Gay Patriot Header Image

Teaching the Three T’s In America’s Colleges

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:00 am - March 11, 2006.
Filed under: War On Terror

(Hat tip – Michelle Malkin)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

119 Comments

  1. Yes, gay America – this is the face of the enemy. And they don’t give a rat’s rear end about you and your rights. Enough said.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 11, 2006 @ 11:34 am - March 11, 2006

  2. Third panel leaves out the fact that police and the university administration were refusing to label the incident “terrorism,” even though the Islamist who did it confessed it was vengeance for Allah, or some such thing.

    Moving onto more important things: BSG Season Finale. Question number one: Is Gaius Baltar Bill Clinton? Consider the evidence:

    1. Clinton protested the Vietnam War. Baltar Collaborated with the Cylons during the War.

    2. Clinton supplied the Chinese with nuclear technology. Baltar supplied the cylon agent with a nuke. (Which seems to have killed somewhere between 5,000 – 10,000 people).

    3. Clinton kept the White House stocked with nubile bimbos. Baltar keeps Colonial 1 stocked with nubile bimbos (and we see him sharing a cigar with one in one scene).

    4. Clinton gutted the military. Under Baltar, Pegasus and Galactica are so neglected, undermanned they can’t even conduct Combat Air Patrols.

    Comment by V the K — March 11, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - March 11, 2006

  3. V the K, your arguments are certainly persuasive and I will agree that BSG’s commander in chief certainly bears a striking resemblance to Slick Willie.

    If he had a screaming blonde witch of a wife, then the proof would be irrefutable.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 11, 2006 @ 12:13 pm - March 11, 2006

  4. This cartoon is great. The fringe left seems more tolerant of the Taliban, Communists, and Palistinian suicidal terrorists than of James Dobson or the ROTC. But we need to accept this point of view because it is compoent of diversity, and besides, it all our fault anyawy.

    PS. I ddin’t get to see BSG last night (out celebrating 41’st B-Day) so I had to scroll through this comment page without reading anything.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 11, 2006 @ 1:17 pm - March 11, 2006

  5. Of course, there is also the other fringe who’s existence Bruce seldom bothers to admit to:


    CBS4/MIAMI HERALD) WEST KENDALL Controversy is growing at a West Kendall high school about school wide broadcast of a student project on opinions about homosexuality which carried a teacher’s personal comments that homosexuality is wrong, according to the bible. The comments, and their broadcast, are coming under fire from students, school officials, and outside activists.

    The comments by business technology teacher Donna Reddick were carried in the last of 3 segments produced by television production students at Miami Sunset Senior High School. Students and others had voiced opinions supporting gay students and gay rights, or indifference to the issue. Reddick’s comments were carried in a segment which also included students who believe homosexuality is wrong.

    The series of segments that includes the controversial comments started airing February 28th, immediately following the morning announcements broadcast daily via closed circuit television by students at the school.

    “God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sexual sins, which included homosexuality,” said Reddick on a copy of the tape supplied to CBS4 news partner The Miami Herald.

    ….A teacher who made a tape in support of gay students claims he was denied permission to play the tape schoolwide Friday, because school officials did not want to keep the controversy alive.

    Fortunately the Conservatives are on the case to take care of matters:

    “If you have a forum like this, that students are using to express themselves, this is the price of free speech,” said Mathew Staver, president and general counsel for the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel.

    Yup. Keep in mind this is a public school, not Bob Jones University. Although since we are doing “faith-based funding” of non-profits now, I guess that distinction no longer matters.

    I would prefer that geography teachers stick to teaching geography and business teachers stick to teaching business. But don’t try and convince me that one side is any better than the other on this. While the Left does control most of the colleges, to replace them with the Right would not be a moral improvement. Why can’t they both just shut the fuck up?

    Full Story below:
    http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_068212924.html

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 11, 2006 @ 1:35 pm - March 11, 2006

  6. If he had a screaming blonde witch of a wife,

    How about a psychotic hallucination of a bitchy blond Cylon Heroin-Chic Underwear model?

    Comment by V the K — March 11, 2006 @ 1:39 pm - March 11, 2006

  7. So, Gryph is equating a student-produced program, in which opinions were solicited and in which both sides were presented in the context of a class project whose goal was to show both sides of an issue … with one teacher’s, one-sided, unsolicited anti-American diatribe in a class that had nothing to do with politics?

