**UPDATE** Duncan also tied to Chicago Annenberg Challenge organization employing terrorist William Ayers
So, how often do you think that the Old Media will mention that Barack Obama's choice for Secretary of Education, Chicago schools chief Arne Duncan, supported to be opened in Chicago a gay, lesbian and transgender high school? Any takers?
I have looked over many of the stories on Obama's pick for Sec of Ed, but seen mention of his support of the gay high school only a few times. Only three stories mentioned it out of the first 20 I checked. Even the Wall Street Journal didn't mention it in their announcement of the Obama pick.
Of that gay-friendly school, Duncan was quoted by Chicago land news outlets in October.
"If you look at national studies, you see gay and lesbian students with high dropout rates...Studies show they are disproportionately homeless," Duncan said. "I think there is a niche there we need to fill."
One wonders if Duncan will bring this proposal with him to Washington D.C. and attempt to force school systems all across the country to start up their own gay, lesbian and transgender schools?
So, shall we take bets to see how often this gets brought up?
Update to add...
Education Week reported on the connections of Arne Duncan and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the far left organization that tried to shut out researchers from finding out about Barack Obama's connection to terrorist William Ayers during the campaign. (Ed. Week is a subscription site, but I found another place that had the full article reproduced )
In the Ed. Week article, Ken Rolling, the executive director of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and a former associate director of the Woods Fund, said that Duncan relied on the Annenberg Challenge to assist him in programing the Chicago Public Schools agenda.
Mr. Rolling said the research project helped shape the agenda for Arne Duncan, the current chief executive officer of the Chicago schools, especially on improving teacher quality.
So, there is another unsavory aspect of Duncan's connections. Will the media report it?
(Photo credit: An AP file photo courtesy of the Cleveland Plain Dealer)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
gee Warner
December 16, 2008 - 10:34 ET by candanceObama appointing a Dem lackey from Chicago to fill his cabinet? But I thought he was all about change.
Whatever happened to all of those complaints that Bush was giving jobs to his friends? Where's that outrage now?
I'm a typical white person.
It IS about change. It is
December 16, 2008 - 16:40 ET by NL207It IS about change. It is about eliminating as much conservative ideology and traditional values from governance and everyday life as possible and replacing these with moral relatavism and marxist ideology.
Cronyism
December 16, 2008 - 21:09 ET by LAXLook it up...there has to be a liberal BDS dictionary out there from Harvard somewhere with W's picture next to the word. I'm not sure what to be more concerned about...the Messiah's future policy decisions, or the MSM's total lack of objectivity and therefore lack of oversight of the government in the next 4 years. They stick it in our faces that they have a 1st Amendment obligation to be protector of the nation from its own government...but that role has apparently been shelved...at least while the Messiah is in office.
Hmmm, what does Mike
December 16, 2008 - 10:35 ET by benrandHmmm, what does Mike Barnacle's instinct tell him? I'll wait to form my opinion until I can hear what his instinct as an editor and journalist tells him.
It's the only way to know what to do and how to think.
Not to be obtuse, but how
December 16, 2008 - 10:42 ET by SickofLibsNot to be obtuse, but how the heck do you get to be a transgender student of high school age? There's doctors that perform transgender procedures on 16-yr olds?
Another chronic over-achiever for the Obama cabinet: "The percentage of Chicago public high school students who met or exceeded state standards on a test tied to the ACT college-entrance exam dropped for the third consecutive year, according to scores released Friday."
missing something sickoflibs
December 16, 2008 - 10:49 ET by candanceTransgendered teens are not ones who had sex changes - they apparently were born one way but "know" they are meant to be the other.
I'm a typical white person.
So many classifications, I can't keep up anymore
December 16, 2008 - 11:06 ET by SickofLibsForgive me, I've been Thomas Beattie-ified.
The problem is the minority ruining it for the majority...
December 16, 2008 - 11:57 ET by AshleeI'm in agreeance here with most everyone in the belief that segregation is just that, segregation. If we are going to 'get along' with each other and at least *attempt* to find a way to work and live together, even if we don't support each other's overall life choices, putting one group *here* and the other over *there* does nothing for that.
Now on these issues I'm usually the one to stick up for many homosexual and transgender/transexual individuals who are judged by their condition before their character, but this is ludicrous. I am very sure that many gay, but especially trans, individuals no doubt recieve some sort of mockery in school. Now, should they have to endure that while teachers stand idly by and let it just happen? Of course not. That said, the solution is not to just simply seperate the two into individual schools.
I'll admit, the idea of a safe haven for all those who maybe suffer undue punishment or mockery of their peers is a nice one, but by forcing (which is what they essentially would be doing) trans and gay people to only learn and interact among their own, and therefore creating a bigger vaccum of homosexual and trans individuals in public schools will only further drive the two apart; further cementing resentment for the other side in each camp.
In all honesty, the solution here, as always, is education. I'm not saying you need to force the science behind transgender occurances and the lesser scientific finds in inborn homosexuality as bonafide fact (as it isn't technically) but much like evolution *and* Creationism, all facets of potential knowledge should be provided both clearly, fairly, and responsibly. Now, will some science studies keep bullies from beating on the transgendered girl at school or keep the girls from giving dirty looks to the lesbian in the locker room during gym? Probably not, but, its a start.
I, of all people, would never judge someone fully as to who they are or what is going on in their heads, however, especially at a crucially important age of both emotional and physical growth during the high school years, what a potentially homosexual or transgendered person needs is not only acceptance, but even more so, they need help and support from individuals who can psychologically and perhaps even physiologically analyze their situation rather than just saying 'sure ok, that works, I believe you.' Not to say someone might NOT be who they claim to be, but let's face it, its a standard thing for teens to go through a series of identities before finding, or rather, accepting who they truely are.
Bottom line, segregation, in any sense, does not work and only assists in driving the two groups further apart, which is the opposite of what this measure claims it sets out to do, to bring social awareness, tolerance, and building a bond between the heterosexual and homosexual and transgendered communities.
Then again, in the end, I dont see the 'gay community' or 'straight community' or 'trans community.' I just see people. :-P
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
You know, the problem with
December 16, 2008 - 12:33 ET by choselife3xPolitical correctness, is it just takes SO DAMN LONG to say anything. Or nothing, as it were :-).
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
well, I was pretty much agreeing here...
December 16, 2008 - 12:44 ET by Ashleehaha well if that was critique of my post, if nothing was 'said' in it, then you just weren't paying attention :-P
As for PC, I am pretty darn non-PC. There's a difference between showing respect and being forced to walk on eggshells. for example, NOT judging a homosexual or trans person SOLELY on the info that they are gay or transgendered? That's being respectful.
Now, if a loud and proud queen prances across my town and begins to dance in his/her booty shorts in plain view, being told you cannot react to that, now that is Political Correctness. We should all be respectful to one another, but judging someone by their situation or who they love or whom they identify as, as a precedence to their character, well, thats not politically incorrect, its just poor social practice. Afterall, there's alot of things I'm not keen on out there, but had I judged people by it before getting to know them, I'd probably have 1/3 of the great friends I currently do :-P
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
The thing is.....
