, to say nothing of the popular press; the Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, equated Cameron to a Nazi.

The gay press, as far back as the 1980s, labeled Cameron "the most dangerous anti-gay voice in America." Though Cameron was the first to publish papers on the dangers of secondhand smoke, the scientific community has abandoned him. The American Psychological Association long since dropped him from its membership for an "ethical" violation.

Today, Cameron is the founder and chairman of the Family Research Institute, whose mission is to publish empirical research on sexuality.

Schumm listened as the academic community stated certainty of two things: Cameron was an idiotic bigot; and the existing literature showed no societal, cultural or parental influence on sexual orientation.

Schumm began investigating the second premise. "I just want to know the truth," he says. He found it strange that parents can influence so many facets of their children's lives -- but not sexual orientation.

His study, out next month, says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay.

His study is a meta-analysis of existing work. Schumm extrapolated data from 10 books on gay parenting.

Schumm concluded that when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s -- presumably after they'd been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation -- 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. About 5 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.

Schumm next went macro, poring over an anthropological study of various cultures' acceptance of homosexuality. He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, "89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior."

Schumm says he sought out many different works. And across all his data -- the 10 books he consulted, the anthropological study, the scientific articles -- he noticed how lesbians begat more lesbians. In Schumm's study, he quotes from the extant literature the stories of young women, describing how being gay was never frowned upon in their household, and so that "option" was available to them. That said, Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to "try out women."

But couldn't gay men also tell their sons this? Yes, but Schumm says that most gay men have had sex with women, so they understand why their sons might date them. Whereas the literature shows many lesbians "have a hatred of men that's intense," Schumm says.

Schumm says it shouldn't have taken until 2010 to do the meta-analysis. Too often his colleagues impose "liberal or progressive political interpretations" on their studies, which inhibit further inquiry. "It's kind of sad," he says.

As if expecting a political backlash himself, Schumm concludes his study with a quote from philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. "All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.""

October 17, 2010 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the gay agenda has been nailed:

"(Oct. 17) -- Walter Schumm knows what he's about to do is unpopular with the liberal elite: publish a study showing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. But the Kansas State University family studies professor has a detailed analysis that past researchers never had.

When one such researcher, Paul Cameron, published a paper in 2006 arguing that children of gay parents were more likely to be gay themselves, the response from the academic press was virulent, to say nothing of the popular press; the Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, equated Cameron to a Nazi.

The gay press, as far back as the 1980s, labeled Cameron "the most dangerous anti-gay voice in America." Though Cameron was the first to publish papers on the dangers of secondhand smoke, the scientific community has abandoned him. The American Psychological Association long since dropped him from its membership for an "ethical" violation.

Today, Cameron is the founder and chairman of the Family Research Institute, whose mission is to publish empirical research on sexuality.

Schumm listened as the academic community stated certainty of two things: Cameron was an idiotic bigot; and the existing literature showed no societal, cultural or parental influence on sexual orientation.

Schumm began investigating the second premise. "I just want to know the truth," he says. He found it strange that parents can influence so many facets of their children's lives -- but not sexual orientation.

His study, out next month, says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay.

His study is a meta-analysis of existing work. Schumm extrapolated data from 10 books on gay parenting.

Schumm concluded that when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s -- presumably after they'd been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation -- 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. About 5 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.

Schumm next went macro, poring over an anthropological study of various cultures' acceptance of homosexuality. He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, "89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior."

Schumm says he sought out many different works. And across all his data -- the 10 books he consulted, the anthropological study, the scientific articles -- he noticed how lesbians begat more lesbians. In Schumm's study, he quotes from the extant literature the stories of young women, describing how being gay was never frowned upon in their household, and so that "option" was available to them. That said, Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to "try out women."

But couldn't gay men also tell their sons this? Yes, but Schumm says that most gay men have had sex with women, so they understand why their sons might date them. Whereas the literature shows many lesbians "have a hatred of men that's intense," Schumm says.

Schumm says it shouldn't have taken until 2010 to do the meta-analysis. Too often his colleagues impose "liberal or progressive political interpretations" on their studies, which inhibit further inquiry. "It's kind of sad," he says.