    Intellectual honesty — not Gryph’s strong suit. (Oooh? Am I name-calling? Are you gonna cry, Gryph?)

    Comment by V the K — March 11, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - March 11, 2006

  8. Patrick’s point shouldn’t be brushed off just because some of you have disagreed strongly with his previous comments.

    I in no way disagree with Bruce’s point about the Three T’s. I think it’s outrageous that Yale admitted the Taliban student and want to know why in the hell the U. S. Government let the little prick into the country to attend Yale. I’ve already said in another comment that Jay Bennish was wrong and that his type of “teaching” shouldn’t be allowed in public school classrooms. The terrorist who used a vehcile to run down students ought to be put in prison for the rest of his life.

    But can’t we also agree that it was wrong for a Florida teacher to express vile contempt for gay people in school. Even if it’s a private school, what she did should be condemned. Especially by those of us at this blog.

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 11, 2006 @ 2:43 pm - March 11, 2006

  9. OK, so Jack and Gryph, are you saying that no one has the right to express the opinion that homosexuality is contrary to (some) religious teachings, and should we alter the First Amendment accordingly?

    Comment by V the K — March 11, 2006 @ 2:49 pm - March 11, 2006

  10. But can’t we also agree that it was wrong for a Florida teacher to express vile contempt for gay people in school. Even if it’s a private school, what she did should be condemned.

    #1 I see a difference between something student produced, that covers both points of view, that included the teachers comments and a teacher using class time to present their point of view with a “you need to think for yourself” tag at the end. Had the teacher gone off during classtime on her opinion of homosexuality, and whether it is sin, or contrary to the Bible, I would agree completely with your point.

    #2 I do in general think that teachers should strive to appear as neutral as possible on controversial issues-I think teachers who keep themselves neutral while presenting verifiable facts pro or con are able to get their students to think more critically and better choose an opinion to defend (I think when a teachers views are well known to students, the students are as likely to take the easy route and spout the “correct” talking points back at the teacher rather than really defend aposition).

    So, I can say I honestly don’t have an issue with students doing a point counter point on an issue, but I would prefer the teachers’ (on either side of the issue) opinion not been solicited, and the program done with only student opinions.

    Comment by just me — March 11, 2006 @ 3:22 pm - March 11, 2006

  11. And after saying all that, I wanted to add that the reluctance of anyone involved in the investigation to name the NC incident as terrorism is political correctness run amuck.

    It is almost like the whole Bin Laden thing has made us think that the only terrorism out there are acts committed by Al Quada or associated groups. The reality is that some guy running students down in the name of Allah on his own is still terrorism, even if he didn’t get money or the go ahead from AQ. It is terrorism that is almost scarier to me than AQ, because at least we can monitor AQ (oops the dems don’t actually want us to do that either).

    Comment by just me — March 11, 2006 @ 3:24 pm - March 11, 2006

  12. I’m wondering what’s so “fringe” about what this teacher said? You may disagree with it, but that is what it says in that chapter of the Bible (so the facts are right), and many many people in the US share that belief. Contemptable? Well, that’s a judgement call, but “fringe”? Hardly.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 11, 2006 @ 3:26 pm - March 11, 2006

  13. By the way, which is not to say I agree with her interpretation of the Bible, just that hers is far from a “fringe” reading of the story.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 11, 2006 @ 3:28 pm - March 11, 2006

  14. Is Gaius Baltar Bill Clinton?

    He’s worse — more like Jimmy Carter, an out and out traitor.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 11, 2006 @ 3:56 pm - March 11, 2006

  15. #12 — Is it possible that people who over-react when other people express Bible-based criticism of homosexuality, it’s because deep down, they are not comfortable with being gay? Think about it, if you are really comfortable with who you are, then someone else’s opinion isn’t going to bother you that much.

    And, I know this is coming… “Oh, what about those poor impressionable LGBT yewts whose self-esteem is going to be decimated by her vile hate speech”… First of all, you don’t get stronger by being coddled any more than you get thin by eating Ben and Jerry’s. Second, it’s not nineteen-frackin’-sixty-four any more. For every teacher who isn’t cool with being gay, there’s twenty who are, not to mention a media and popular culture where homosexuality is celebrated. Third, if my kids are typical, teenagers really don’t give a crap what their teachers have to say anyway.