December 16, 2008 - 12:58 ET by choselife3xThe homosexual/transgender 'community' doesn't WANT to 'bond' with the breeders. They want to be given special recognition for their deviance.
I'm not saying every SINGLE one does, but the gay community as a whole is hostile to traditional families.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I for one can prove you
December 16, 2008 - 13:12 ET by AshleeI for one can prove you correct in the statement that not all different people want to drive the stake between cisgendered, heterosexuals and homosexuals/transgendered people.
I myself am transgendered, albeit at this point no one really ever realizes it. I can say not for the community, as I don't belong to any 'community' other than the 'human community,' but for myself, I have spent the better part of my life in fear, then in shame, but finally realized that I too am a person, a person with a lot to give, with wisdom, and the desire to constantly better myself.
I understand how awfully hard it is not to judge the majority of the quiet by the actions of the loud and crass minority. Trust me, I had even gone through a 3 month period of utter disdain for all homosexuals, only because the ones I knew, save one, was just completely over the top and was more concerned with acting or trolling for some hot club sex than they were with meeting new, interesting people and developing healthy, productive friendships. I was wrong in assuming *all* were like that, but because of that period of time, I can understand where you're coming from. Please though, try and understand that a *lot* of us are NOT in it for sex and quite honestly, speaking for transgendered people, more often than not, it isnt at all about sex. Lord knows it isnt about that for me. I'm a celibate person who's intimate track record would make the most saintly look sleazy.
Again, I'm not trying to chide you for having an opinion or feelings than can be offended when someone shoves their lifestyle in your face, especially when its one you may not be comfortable with. That said, there *is* a growing number of people like myself who want *nothing* to do with the GLBT agenda and would rather work on finding a TRUE pluralistic society model in which we ALL can coexist happily rather than burn down anything and everything that isn't *favoring* the GLBT community over others.
After all its equality and coexistence that I want, not social tyrany over all those unlike myself. I only ask that they be kind enough not to want social tyrany over myself as well.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
Just saw this post, Ashlee
December 16, 2008 - 16:04 ET by choselife3xI am so sorry for your suffering with this issue.
Your average 'straight white Christian' has no desire to tyrannise over others. As a whole we do resent an 'in your face' attitude and we are strongly against any gay agenda being imposed in public schools. * or anywhere else, for that matter * And, having all kinds of reasons and justifications for being insane, doesn't mitigate the insanity. But hey, if crazy people knew they were crazy, there wouldn't be any crazy people!
(being crazy is not a moral issue, don't call me a moralist unless you want a dissection of sexual perversion from a moral standpoint)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
After all its equality and
December 16, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Dan The Man 2After all its equality and coexistence that I want, not social tyrany over all those unlike myself. I only ask that they be kind enough not to want social tyrany over myself as well.
No you want special privilige and for me to accept your choices. I dont and consider you to be an abonomation to God. I will tolerate your existance but point out at every opportunity that you are sick in the head.
I realize you dont see it taht way but it is a fact of your existence because of yor choices in life. We all have teh free will to choose the paths we take in life however limited and you have chosen yours.
You are free to be as equal as I and we are under teh same rules, rules you dont like. Well tough it out because life will only get harder and most likely in death it will only get hotter for you.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Short and sweet
December 16, 2008 - 14:37 ET by AshleeHa, lucky for you I know better and have thick skin.
I ask you simply then to describe to me how intersexed individuals fit into the fold if everything is so black and white to you?
It is well known, strongly supported through evidence, scientific theory that this CAN and DOES happen. It is essentially the same as an intersexxed individual only in this case, regarding disruption in in utero development.
Essentially, the body recieves the hormones during that crucial fetal development stage that decides the gender of the child, yet the nervous system, or 'brain' rather as they claim in laymens terms, is not receptive of said hormones or is simply not exposed due to erroneous disbursal of hormones during that stage of fetal growth.
There is also evidence that hormone washes can occur in the womb, often times creating a situation where a child is exposed to said hormones in that stage which causes the body to change incorrectly (this case being the most accepted view of how and why physical intersexed individuals are born.)
So, with that knowledge in tow, I ask you, where do people with *visible* intersexed issues (born with both genetalia) fit into the picture with you? Should we euthenize them? How do we decide which gender they fit into? is it even our choice to make?
*sigh* life gets a might bit difficult when these pesky real life issues arise, doesn't it? :-P
Oh and all that aside, while you may hold judgement of me and believe me an abomination, I can say that I certainly don't judge you for holding such resentment and anger toward a stranger in your heart. I pray that whether I be right or wrong on this issue, that God grants you a tad more compassion for your fellow human.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
Pure BS
December 16, 2008 - 15:31 ET by CobraMan"Essentially, the body recieves the hormones during that crucial fetal
development stage that decides the gender of the child, yet the nervous
system, or 'brain' rather as they claim in laymens terms, is
not receptive of said hormones or is simply not exposed due to
erroneous disbursal of hormones during that stage of fetal growth. "
That's pure BS as the hormones (there are hundreds that are produced during gestation, also know as fetal development) that regulate sex, amongst other things, also regulates nervous system development. What do you think regulates the development of the nerves in the reproductive organs, blind luck? No, it's the hormones, duh! This means that the same hormones linked to "sex" regulates how the BRAIN and the rest of the nervous system develops.
Also, the BRAIN is the primary regulator of hormone release in the human body, once the pituitary gland, an the thymus gland, develops. All hormone production, including those hormones that are released later in fetal development, are controlled by the brain.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
No surprise here, typical brash rebuttal from the fearful.
December 16, 2008 - 15:55 ET by AshleeSo you disagree. I can never understand why those who disagree or don't like certain things immediately rush to call them blatant non-facts. Its factual in the sense that as much as this can be proven (so far in research) has been and does support the theory. Is it bonafide fact? essentially no. However, I'm able to admit that, knowing that future research will most likely prove this to be the case. If not, oh well, then it isn't true. I, however, will not decry its debunking as 'BS' because I don't like the answer. Basically what you have just done here.
Also, not an assailing of character or intellect, but, short of being in this arena of science yourself, I find you have little to base your assumptions of 'BS' upon...
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
BS because it's not true
December 16, 2008 - 16:19 ET by CobraManIt's BS because it's not true. You even admit it yourself when you say: "Is it bonafide fact? essentially no." Essentially? That still means NO! That STILL means it's pure BS.
"Also, not an assailing of character or intellect, but, short of being in this arena of science yourself"
Humm, do I detect a little hypocrisy here, and a bit of elitism as well? I believe that I do!
First you tell me that you don't want to "assault" my intellect, then you state that I'm "short" in the "area of science," in order to deconstruct my argument as irrelevant, which, BTW is an direct assault on both my character AND intellect. Am I too stuupid to understand simply because I didn't attend college? I guess so, since, according to you, only a "scientist' can have the necessary intellect in which to make decisions regarding things like what we are discussing here. Because you believe this, you label me both as "typical" and 'fearful" even though I have never stated that I am afraid of anything, including the discussions of GENDER PERCEPTIONS.