As if expecting a political backlash himself, Schumm concludes his study with a quote from philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. "All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.""

October 17, 2010 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mxyzptlk

October 17, 2010 2:40 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I just removed your filth from the spam filter. AOLNews should be ashamed of themselves publishing something like this, and you should be ashamed of yourself for propagating it.

JimK

October 17, 2010 2:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should the gay community be upset about gays begetting gays? If there's nothing wrong with being gay, then what's the problem?

October 17, 2010 3:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

don't understand your extreme reaction here, Jim, but I'll go read your other post

I would have to echo the other comment

I know this cuts off a leg of your arguments but it seems you could simply use other arguments

filth? I'm clueless

October 17, 2010 7:23 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I don't see any problem with a finding that children of straight parents are more likely to stay in the closet than children of gay parents. It doesn't cut any leg off of anything. This AOL article is simply a terribly-written piece of propaganda.

JimK

October 17, 2010 7:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

filth? I'm clueless

I'm sitting on my own compost heap and I'm getting used to the smell

October 18, 2010 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, I was just planning to let this go but maybe we should explore it

what exactly is there about this study or the idea that gay parents are more likely to have gay kids that would make Jim characterize it as "filth"?

and then Jim tries to imply that the only reason for this result is that kids of gays feel more comfortable coming out

of course then we'd have to assume that innateness is inherited 58% of the time in lesbians and 33% of the time in male homosexuals

why the extreme resistance to the notion that environmental factors or "nurture" may cause homosexuality?

obviously, the lunatic fringe feels threatened by any suggestion that homosexuality is caused by social factors and, thus, not innate

this is because they have expropriated the language of the fight against racism to imply that opposition to the gay agenda is the equivalent of racism

so this is why AOL News and myself should be ashamed of ourselves

we have dared to question the gay agenda's moral basis

but that's not what Jim comes out and says

he says it is because the AOL piece is "simply a terribly-written piece of propaganda"

I know Jim, as a propagandist himself who takes the art of propagandizing seriously and appreciates a well-written piece, is quite offended who write their propaganda terribly

but why is this considered propaganda?

the AOL piece is a balanced piece that gives representatives from both sides a chance to state their case

because it doesn't endorse the demonization of Paul Cameron?

so much of the gay agenda concerns itself with attacking individuals

any time someone does a study or makes an argument that counters their agenda, they are put on a list and then all that's needs to be said is to mention the guy's name and then hurl an epithet and move on

I guess Walter Schumm goes on that list now

they will not even have a conversation about him

Walter Schumm, a filthy hateful bigot

enough said

October 18, 2010 8:14 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, this is a terrible article about a terrible piece of faux-research. It is filth because it abuses the institution of science in order to perpetuate hateful lies.

Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin has done a good breakdown of the paper itself -- he is actually quoted in it. Read his analysis HERE.

JimK

October 18, 2010 9:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"btw, anyone know what became of his partner in these videos?"

Hmmmmmm, "Anonymous"...got some kind of closeted prurient interest in knowing this?

"Why should the gay community be upset about gays begetting gays? If there's nothing wrong with being gay, then what's the problem?"
Gays don't "beget" gays, either. Kinda physically impossible to do. More often than not, they adopt the cast-off children of people who are incapable of raising children or the unwanted children of "family purity" advocates who simply do not want their offspring or who won't adopt kids because they don't like who the child is.

"so much of the gay agenda concerns itself with attacking individuals" Unlike your charitable Christian agenda that condemns anyone who you do not happen to like, "Anonymous"?

"we have dared to question the gay agenda's moral basis"...and just who are you to pass this judgment?
And, please, cite the exact chapter, verse, and lines that you are alluding to in the so-called "gay agenda".

"Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving evidence of the fact." (George Eliot)

Appropriate comment here: "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals (of course, a term completely unknown at the time that most early Bibles were written and re-written) and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." (Lynn Lavner)

You need help and supervision to get rid of your sinful homophobia!

October 19, 2010 10:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home