    Comment by V the K — March 11, 2006 @ 3:58 pm - March 11, 2006

  16. He’s worse — more like Jimmy Carter, an out and out traitor.

    I think there’s also a line in there where he says, “I’m the President, I don’t have to listen to anyone,” which was probably meant as a slap against Bush, but opens it up to Baltar combining the worst traits of Carter (collaboration with the enemy), Clinton (cowardice, greed, pussy-whippeditude, and hedonism), and Bush (Arrogance).

    Comment by V the K — March 11, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - March 11, 2006

  17. I think it’s outrageous that Yale admitted the Taliban student and want to know why in the hell the U. S. Government let the little prick into the country to attend Yale.

    The Taliban indoctrinated an entire generation of Afghanistan’s youth. Now that the US has defeated the Taliban, we have to teach these kids how to live in the modern world. So I’m all in favor of Yale admitting this former Taliban ambassador as a student.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 11, 2006 @ 4:39 pm - March 11, 2006

  18. #15 — “Is it possible that people who over-react when other people express Bible-based criticism of homosexuality, it’s because deep down, they are not comfortable with being gay?…if you are really comfortable with who you are, then someone else’s opinion isn’t going to bother you…”

    Exactly.

    But of course, if we realize that, and consequently don’t validate/coddle their sense of victimhood, then we “must” be against them, and thus anti-gay, and thus… “self-hating”.

    Comment by Calarato — March 11, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - March 11, 2006

  19. Except, of course, that these “Bible-based” criticisms of homosexuality are most often invoked when state and federal governments pass various laws and constitutional amendments directed against Gay and Lesbian people. Sodomy laws were founded on “biblical” criticisms, and I don’t think Calarato wants those back (do you?).

    In a democracy, what other people think matters — and the more democratic a polity becomes, the more it matters.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 11, 2006 @ 6:57 pm - March 11, 2006

  20. If you can find it, get a copy of “Human Sexuality” by Kosnik, et al. It was commissioned by a Catholic theological society in 1977, and pulled from circulation in 1977. It offers that the Biblical prohibitions of the Old Testament were cultic in origin.

    Comment by Gene — March 11, 2006 @ 7:32 pm - March 11, 2006

  21. #19 — Oh, so you would prefer people not be allowed to express certain opinions because they might persuade other people to pass laws you don’t agree with? And I guess you would anoint yourself as the person who gets to decide what opinions people are permitted to express, since you are so much more enlightened than everyone else?

    Comment by V the K — March 11, 2006 @ 7:51 pm - March 11, 2006

  22. Think about it, if you are really comfortable with who you are, then someone else’s opinion isn’t going to bother you that much.

    I agree with this. Although I think context of when and where the opinion is stated matters-as I already said, if this was class time and a teacher was railing against homosexuality, and how it was contrary to the Bible, opinion or not, it would be out of line.

    Comment by just me — March 11, 2006 @ 7:54 pm - March 11, 2006

  23. V the K- You missed another important similarity: Clinton was hailed as “the smartest President ever!” by his amen corner even as he made juvenile and ignorant mistake afer juvenile and ignorant mistake; Gaius is roundly hailed as “Gaius Balthar, Super-Genius” even as he makes, ect.

    Comment by DaveP. — March 11, 2006 @ 8:09 pm - March 11, 2006

  24. “Oh, so you would prefer people not be allowed to express certain opinions because they might persuade other people to pass laws you don’t agree with? And I guess you would anoint yourself as the person who gets to decide what opinions people are permitted to express, since you are so much more enlightened than everyone else?”

    “Sean Allen is changing schools because of threats of violence. That’s today’s brave, tolerant left, for you. Threatening to beat up a kid for daring to make public his teacher’s inappropriate classroom ranting.”

    So which of the two teachers is saying the appropriate thing?
    Oh wait, let me guess…it’s the one with whom YOU agree.