You may not realize this, but I am not afraid of you. I'm simply countering your arguments. This apparently bothers you to the point that you feel the need to label me in negative terms (typical and fearful) in order to dismiss my arguments as inconsequential and biased even tho they are not. You dismiss me simply because I disagree with you and have the audacity to offer counter arguments. You attempt to assault my character and minimize my intelligence in order to avoid debate. Guess what, that makes you both a HYPOCRITE and an ELITIST! Welcome to the Land of the Bigots!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
score
December 16, 2008 - 16:28 ET by candanceCobra: 1
Ashlee: 0
Apparently in Ashlee's world, using science to dispell a common myth is a "brash attack from the fearful."
I'm a typical white person.
Last I checked, Science's
December 16, 2008 - 16:35 ET by AshleeLast I checked, Science's verdict admittedly was still out but very much so leaning toward my point, afterall, that IS where I got my explaination.....from scientific research.
Although I may just hang my hat up on this issue as I see my friend may not have been overreacting like I said he was when he left here. I'm starting to think some of you come here to sling mud and have agreeing parties rather than flesh out the issues. I have always been open to debate and if I was 'SO SURE' that my way was 110% correct (which I do, but for the sake of objectivity, force myself to play my own devils advocate) then why have I enlisted the service of a therapist and psychologist who, for what its worth, have both given me a clean bill of mental health and do believe this is a legitimate case in regard to my situation.
I'm not trying to say you need to invite people like me to dinner. Hell, you can give us dirty looks for all we care, most of us just realize how juvenile such actions are anyways and are far too busy with our own lives to concern ourselves with someone who goes out of their way to express their opinion of our lives. That said, I just am genuinely, and sincerely saddened that it is quite apparent that even *with* bonafide proof, air tight, that this happens, you all would still hold your own opinions in the face of factual evidence.
I only hope someone in the future is able to vindicate people such as myself to modern society as just as legitimate and normal as they are.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
Are you normal? Then act like it!
December 16, 2008 - 17:44 ET by CobraMan"I only hope someone in the future is able to vindicate people such as
myself to modern society as just as legitimate and normal as they are. "
How can you ever become "legitimate and normal" when you continually distance yourself from the rest of us? You know, those "typical," "fearful," "touchy" people like myself who, according to you, has "NOTHING personally invested in this."
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
→ Of course it's normal
December 16, 2008 - 17:47 ET by Cool ArrowJust in a state of flux.
Time for your change Ashlee.
You know the drill. Bwahahaha!
If it's government funded, just get a tattoo.
Ashlee....RUN!
December 16, 2008 - 18:15 ET by BlondeBack to the nut house.
You are a very sick little girl.
Your tag says it all.
Here's hoping you recover from whatever paranoid schizophrenia you are suffering from.
Blonde
December 16, 2008 - 19:31 ET by jquamYou're the product of a hate-filled life aren't you? Rough time growing up? I'm not even sure if you're a man or woman...you call yourself Blonde, but you seem so certain of yours and other peoples' masculinity (at least Ashlee is certain of what she is, and more power to her for that...her life certainly hasn't been easy). I know you probably love your "god" and your "family" and you think you have a lot of love all over your life...but I'm not so sure. You are starting to come off as the type of person who would hit a puppy.
Think Well
Hit a puppy? No
December 16, 2008 - 19:46 ET by choselife3xBut if you sh!t on the floor again she's gonna rub your nose in it. Might bop ya with a rolled up liberal rag, too.
(couldn't resist)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
jquam, CARE TO guess again?? However you are a democrat*
December 16, 2008 - 19:47 ET by upcountrywaterLover of the KKK, Killer of Lincoln, Jim crow etc.
(D)*
and you HATE FREEDOM
Whoa, asshat!
December 16, 2008 - 19:53 ET by BlondeYou know nothing about me....but you are so presumptuous.
Ta ta.
jquam, Blonde doesn't hit puppies.
December 16, 2008 - 19:54 ET by R D HelmBut she has been known to skin trolls alive, leaving them to beat a hasty retreat back to the underpass of the bridge they emerged from, whimpering like a freshly-beaten red-headed step-child. :-)
-Dave
Will work for beer.
Well, D....
December 16, 2008 - 19:59 ET by BlondeThis troll is interesting.
We shall see if it bothers to respond, LOL.
J.
Yeah
December 16, 2008 - 20:09 ET by jquamNow shut up jquam, or Blonde will hit your puppy and eat your f****** babies...because whatever Blonde is...it's tough.
Good team spirit guys...way to rally on this one :)
Sorry jquam
December 16, 2008 - 20:11 ET by BlondeBlonde is not your mommy.
I would never harm a puppy, but YOU, on the other hand....
Cute, Hater.....
Ta.
wow jquam
December 16, 2008 - 20:17 ET by candanceYou are starting to come off as the type of person who would hit a puppy.
And you made that diagnosis after a couple snarky posts on a message board? You are starting to come off a self-righteous lib who think it's his job to lecture people.
I'm a typical white person.
Funny
December 17, 2008 - 10:41 ET by jquamBut you've got it wrong...she left her snarky post...so I left mine. She had no argument for hers so I didn't think I really needed one for mine. I've got nothing against her or any of you, really...
Think Well.
Seriously, don't waste your time
December 17, 2008 - 13:56 ET by AshleeSeriously. I know not if you're a dem or a republican, a conservative or a liberal, but let me be clear that this place obviously has no place for dissenting opinion, even from a fellow conservative!
Seriously, I heard such great things about this place, but much like the liberals love to claim discussions over things like global warming and environmental issues as 'finished and decided' it seems to also be the case for the conservatives I've seen here in the case of homosexuality and transexuality. I appreciate your kind words, and, I can say regardless of your political affiliation, or whether you're a typical nut job liberal who's into giving free money away, or if you're a conservative who's socially stuck in the mid 1900's, all that aside, I thank you for your defense. That said, I wouldn't bother. Like it or not (and they won't because like God, they deem themselves infallible on all issues they speak on here) they are going to continue to rally against you, rail on you unprovoked and then bait and switch the blame by scapegoating your defense of their initial rude remark as a reason for their own mean spirited approach. (these 'points' they make, usually devoid of any point aside from the typical 'nah nah nah nah nah, we have the majority here' BS).
I for one *am* a very sane, very kind, and very intelligent young woman. How I was born really doesn't much come into play all that much until people claim I'm illegitimate. Most people cannot tell I was ever a boy and I keep it that way. I have no interest in making MY issue the focal point, however, I will not sit idly by while the masses pat each other on the back in their own hate.
Time to grow up children, you may be spot on with fiscal and governing issues when it comes to economy, but your dogmatic principles are not only hypocritical and pick and choosy, but also quite offensive to the overall humanitarian principle of Christianity.
God bless you all.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
Other things that are 'BS' according to Cobra Man's standard
December 16, 2008 - 16:29 ET by AshleeEvolution
Creationism
Darwinism
Immaculate Conception
Relativity
Gravity
Astronomy as an entire science
I could keep going on but I know you aren't stupid, you know what I'm getting at. The theory I presented is quite close to proven, as close as any theory could hope to be, but like good scientists, it is still only a theory because they are careful to test EVERY possible angle.
However, according to you, anything that is still theoretical, is defacto 'BS.' Boy, if only someone had told Einstein he'd have been better off relaxing instead of researching his theory. After all, all those years are wasted since his theory is BS.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
What a lame attempt to deflect debate
December 16, 2008 - 16:41 ET by CobraMan"However, according to you, anything that is still theoretical, is defacto 'BS.'"
What a lame attempt to deflect debate. I like to see ANY of my posts that state what you claim, that I think Evolution theory is BS, for example. You have as much time as you need to provide them. Until you do, you're simply trying to deflect debate though character assassination. That is NOT a very good debating tactic as it is bound to fail.
"the theory I presented is quite close to proven."
You didn't present it as a theory, you persented as a STUDY in order to insuate that it has become an established fact. And I STILL believe that this theory is pure BS as it totally ingnores that fact that reproductive organs and their associated nervious tissuse developed at the same time.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Cobra, you said: "Is it
December 16, 2008 - 16:59 ET by AshleeCobra, you said:
"Is it bonafide fact? essentially no." Essentially? That still means NO! That STILL means it's pure BS
So, I merely stated what you left me to gather from that statement, which is, if it's a theory, and therefore *not* essentially proven completely, then, in this case, it's BS. Well of course scientific inference and law knows no bias so, to say this 'theory' is BS because it is merely still theoretical, then it *is* safe to say that such judgements of this issue, if unbiased, would also lead to you believing all other scientific theories are also 'BS.' Afterall, the qualifier you are using here is 'its a theory, it isnt proven fact, so, its BS.'
That being said, no objective person could get it twisted. While my post was a bit much to drive a point home, the point still is there and valid.
I'm not much for scorecards but it looks like I'm perfectly correct in this statement, if indeed as you *yourself* claimed, that a theory is BS because it has yet to be proven.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
You still don't understand.
December 16, 2008 - 17:13 ET by CobraMan"So, I merely stated what you left me to gather from that statement,
which is, if it's a theory, and therefore *not* essentially proven
completely, then, in this case, it's BS.
You still fail to understand! You never claimed that it was "essentially proven
completely," you admitted that it wasn't ACTUALLY proven at all.
""Is it bonafide fact? essentially no""
You're tring to hid from the factthat ths theory is NOT proven by claiming that it's"almost proven' which is as relevent to establishing a fact as being "almost pregnant." It's ether proven or it's not, which one is it?
As far as BS, that's mu opinion and I will stand by that opinion until; you, or someone else, gives me evidence that this BS theory is actually correct and not just supposition.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
First, I said it wasn't
December 16, 2008 - 16:39 ET by AshleeFirst, I said it wasn't personal, if you take it as such, that's your business, but I remember a wise woman once saying no one can make you feel a certain way unless you allow them to.
As for counter arguments, you offer this:
Its a theory and its wrong, and I dont like it so its BS.
This is not an argument, this is a reactionary response.
PS I really meant no harm to you or to attack you, I do not know your education nor your background, but if you did have experience in the realm of this area I had only assumed you would bring such subject matter into your counter argument. Instead I got the typical 'ewww its wrong, mistakes like that don't happen! You're just crazy and wrong!'
and again, that is not a counter argument, rather, its a reactionary response.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
More BS
December 16, 2008 - 16:47 ET by CobraMan"I really meant no harm to you or to attack you"
That's more BS! You attacked me in the first subject line of your first response to my argument! You CONTINUED to attack me in the preceding posts that you have made, including this one!
You also seem to fail to understand what my argument actually is: It is not, as you claim, that I believe that "Its a theory and its wrong, and I dont like it so its BS." I claim that is is pure BS because it doesn't relate with what actually happens during gestation. If a theory can NOT match observed situations, then that theory can NOT be correct and is, therefor, pure BS.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Cobra, It is relative,
December 16, 2008 - 17:03 ET by AshleeCobra,
It is relative, otherwise I'd say that there's alot of scientists out there who are just making junk up. (although I'm sure you'd line up in the cheering crowd if this showed to be true on this issue.)
I guess I just dont understand how *you,* the person with NOTHING personally invested in this can be so sensitive and touchy. I guess I just don't understand why you take this issue so personally. I'm not dating your son nor am I living on your block. That said however, its quite possible someone else like me just might and you just haven't noticed. Afterall, we aren't in it for the attention, for sex, or even for your approval, we're in this because we know who we are and that we are no more an abomination than any other human out there.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
A lot of theories turned out to be pure bs
December 16, 2008 - 17:15 ET by CobraManYou may not realize this, but a LOT of theories have turned out to be pure BS. What makes you think that this one won't follow the same fate?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Project much?
December 16, 2008 - 17:31 ET by CobraMan"I guess I just dont understand how *you,* the person with NOTHING personally invested in this can be so sensitive and touchy."
Project much? I'm not the one who is "being touchy" here, YOU ARE!
You're the one who claimed my argument was, and I quote,"typical brash rebuttal from the fearful." That was YOU who became "touchy" simply because I called your theory pure BS. In just about every post since then, you've been trying to insinuate that I am bigoted, unintelligent, unrealistic, and/or just plain fearful of someone like yourself. You even have the audacity to insinuate that I am being 'bother" by people simply because they are attracted to the same sex, yet nothing I have stated even INSINUATES this.
This indicated that you are extremely bothered by my statements, beliefs, and/or charter.This means that YOU are the one who's bothered by people like myself. That means YOU are the bigot here, not me
You insult, demean, and question my intelligence, alone with my character, every chance you get simply because I disagree with you . Well, guess what? That makes YOU the touchy one here.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Relative to what?
December 16, 2008 - 17:34 ET by CobraMan"It is relative, otherwise I'd say that there's alot of scientists out there who are just making junk up."
Relative to what? Wishful thinking? It sure isn't relative to the observable universe!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Don't know where you got
December 16, 2008 - 16:20 ET by choselife3xDon't know where you got 'fearful' from.... So give us some firsthand info, do you have any hormone imbalances/irregularities that have been measured by an endocrinologist?
If not, how do you explain your condition? I am truly curious to know what your mental processes are concerning your self described state of being.
If that is too personal, I understand. You must excuse our surprise and curiosity, considering you 'came out' on a conservative site!
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Nice strawman argument
December 16, 2008 - 15:49 ET by CobraMan"I ask you, where do people with *visible* intersexed issues (born with both genetalia) fit into the picture with you?"
Nice strawman argument, BTW. The occurrence of "*visibal* intersexed issues,", also know as hermaphrodism, is extremely rare. The inclusion of this rare genetic disorder into a discussion of sexual PERCEPTION like "transgenderism" or "homosexualism, is as unwarranted, and as useless, as trying to induce gigantisim (another rare genetic disorder) into the discussion. It serves no REAL purpose, other than to deflect the discussion of the real issue, which is gender PERCEPTION.