    Comment by hank — March 11, 2006 @ 11:29 pm - March 11, 2006

  25. Hank has you dead to rights, “V the K.” I made no claims about censorship, pro or con, in my earlier post: My point was simply that anti-Gay opinion usually leads to anti-Gay legislation, at which point it does far more than damage fragile individuals’ self-esteem. Inasmuch as anti-Gay fundamentalists can (and do) enact legislation that makes the lives of individual Gays and Lesbians very bad, Gay and Lesbian people and our allies have to care about what they think.

    On to the censorship question. Public high-school classrooms are not and have never been forums for free speech, especially where teachers are concerned. The right of the student to receive an education is the first concern in any classroom. So there’s no reason why the geography teacher in Colorado and the business technology teacher in Florida can’t both be censured, or even fired, for their classroom displays of bias. (If they’d expressed these opinions on their own time, that would be an entirely different matter.)

    As for figuring out what kinds of speech should be allowed in public school classrooms, administrators and school boards do that already.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 12, 2006 @ 2:37 am - March 12, 2006

  26. But don’t try and convince me that one side is any better than the other on this

    When you can document an equal number of incidents from both sides, you can then claim that no side is better than the other. But you will never be able to do this, or make the claim, because in fact, the left is far, far worse.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 12, 2006 @ 7:47 am - March 12, 2006

  27. Um…documentation can only occur if incidents are reported and then published somewhere.

    Since there are virtually no reported incidents of right-wing classroom “rants,” does that mean it never happens?

    Comment by Gene — March 12, 2006 @ 9:41 am - March 12, 2006

  28. 15, 18 & 22

    I’ve always wondered about people overreacting to others’ views on heaven and hell.

    I mean, I’m Jewish. Chances are pretty good that the vast majority of people on this planet think I’m going to hell. But that doesn’t hurt me. It doesn’t interfere with how I live my life. As long as people are leaving me alone and just *thinking* hateful or hurtful things, I really don’t care.

    Besides, I know they are wrong.

    Comment by DinaFelice — March 12, 2006 @ 10:14 am - March 12, 2006

  29. #24 25 — Nice try… well, not really. My response #7 clearly outlines the differences in the two circumstances, which hank completely ignores. And those curly things at the end of the sentences hank is quoting are called “question marks,” which indicate that the two sentences hank quotes at the top of his #24 are “questions,” meaning I am asking if you are trying to justify censorship. And then Tim, while denying he is advocating censorship, repeats his claim that “anti-Gay opinion usually leads to anti-Gay legislation,” … which, in the context of a discussion about free speech can reasonably be read as a justification for censorship. Otherwise, why even bring it up?

    The day a couple of tools can get me “dead to rights,” I’ll quit posting.

    Comment by V the K — March 12, 2006 @ 10:22 am - March 12, 2006

  30. A teachers personal opinions do not belong in a high-school classroom.
    Liberal or conservative. And it’s hypocritical to pick and choose. Question marks or the subjunctive notwithstanding

    Comment by hank — March 12, 2006 @ 11:17 am - March 12, 2006

  31. #30 — But, gee hank, how can a teacher create a a gay-positive environment for lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual and questioning youth without expressing gay-supportive opinions? Should those opinions also be disallowed from the classroom?

    Comment by V the K — March 12, 2006 @ 11:41 am - March 12, 2006

  32. Yes they should be disallowed. A high school teacher should not express his or her personal opinions in a classroom. Gay supportive or gay negative.

    Comment by hank — March 12, 2006 @ 12:41 pm - March 12, 2006

  33. V the K says:

    OK, so Jack and Gryph, are you saying that no one has the right to express the opinion that homosexuality is contrary to (some) religious teachings, and should we alter the First Amendment accordingly?

    Not at all. And note that I did not object to the students who expressed their anti-gay views on tape. But a teacher needs to have at least a semblance of objectivity.

    But V the K hates gay people, so let look at it from his point a view. What if a gay kid is in her class and wants desperately to learn the word of Jesus on being gay and want to go to conversion summer-camp. Is that kid going to be comfortable enough to be able to approach that teacher for advice? Nope. Either way the teacher, by going off on rant like that, fucked up.

    Its also does not teach the children tolerance by example. Which in spite of its being greatly maligned lately, is still a necessary skill in today’s world, where you will likely have to work every day with someone you don’t like or don’t approve of.