I hope you realize that "intersexed" humans are NOT capable of breeding. This means that an "intersexed" human can not have children. They suffer from a chromosomal disorder which is inherent from conception and NOT from some type of "hormone washes" as you are trying to insinuate.
Gay's, lesbians, and "transgendered" people CAN, for the most part, breed and have children, which indicates that this is a PERCEPTION issue and not a genetic issue.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
where did you get this information?
December 16, 2008 - 15:56 ET by katainkentwhere did you get this information?
Thank Goodness
December 16, 2008 - 17:07 ET by AshleeThat someone asked. I'm at work now but once home I'll be sure to pass on the information. Some of it is really high end junk that even the most studious I think would find boring, and some of it is explained in laymens terms, either way, I'll provide the sources.
As a premptive measure, however, if all you are going to read them for is a search to find invalidity or some flaw, and you aren't going to at least TRY and go into it objectively, save yourself the headache and go do something enjoyable rather than click on the links, I just don't care to hear someone who goes into this with a loaded agenda.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
If there is a medical study
December 16, 2008 - 17:30 ET by katainkentI will read it. But to pre-empt your pre-emptive measures : If you post a secondary website that sites a study I will ask you where it is, who performed it, and what its results were. I prefer the most first hand information available.
Have no fear I have no intention to rebut your information. I simply want to read your sources.
Tolerate...whatever
December 16, 2008 - 14:58 ET by jquam"most likely in death it will only get hotter for you"
Tolerant...whatever....abomination of God, la di da da di di di da. You're an abomination of the word tolerant. I don't personally have a religion that I follow (nor do I need one, I'm perfectly content in just being a good person) but if you happen to be right and us "abominations" of this oh so loving God end up in some kind of hell...you'll probably be there as well....because if this God is so loving...you're obviously not living in his image. Remember Mr. Man 2 (surprising that even on your own chosen name you couldn't be number 1) love the sinner and hate the sin, isn't that how it goes...you should watch how your writing reflects on your love...because isn't God always watching. I have compassion for everybody, including you (and remember, I don't have religion)...why can't you?
Think Well.
Thank you. I simply
December 16, 2008 - 16:03 ET by AshleeThank you.
I simply have no better words than just that to say to you. May your words ring true in the ears of those who live to cast stones.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
And just when I thought I got caught up...
December 16, 2008 - 11:57 ET by SickofLibsGay penguin couple given their own eggs to care for
Talk about assumptions!
December 16, 2008 - 15:10 ET by CobraManAre the Penguin actually gay, or did the females simply refuse to mate with them? I'd like to know how the Chinese zookeepers determines that an egg-less male is gay? I mean, really, did they observe the guys attempting to mate or something? If this is true, are they really gay, or simply too young to know the difference?
Penguin males will "steal" the eggs of others when they "lose" their own eggs or fail to mate. The instinct to care for the young is very strong in ether sex. Being "gay" has nothing to do with it.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Actually
December 16, 2008 - 15:26 ET by jquamThis penguin pair has been together for quite a while. Remember...penguins pair off for life. Even in the wild this happens...usually the male couples will just use a rock as their "egg."
Think Well.
Penguin 'male couples'?!
December 16, 2008 - 16:31 ET by choselife3xSo THAT'S why the population has been dropping!! D@mn global warming is making the penguins queer! *Gasp*
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Thank you
December 16, 2008 - 16:53 ET by CobraMan"This penguin pair has been together for quite a while."
Thank you, I couldn't find that information in any of the news articles I searched.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
You're right
December 16, 2008 - 17:06 ET by jquamNo, you're right...I was getting my gay penguins mixed up...I was thinking of Roy and Silo...the gay new york penguins. They'd been together for 6 six years when they were given their egg to raise. But that info is documented.... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL
Think Well.
Hetero High
December 16, 2008 - 10:52 ET by allanfI wonder if a heterosexual only high school would be considered a 14th Amendment violation?
Three things you can't be in
December 16, 2008 - 11:46 ET by mattmThree things you can't be in the Former U.S.A.: 1. White, 2. Straight, and 3. Christian.
Haha...
December 16, 2008 - 12:55 ET by jquamNope, it's just that you can't be all three at once. Must suck to be living in a time that you just weren't made for.
Think Well.
Typical
December 16, 2008 - 10:48 ET by ConservativeFLLiberals are always touting diversity and inclusiveness yet they want to segregate people with hyphens, i.e. AA, Jewish-American. Now they want a school for gay, lesbian, transgender? What's next a school for liberals only, sorry forgot about our University system already indoctrination centers for Socialists. Glad I missed the kool-aid while attending college.
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15." Ronald Reagan
They're already ahead of you ;)
December 16, 2008 - 12:09 ET by AshleeI believe they are already ahead of you on that front. There's been liberal-only schools and education going on for years. It's called State Universities. :-!
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
A Chicago Lefty
December 16, 2008 - 14:49 ET by iveseenitallOf course Obama would pick a Chicago lefty to be Sec. of Education. American public schools continue to ignore academic basics in favor of a left-wing social agenda and continue to be one of the most abysmal failures in American history. Union corruption, the ignorance of some of the worst teachers in the world, the failure to recognize some of the best teachers, the low achievement of students on every level, the lack of discipline and respect in the classroom, and the lack of accountibility for anyone in the system are just the tip of the dirty iceberg which is American public education. And what will the new lefty Secretary do?--- abandon No Child Left Behind, lower academic standards even further, rachet up Affirmative Action programs, push a socialist curriculum based in propaganda, spend billions of tax dollars to support failures in the system. America's schools are a disgrace and there is truly no "hope" on the horizon. How dangerous for our future.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Is Arne Duncan a Segregationist?
December 16, 2008 - 10:57 ET by pearlObama's true goal is to establish schools as described in Bill Ayer's Prairie Fire manifesto.
Schools designed for "social justice" and training for liberal agitators. Segregate groups and have them play against each other.
Has any conservative described this guy as a segregationist?
Perfect. We can have gay
December 16, 2008 - 10:59 ET by SeashellPerfect. We can have gay and lesbian tax supported schools but can't have prayer in tax supported schools. Our country is going to hell.
"Where are we going, and why
December 16, 2008 - 13:17 ET by choselife3x"Where are we going, and why are we in a handbasket?" asked the bewildered sheeple.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
End a monopoly
December 17, 2008 - 09:35 ET by UnsaneThe solution to this is QUITE simple!
Let's stop having tax-supported schools. Or, at least, have some COMPETITION (that thing that makes the university system in the United States the best in the world).
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Since this is all about
December 16, 2008 - 11:12 ET by KevroySince this is all about sexual preferences why not have a school for hot attractive blondes? It's only fair...
Great work WTH
December 16, 2008 - 11:17 ET by Dee Bunkas always.
We'd never know this if it weren't for you. The MSM are scum.
Here is how the AP/Yahoo's Report it:
December 16, 2008 - 11:30 ET by The Distributist"He ran a nonprofit education organization on Chicago's South Side before going to work in Chicago schools under former superintendent Paul Vallas, now the New Orleans schools chief."
My hunch is that the phrase "improving teacher quality" meant nothing more than placing pliable union members in place who will make sexual politics a priority in their classrooms.
"Modern man is staggering and losing his balance because he is being pelted with little pieces of alleged fact which are native to the newspapers; and, if they turn out not to be facts, that is still more native to newspapers." -GKC
→ Arne Duncan's speaking now
December 16, 2008 - 11:50 ET by Cool ArrowFor anybody wondering, the guy just opened his mouth and removed all doubt.
Controlling assumptions
December 16, 2008 - 12:41 ET by KC MulvilleThe purpose of a school is to present our assumptions about the world, at least the ones we most of us agree with. (We agree that seven plus five is twelve. We agree that i comes before e except after c. We agree that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492.) Oh, there may be a few nutcases who don't agree with everything, but what we present to the children is what most of us assume to be true.
And now we have Obama selecting someone to be responsible for the educational system who, by his record, wants to spend even more time on trendy social engineering. This guy wants to spend our tax money to coerce our children to accept his "progressive" assumptions.
I think Krauthammer was right. Obama is willing to concede foreign policy, and even the economy, so that he can devote his time to re-teaching America. Obama doesn't want to change government -- he wants to change you.
Just my 2 cents...
December 16, 2008 - 13:03 ET by AshleeKC,
First and foremost, I *do* agree with you in a big way that school should promote *education* before anything else. It would certainly distress me if all the time that WAS spent on formal education was now spent on 'tolerance classes' just as much as it annoys me that in universities today, objective views have been traded in for the snooty, "smarter than thou" left wing views of politic and the world at large.
Now, *that* said, I want to take you to task on something, but work with me...
you said:
Girls behave this way, boys behave that way.
Now, I *do* agree that in society, and it varies from culture to culture but more or less is similar across the board, that each gender has its own 'place' as it is. Now, that is a dangerous thing to ascribe because, yes, to abolish it completely is to completely redefine human nature and while I *do* support someone's right to go 'against the grain' such as these emo boys in their sister's jeans or the tomboy soccer girl who needs a wedding or a funeral to get her to wear anything but sweats 24/7, but I also don't think the solution is to favor one culture over the other, but rather, find some common ground to co-exist.
So you may ask 'Ashlee, good lord, what is your point here!?'
My point is this. Society *does* have the right to be free in its expression and no man nor woman should be restricted freedoms, nor the pursuit of a happy, prosperous life, merely because they are seen as 'different.' However, while many social conservatives will use this sort of 'gender role' system (which I am a believer in and despite this post, actually more or less support) as a way to say, ' boys are from mars, girls are from venus.' I agree too. Boys are intrinsicly different than girls. Indeed, common interests and even some 'social spill over' into each gender role occurs on each side, but more or less, there is an overall identity in which one 'knows' they feel comfortable and 'right' in.
That seems to be your, and others, overall point when stressing the importance of *some* sort of gender roles in society to keep it from just being all muddy waters. Now, my only issue here is, yes I *do* agree, boys are different from girls. Now, I dont mean a girl cant be dressed down or even 'butch' or that those rockstar dreamer boys can't wear tight jeans and eyeliner, but, vanities aside, as I said, there are intrinsic differences between the sexes.
Therefore, it is not that insane, in theory, to understand, or at least begin to, understand transgendered individuals. Honestly, and its a sad fact, but the biggest disconnect for most is that we're a superficial society. We judge others on their outward appearance, no matter how much we claim we aren't judgemental. SO I can understand, most trans women and men *still* look very much so like their birth sex, and, therefore, it not only confuses or even scares normal society, but it makes it hard to 'see' what that person knows in their hearts.
I guess my only concern and issue relating to your statement of 'boys act this way, girls act that way' is that, if you truely believe it, as I do and I think most others do, then how is it so hard to understand that a person can KNOW they are more comfortable in a role counter to their birth gender? And make no mistake, most of these individuals do not want attention, they don't want to be worshiped, they simply want a chance at a life as close as possible to the one they wished they could have, and most likely, should have had. It just goes to show how much some people unknowingly take for granted.
Oh and in closing, Im sure many will say those people are 'disturbed' or were 'abused' and sure, some might be. However, again, many are not, and there have been extensive inroads in scientific research on this subject matter in regards to in utero hormone imbalance and intersexuality that pretty much proves that the case of the transexual human is not such a slam dunk case as the social conservative world would perhaps like it to be.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
Holy crap Ashlee!
December 16, 2008 - 13:13 ET by choselife3xI've read War and Peace more times than I can count, but reading your posts makes me tired. Stop equivocating so violently and you'll be more readable. ;-)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Lol I guess I just fail to
December 16, 2008 - 13:24 ET by AshleeLol I guess I just fail to see where I did anything violently, let alone equivocating. I am merely presenting as objective a view of the issue as possible. There are alot of things I don't like to deal with in this world either, however, my lack of enjoyment of such things does not make them any less legitimate or real.
I'll try and cliff note from now on tho ;)
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
No equivocation
December 16, 2008 - 13:44 ET by choselife3xAnyone who believes that their 'birth sex' is 'incorrect' has a SERIOUS mental/emotional/physical/ spiritual DISORDER. That poor bewildered person should seek counseling/therapy. Under NO circumstances should anyone afflicted with a disorder of such magnitude be put in a position of authority or influence, ESPECIALLY around children.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Take a few steps back and breathe for a moment there CL
December 16, 2008 - 14:26 ET by AshleeSeriously. I'm sorry to break it to you, but I'm completely sane (and yes, I even had multiple psychologists verify it! CRAZY right?!) and not only have I shown that I can be a great leader when the cause is something I'm passionate about, but I have also been well known as a leader, down to Earth, and quite successful in positions of great stress. As for counseling, yes, I believe every transgenered individual should seek out such resources. However, NOT because they are crazy, but rather, to find ways, positive and healthy ways, of dealing with intolerance and such fatalistic, black and white moralists who love to sling rocks such as yourself.
I'll try and refrain from becoming offended, but you basically not only just called me 'crazy,' but you have also forgone any and all scientific studies and data which SHOWS that internal intersexuality can and *does* occur. It simply isn't a case of 'oh I feel girly' or that 'I just have imbalanced hormones,' rather, its a developmental issue in which the brain essentially took one path of growth while the physical characteristics took another. SO, which am I *supposed* to be? I couldn't tell you anything beyond that I know my own soul and that while my body may reflect one thing, that it is not only in my heart and mind that I know who I am, but in my soul as well. Sure, its odd, and trust me, I hate it more than you'll ever know. I'd give anything to wake up 'correct' and not have to deal with my issues. Even so, I'm blessed in that most don't even notice, and even still, its a cross to bear that I do not wish upon anyone, but to ignore it or try and destroy it (which I spent 23 years doing) does nothing but further wound your soul for the expense of the comforts of the phobic.
As for children, I was a babysitter from 14 till I was 18 and I was damn good at my job. I love children and for the most part, children love me. I can't convey successfully to you the level of internal maternal instinct that lies within me as you'll probably just poo poo it as 'impossible' but the complexity of such a case does nothing in regards to making it any less real or legitimate.