    And incidentally, you can’t complain one whit if liberals are “indoctrinating” your children if you approve of the same behavior from conservatives.

    And V the K, I don’t know if you are straight, gay or whatever, but I do stand by my statement that you hate gays. No one would spend as much time as you do reviling them if you didn’t have a powerful personal stake in the issue. Otherwise you would be trolling on some other website. Not that I object to your presence here. You always give me something to laugh about.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 12, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - March 12, 2006

  34. I am trying to think of the best response to #33. Here are my candidates:

    a.) No personal attack ever fed a hungry child, Patty. 🙂

    b.) We’re sorry. The argument you have made can not be coherent as ranted. Please check your logic and try again.

    c.) “V the K hates gay people…” But I loves my BSG, Whoo!

    “V the K hates gay people…” Actually, I prefer to call them cocksucking faggot commies.

    Comment by V the K — March 12, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - March 12, 2006

  35. That faggot commies one should be option d.) PIMF is my friend, carrying on a conversation about kung-fu movies while posting is not.

    Comment by V the K — March 12, 2006 @ 5:00 pm - March 12, 2006

  36. I guess that’s funny to somebody.

    Here is an open letter to that homo-hating highschool “teacher”.

    (That V is called alliteration;)

    http://www.queervoice.net/kmcmullen/2006/03/12/leonard-pitts-does-it-again/

    Comment by hank — March 12, 2006 @ 5:22 pm - March 12, 2006

  37. rightwingprof writes: “When you can document an equal number of incidents from both sides, you can then claim that no side is better than the other. But you will never be able to do this, or make the claim, because in fact, the left is far, far worse.”

    Hmmm… How many liberals in the US burn crosses, lynch blacks, murder gays for being gay? Especially on GAYpatriot, for the liberals to be charged with being “far, far worse” — that is truly weird. It seems the worst the liberals can be charged with in these incidents is encouraging mediocrity or blandness in public speech — as opposed to actually hunting down and murdering gays and lesbians, something which rightwingprof has (in earlier posts) completely overlooked because of its utter insignificance as an issue for him . What does running people down in the name of Allah have to do with being liberal? Absolutely nothing. The guy’s obviously no pacifist, no liberal Rachel Corrie (!!), that’s for sure!

    I don’t think that Bush = Hitler, not by a long shot, but when you consistently attack habeas corpus, spy on citizens (which includes wasting time spying on pacifists, who are the least likely to kill anyone), tamper with elections, remove people’s right to travel if they criticize the president, prosecute or gag whistleblowers, reserve torture as an executive privilege, obliviously charge innocent people with terrorism and threaten them with imprisonment or death, it certainly has nothing to do with democracy or freedom, and certainly starts looking more and more like Germany in the 1930’s, insofar as both saw a steady erosion of civil rights.

    And if fascism is defined as to include a collusion of corporate power with government power, as it did in Italy, where fascism was invented, well, that’s a collusion the Republican powermongers are proud of (as Bush said, the mega-rich CEOs are “my base”).

    The fact that Bush cannot stand to have anyone question him, and he and his cadre fires, blacklists, or attacks anyone among his people who attempts to correct him (his only admitted mistake is, he says, to give posts to people who don’t agree with him), well, to think that that (along with his inflation of executive privilege, his claim that it would be easier to rule if he were a dictator) bears no resemblance to the general direction of the Führerprinzip (if not how far it actually got in Germany), well…

    It’s so truly weird to see a site, GayPatriot, which claims to be for “privacy” (see the main page!) so blase about domestic spying, data mining, secret (and therefore not correctable) record keeping. The cognitive dissonance at this blog is so thick it oozes out of my monitor.

    Comment by blog responder, resurrected — March 12, 2006 @ 11:38 pm - March 12, 2006

  38. Pacifists (or self-proclaimed ones at any rate) have a history of doing things like sending money or aid to the enemy which may well yeld valuable intelligence about where the enemy are and what they are doing. Doesn’t say that any particular individual does, but I don’t think that we can automatically assume that keeping track of “pacifists” is a waste of tax payer money.

    Comment by Synova — March 13, 2006 @ 1:01 am - March 13, 2006

  39. Pacifists are obviously the least likely to blow up a building or assasinate someone, as opposed to non-pacifists (let alone actual terrorists!). Osama, Bush claims, he doesn’t even waste time thinking about; but pacifists find their groups infiltrated. That combination makes no sense at all.