I respectfully disagree with everything you have said and while I should probably hold my own tounge, Im a firm believer that if you're going to dish it, you'd better be able to take it. Seeing as you have decided that you know I'm unfit for any point of power or influence in life and am OBVIOUSLY a blatant, walking hazard to young children, I will say that in this past post of yours, even though small, has done immense things in speaking about your character as being closed minded, crass, and self congratulatingly judgemental.
I'm not saying having an opinion due to facts makes one closed minded, quite the opposite. However, holding an opinion despite of facts does.
If you can't see which of those two your previous post falls under, I'm afraid not even I can help you in your bitterness.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
I didn't even touch the
December 16, 2008 - 15:15 ET by choselife3xI didn't even touch the topic of morality. If someone told you they thought they were a horse/alien/German Shepherd/owl/ in a man's/woman's body you'd think he/she was a few bricks shy of a load. Why is thinking you are something other than what you are (boy XY/girl XX) any different?
As for being maternal, girls generally are, so I'm certainly not 'poo-pooing' it.
I wrote my post before you 'came out' so it's nothing personal Ashlee.
As for authority and influence, I was referring to those who push their agenda. But for the record, I wouldn't let anyone who is 'confused' about his/her sexuality babysit my children.
P.S. People who don't doubt their own sanity don't need to get a certification of it.
P.P.S. It was classified as a serious mental disorder until the inmates took over the asylum.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Crass? Where was I crass?
December 16, 2008 - 15:45 ET by choselife3xAlso, self-congratulatingly judgemental? I was approaching the subject from a clinical angle, not a moral one. Quote me the part you derived those terms from.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Assumptions
December 16, 2008 - 14:30 ET by KC MulvilleAshlee, I always welcome a good discussion. So let's.
I'm a big believer in assumptions. It's the core of Mulville Philosophy (indulge me a little, OK?). My theory is that life is too complicated to think about every detail, from scratch, every time. So, by default, the only way to get through the day is to simply ignore the vast majority of details that stream our way. The price of learning new and fun things is to pretty much become numb and oblivious to the everyday stuff. Before you can start playing the game, there's simply a critical mass of stuff you need to know. That's what I mean by assumptions.
Philosophy is, however, the study of those assumptions. Somebody's gotta keep an eye on them. And very often, you discover that some of your most basic assumptions really were accidents, and you occasionally find diamonds in the rough. It's fun to find how some of the things we take for granted aren't all they're cracked up to be.
And, sometimes it's nice to revisit those assumptions, and discover the power and beauty of them. For convenience's sake, we have to take a lot of things for granted, but sometimes it's nice to stop and smell the coffee.
________
OK, that was my setup. Here's my payoff.
________
Assumptions are just headstarts. Society gives you these headstarts to get you started ... i.e., we don't expect you to stop ... you take these assumptions and make Life out of them. Society may tell you that we all think such-and-such, and give you reasons why we think it's that way -- but it's up to you to decide how meaningful or useful or valuable any of these things might be. That's how I understand freedom.
If you want to say that kids feel trapped by sexual assumptions, well sure, but that's because society has so much at stake. But society needs the things that traditional men do, and the things that traditional women do, and those means we need real live people taking those responsibilities. There are good reasons why we teach people to do them.
I couldn't agree more.
December 16, 2008 - 14:49 ET by AshleeI couldn't agree more. The only catch here? Many transgendered individuals, such as myself, have always identified as something I was told as 'wrong.' I have always felt more in tune with that other side, and honestly, it goes beyond gender roles as I was uncomfortable all the way down to as physiological level as well. I can't explain in a way that will make *any* of you understand aside from the suggestion that one should, if only as a gas, think of waking up tomorrow, and the rest of your life, in a position where what is expected of you is not who you are, and, the person you *are,* having NOTHING to do with sin, corruption, sex, or any of the sort, yet you are viewed as being a heathen for feeling as you do.
As I said, at this point, people don't even pick up on it. Aside from the closest of friends, people assume I'm just like any other girl, which, essentially, I have always been. Again, I wish I could prove it to you, I wish I could help you all understand, but I simply cannot. The best I can do is point the spotlight toward scientific study of this issue and hope that my audience is open to facts that may not fit so perfectly in the picture frame they had hoped existed universally for all of us.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
Society
December 16, 2008 - 15:32 ET by KC MulvilleIt's not my business (and here is not the place) to discuss anyone's sexuality. But for now, the discussion is about the media's coverage of Obama's pick of education secretary. And I think the role of the media is to extract and examine his nominee's views on education, which they are unwilling to do.
I've read some of the reports about Bill Ayers, and how he wants to politically radicalize students to remake society ... to what new result, who knows? Then I read about Obama's pick for education secretary, Arne Duncan, and Warner reported that Duncan was in favor of a school that segregated kids according to sexual or gender types. That struck me as a disastrously bad idea, and the least you'd expect from the media is some kind of discussion about where Obama intends to go in education. But, silence.
If the media won't discuss it, why can't we?
I argue that through education, society provides a common frame of reference - which we need. The key word is common. We have to start together. Sure, as an individual, you can reject them as stereotypes, or you can embrace them. Once we all have a common frame of reference, we have individual freedom to do what you think best - but only after we start from a common place. That's what makes society coherent. If, through education, you give different groups of people entirely different frames of reference, we cease being a society. We become different tribes using the same space, but we cease to be a society.
KC, I think its just a
December 16, 2008 - 16:22 ET by AshleeKC, I think its just a matter of confusion then on perhaps both our parts. My intial point was that of your own, certainly segregation does nothing but further drive home the point that one is 'better' or 'above' the other and yes it never ceases to infuriate me when someone who is gay, trans or whatever feels that because of their hardships, or perhaps they have a more 'progressive' idea of society, that they are the superior. We're all humans, different and flawed, sure, but we all are equal in them.
I too agree that this revelation of his appointed cabinet is not good news for myself or any person who wants social *equality.* I think you also hit it on the head, as did others, in saying that many *within* the agenda want special rights. I call BS on that. Why though Ashlee?! Aren't you part of the club they represent?
Well, first off, again, no, but, lets say I am. I can at least say that the GLBT *supposed* agenda and my own are similar in hopes for equality. However, this does not stress equality, nor does it seek to foster goodwill toward the reconciliation and co existence of heterosexuals and those who would not necessarily fall under that umbrella. Again, how anyone can see this as anything but segregation is beyond me, and personally, I'd go crazy if I had access to only one culture of people, merely because of who I am.