    Comment by blog responder — March 13, 2006 @ 1:54 am - March 13, 2006

  40. I don’t think much about Bin Laden either. Though certainly we’ve still got guys looking. Didn’t we risk an international incident bombing a bunch of Al Qaida in Pakistan not too long ago?

    That pacifists are unlikely to blow up buildings is true. And true pacifists would never help someone else do it. But there’s just too many incidents where the “pacifist” is actually a sympathiser. They renounce violence only when the US is being violent. Everyone else is just protecting themselves. And those groups *will* make contact and send aid. Or maybe they will simply shelter the poor misunderstood victim of US agression.

    Maybe not. But maybe. If it were up to me, I’d want to know what they were doing, too.

    Comment by Synova — March 13, 2006 @ 2:06 am - March 13, 2006

  41. But there’s just too many incidents where the “pacifist” is actually a sympathiser. They renounce violence only when the US is being violent.

    Exactly. Remember all the “Human Shields” who wanted to go to Iraq to protect Saddam? Why aren’t they over there now protecting the Iraqi police from insurgent terrorists? Why weren’t they in Israel riding on buses to shield them from Palestinian terrorist attacks? Let’s also remember how Cindy Sheehan’s Code Pinko organization sent half a million dollars into Fallujah… helping out the same terrorists (or “freedom fighters” as Cindy Sheehan calls them) that murdered Casey Sheehan.

    Besides which, if you are going to effectively monitor enemy agents, you have to find them first, and monitoring organizations that are pro-Enemy would seem a logical place to start.

    Comment by V the K — March 13, 2006 @ 5:42 am - March 13, 2006

  42. Hmmm… How many liberals in the US burn crosses, lynch blacks, murder gays for being gay?

    I’d like to see you document this nonsense too, and that does not include what you imagine in your fevered, victim-cult imagination.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 13, 2006 @ 7:29 am - March 13, 2006

  43. domestic spying

    Not happening. Though if it were, 1) you have no Constitutional right not to be investigated, and 2) if you’re on the phone to Al-Qaeda, not only do I want your phone tapped, I want your treasonous ass in prison where it belongs.

    data mining

    You mean like the Democrats are doing?

    secret (and therefore not correctable) record keeping

    Get your tinfoil hats! We’re at war, and oh no! not everything is leaked to the press so Al-Qaeda can hear about it! Oh no! How awful!

    Moron.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 13, 2006 @ 11:01 am - March 13, 2006

  44. #41 – “Let’s also remember how Cindy Sheehan’s Code Pinko organization sent half a million dollars into Fallujah…”

    You know, I want to ask for the link / reference on that… but only weakly, because it is so plausible and easy to believe, in light of all her sickening actions and betrayal of her son that I do know of.

    Comment by Calarato — March 13, 2006 @ 11:50 am - March 13, 2006

  45. #42 Makes me think of an article about the Phelps family I just read and how they are so far gone that not even the Nazis will have anything to do with them.

    Comment by Synova — March 13, 2006 @ 11:57 am - March 13, 2006

  46. I think blog responder proves quite nicely why the left is out of power.

    For instance, the insistence that conservatives and Republicans are going around hunting gays down and murdering them. Typical for gay liberals and Democrats, who insist that concentration camps for gays are already operating.

    Then I love this quote:

    I don’t think that Bush = Hitler, not by a long shot, but when you consistently….. certainly starts looking more and more like Germany in the 1930’s,

    In short, a lie; whoever this person is, they DO think Bush = Hitler.

    Next:

    Pacifists are obviously the least likely to blow up a building or assasinate someone, as opposed to non-pacifists (let alone actual terrorists!).

    Unfortunately, though, the groups that liberals insist are “pacifist” are, invariably, like the Holy Land Foundation, established as cover groups in support of terrorism.