The reason it got a tad off track was I was trying to present the case that heterosexuals and homosexuals, as well as transgendered/transexual people *can* coexist in harmony once the majority (ie heterosexuals) can, as the bible says 'love the sinner, not the sin.' In this case I dont mean it as literal as the bible perhaps did, but rather, that when people see that there are *indeed* totally 'normal' transgendered and homosexual people, it cuts away at the myth that they are all oversexualized heathens who's only motivation for their identity is a primal and sinful one. Sure, there are the loud and obnoxious homosexuals and I can't stand them either. There are also the drag queens and gender benders who get a gas out of screwing with society's perceptions. While I wouldn't call it a crime, I would agree its a very big nusiance, especially when such people detract from the sincerity in my argument that I am quite honestly a healthy, sane woman, who just happens to have a challenge that perhaps God has given me to make me a better person, who knows. All that said, however, I've learned that its a person's *actions* that are often deplorable, not simply just their existence. Basically, I judge the act, not the overall person. If you're obnoxious, whether you're gay or not, you're obnoxious. However, that does not equate to, if you're gay, you're obnoxious.
In closing though KC, I wanted you to know that I *do* agree with you in a big way on this issue. My only concern was, the solution is NOT to segregate or to force an agenda, but to present information and education and protect ALL students equally, be it if they get flak for being a different race, obese, or, in this case, of a differing orientation.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
edit
December 16, 2008 - 12:54 ET by jquamedit
Just imagine...
December 16, 2008 - 13:20 ET by AJBWhat cirrucula for the new school? Switching to powdered soap to make showers last longer? Ballet? Lots and lots of soccer practice?
Duncan/Ayers/Klonsky/Obama
December 16, 2008 - 13:42 ET by NortoLeads to Small Schools Workshops through Annenbergs $2,000,000(Obama opened the purse) leads to communist orientation of the kids and now Educare(search:educare Chicago) is coming to a small town like ours, Waterville, Maine. I am assuming the link to Educare(Gates/Buffet) but with all the Chicago connections in this group, I have to wonder if some of the more left engines have erased the traces. That will be sop in the near future, especially with google, yahoo, et al. Altavista seemed to have deeper pockets on the search. I found Susan Klonsky's name as well tied some group called Campus Watch/Middle Eastern Studies???!
Schools
December 16, 2008 - 13:57 ET by east tennessee johnFor nearly 3 generations now achievement in urban schools has gone down, but it can't be the fault of the teachers, administrators or politicians who control those systems. In that case, it only leaves the kids to blame, as if they created and perpetuated the "educational environment". Dollars, in inflation adjusted terms, have increased, so money isn't the rpoblem. No less an authority than the First Lady elect said on the campaign trail, 20-30 years ago kids were able to get an aducation at the neighborhood school. Now they can't even read. In most, if not all, urban school situations of failure you find Democrats in control and a lack of academic rigor, but you do find great expressions of ethic identity and some multiculturalism, usually in posters or artwork without words. Symbolic education at its best.
American schools
December 16, 2008 - 15:33 ET by iveseenitallLack of achievement in urban schools has the same causes as the failures found in other schools. It is any combination of the following: political correctness, multiculturalism, lack of respect, lack of discipline, inflated grades, poor teaching, poor administrating, social engineering, propogation of the "victim" mentality, and an overriding desire to indoctrinate children in socialist ideas such a "group think", relativism, and modern "liberalism". Teaching the principles of Western culture and tradition, having standards of personal physical and mental discipline, demanding respect, and rewarding individual success are gone in most American schools. Bring these back and success will follow in schools and in the country as a whole.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Will the msm report this...
December 16, 2008 - 17:08 ET by bigtimerWill the msm report this...
OF COURSE NOT.
It may be brought up just a tiny bit here or there, say like on H&C, but that will be about it...this total leftist is also for Merit pay...
I told you they would get Ayres in one way or the other for head of Sec. of Education...albeit through another suit, same vehicle.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Ayres/Rush
December 17, 2008 - 14:53 ET by bigtimerRegarding my post above...I just heard Rush speak his opinion on this matter on his show, he came to the same conclusion I came to regarding Ayres and O, that he would be named, one way or the other...and he was yesterday as I stated above.
I always knew Rush read my posts...lol!
Made my day.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Just curious, what's the
December 16, 2008 - 17:32 ET by ckc1227Just curious, what's the state of the education system in Chicago?
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
→ ckc
December 16, 2008 - 17:38 ET by Cool ArrowPretty much as Forrest Gump would say:
That's what I
December 16, 2008 - 19:47 ET by ckc1227That's what I figured.
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
So, PEBO picks the head of a failed school system for SEC ED.
December 16, 2008 - 20:12 ET by R D HelmWhy am I not surprised?
Maybe he can bring that unrepentant terrorist-turned educator, oops, I mean indoctrinator Ayers along to aid him in his mission to further indoctrinate the unfortunate children who are currently being systematically abused by our government school system.
After all, we have far too many people who are supporting themselves in this country. How can we bring about socialism if that intolerable situation is allowed to continue?
Wow, some change!
-Dave
Will work for beer.
Cabinet Appointments
December 16, 2008 - 20:59 ET by LAXThe way I'm seeing this play out...just one word...cronyism. They beat W over the head with it for his appointments and look at how many of these people are coming from Chicago...change you can believe in.
The Aroma of Obama's Skunkland's is Overpowering
December 16, 2008 - 22:58 ET by BondPlainBondDoing a curious citizen's search on Arne Duncan and the school which was mentioned in the article I read...
The Ariel Education Initiative (is this like the Dharma Initiative?) was created specifically for the "disadvantaged" youth of "disadvantaged" Chicago communities.
The Ariel Education Initiative (Ariel Community Academy) is an off-shoot of Ariel Investments. (Webpage)
2007 Ariel Education Initiative Annual Report (PDF File)
Ariel Investments (Academy) InvestEd Winter 2006 Newsletter (PDF File)
Interesting articles about the people that work at Ariel Investments and their devotion and dedication to Obama and his wife.
Portraits of Purpose (Princeton Alumni Weekly, Oct 10, 2007)
Portraits of Purpose Another take on the same article, same originator (Princeton Alumni Weekly, Nov 5, 2008)
From the blog of Adrian Vance:
My question: Is the Curriculum Director of Ariel Academy, Dr Judith Shelton, also the author of 1982's “The Coming Collapse of the Soviet Union”, a book President Reagan found fascinating, called an immediate meeting with Shelton to discuss the book, and from those discussions planned out "Star Wars"? Maybe. Possibly.
Obama's desire to turn out ready-to-go community organizers/activists from our (Chicago) schools (specific only to disadvantaged neighborhoods) (with the past? help and guidance of William Ayers), all the K-8 youth hard-wired to achieve a single, global community (Saturday instruction mandatory), one in which they will have been given the education-specific tools to control the written and financial landscape of community plans, goals, codes, law-making etc., hints at the concepts of the Black Liberation Theology Obama has sworn to uphold in all aspects of his life, especially in the lives of the youths being educated.
The Black Value System, the only religion taught/preached at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.
Arne Duncan, as with so... many... other... Obama's allies (where are Biden and Emmanuel?) is morally "different". Who is making these choices for Obama? The agenda reeks!
Something always smells rotten in the Skunkland (The Illiani Indian word for "Skunkland" is "Chicago") of Obama.
*waving to Blonde and sayin' "Hey!"*
→ Gay School
December 17, 2008 - 20:24 ET by Cool ArrowOOOOOHHH Mr. Duncan! Do I get to take an entrance exam?