    But of course, blog responder is upset that that group was investigated and infiltrated because they were “pacifist”; it’s just another example of how “Bush = Hitler” and the United States is fascist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2006 @ 12:19 pm - March 13, 2006

  47. How many liberals in the US burn crosses, lynch blacks, murder gays for being gay?

    I Can Think of at Least One Democrat Who’s Made a Career of Preaching Anti-Gay Hatred

    #44 — You know, I want to ask for the link / reference on that…

    Here’s one link, that links to other links

    Comment by V the K — March 13, 2006 @ 12:23 pm - March 13, 2006

  48. But V the K hates gay people

    I hate stupid people. And yes, you may take that as being directed at you.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 13, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - March 13, 2006

  49. Synova with regard to the Phelps family-I remember reading an article as well, and discovered that Phelps is a registered democrat and has been at times quite active within the party. Phelps and his clan are sort of the exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions, because about the only box they really fit into is the “filled with hate” box.

    Comment by just me — March 13, 2006 @ 4:02 pm - March 13, 2006

  50. To #46: …”In short, a lie”

    In short, completely ignoring the evidence presented (almost all of it with sources provided, by the way) for a lessening of freedom and civil rights, and an expansion of executive power.

    Even a former Supreme Court Justice has made the same point, this time in regard to the attacks on the judiciary:

    It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

    Of course I’m sure North Dallas Thirty will simply ignore the matter at hand or say “all lies.” Whatever.

    Comment by blog responder, resurrected — March 13, 2006 @ 4:18 pm - March 13, 2006

  51. rightwingprof writes (#48), in response to my question (“Hmmm… How many liberals in the US burn crosses, lynch blacks, murder gays for being gay?”), “I’d like to see you document this nonsense too, and that does not include what you imagine in your fevered, victim-cult imagination.”

    I don’t know what planet you live on where it’s the liberals who attack gays. Pick any jocks in high school or overexcited frat boys who’ve decided to beat the crap out of some guy they’ve decided is gay, or choose any guys in the military who’ve beat a gay man to death (e.g. Terry Helvey, convicted in the death of Allen Schindler — you claim I’m making this stuff up??*) — and what are the chances those guys are liberals? Practically zero. The chances they’re conservative, support the Republican party? Pretty darned high.

    *Again, I wonder why rightwingprof ignores the beating and murder of gays?–before it was in a movie; now he says I’m making this stuff up (!).

    Who was it again who had all the referenda on anti-gay “moral values” around election time? Was it the Democrats? No. It was the Republicans, encouraging hatred and violence against the “evil” gays…**

    **’Morris H. Chapman, president of the [Southern Baptist Convention] Executive Committee: “I am elated and grateful for the record number of Americans who took seriously their civic responsibility and voted in the national elections yesterday. By all accounts, as an issue, moral values topped even concerns about the economy and security, for those who voted. Importantly, the turnout by people of faith was a decisive factor in passing the 11 state initiatives to protect the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman.”’

    I may grant that the worst of the attackers fall off of the mere conservative graph and fall into right-wing fanatic, but Pat Roberts, Jesse Helms, etc. etc. who say that we’ve been attacked by God for allowing gays to live unaccosted etc. etc., please, they are conservatives. And even if you for some odd reason don’t think they’re conservatives, they certainly aren’t liberals.

    (Of course, there are conservatives who don’t think that attacking gays is OK. Just because practically all who attack gays are conservative, doesn’t mean that all conservatives think they should be attacked. But, then again, duh.)

    Comment by blog responder, resurrected — March 13, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - March 13, 2006

  52. I don’t know what planet you live on where it’s the liberals who attack gays

    It seems you don’t have the intelligence to distinguish bigots from conservatives, do you. After all, your whole victim whining falls out of that conflation of two utterly unrelated groups. After all, liberals should never throw stones when it comes to bigotry.

    Bigotry is the liberal Democrat platform, such that it is.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 13, 2006 @ 4:56 pm - March 13, 2006

  53. Tim, while denying he is advocating censorship, repeats his claim that “anti-Gay opinion usually leads to anti-Gay legislation,” … which, in the context of a discussion about free speech can reasonably be read as a justification for censorship. Otherwise, why even bring it up?

    That last question’s an easy one, V the K. You brought the issue up, by saying that Gays and Lesbians are only concerned with what other people think because we’re secretly self-loathing. My response was that we have to be concerned about what others think, even if we’d rather not be, because anti-Gay religious activists can pass laws designed to do very bad things to us. We don’t have to censor anti-Gay opinion, but we have to fight it in the public sphere — whether we want to or not.

    It is interesting that V the K has said nothing against the various state laws that censor pro-Gay speech in the classroom (whether expressed as opinion or in the context of a debate). But inasmuch as right-wing legislators seem determined to impose “abstinence education,” anti-Gay rhetoric, anti-evolution and religious-right boilerplate on public schools, I’d say rightwingprof is mistaken to claim that the left is worse than the right on the issue of free speech. The Left may control universities, the Right holds the high schools — and universities have always been far more open to hostile scrutiny than high schools.

    Good points on the indefensibility of the Bush administration from an individual-liberty standpoint. I’m not sure whether Bush is truly conservative or a Huey Long-style populist, but most of the writers and commenters here seem very much in the latter camp.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 13, 2006 @ 5:02 pm - March 13, 2006

  54. Re: #50 — I’ll concede blog responder the point if he can accurately cite a single civil right I have lost as a result of Bush or the Patriot Act.

    #53 — “The Left may control universities, the Right holds the high schools…”

    Wow, how incredibly out-of-touch can you be? Ever hear of Jay Bennish?

    Comment by V the K — March 13, 2006 @ 5:25 pm - March 13, 2006

  55. In short, completely ignoring the evidence presented (almost all of it with sources provided, by the way) for a lessening of freedom and civil rights, and an expansion of executive power.

    LOL….take for example, this one, which you claim proves how the Bush administration is allegedly “prosecuting whistleblowers”.

    Interesting how it is being done by a California state court under California state law at the behest of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office. Indeed, the Bush administration isn’t even mentioned in the article.

    In short, I looked, and I gave your “evidence” what it deserved in terms of crediting you for it. Zero.

    Meanwhile, if Sandra Day O’Connor thinks the impeachment of judges or scrutiny of the judiciary is a “direct threat to judiciary freedom”, she should take it up with the people who wrote the Constitution, who specifically included mechanisms for both as a means of preserving the balance of power between the branches and avoiding the “tyranny” of unelected judges. If she doesn’t realize that, she has no business being on the Supreme Court.

    I don’t know what planet you live on where it’s the liberals who attack gays.

    Two words: Jacob Robida. Atheist, more than likely a Democrat.

    Who was it again who had all the referenda on anti-gay “moral values” around election time? Was it the Democrats? No. It was the Republicans, encouraging hatred and violence against the “evil” gays…**

    Nice try.

    One day after Missourians overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry made a campaign swing through the state and lauded voters for approving the measure.

    “We support nondiscrimination against our fellow Americans, Kerry said in an interview with the NBC affiliate in Kansas City. “We’ve always argued that states will be capable of taking care of this by themselves. [The Missouri vote] I think bears out that we didn’t need a [federal] constitutional amendment in order to do what’s right.”

    Kerry also said he would have voted in favor of the measure, according to the interview.

    The next day, Aug. 5, Sen. John Edwards said during a stop in the state that the Democratic presidential ticket had no objection to the Missouri vote.

    “We’re both opposed to gay marriage and believe that states should be allowed to decide this question,” Edwards told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

    And what were you and yours doing? Calling Kerry “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and pumping him tens of millions of dollars to fund his message, while spending next to nothing on actually fighting the homophobic initiatives he endorsed.

    Now, since you say lauding voters for passing antigay initiatives is encouraging hatred and violence against gays, will you apply it equally, blog responder?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2006 @ 5:35 pm - March 13, 2006

  56. Getting back to the important stuff — I’m almost positive BR, Gryph, and Timmy (“TIMMAY!”)) would have voted for Baltar.

    Comment by V the K — March 13, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - March 13, 2006

  57. From ChristianityToday

    We must be careful not to blame innocent Americans for murderous attacks against them. At the same time, let’s acknowledge that America’s increasing decadence is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. When we tolerate trash on television, permit pornography to invade our homes via the internet, and allow babies to be killed at the point of birth, we are inflaming radical Islam.

    Radical Islamists were surely watching in July when the Senate voted on procedural grounds to do away with the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America’s decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers.

    Preserving traditional marriage in order to protect children is a crucially important goal by itself. But it’s also about protecting the United States from those who would use our depravity to destroy us. We must not give up simply because the Senate voted down the FMA. It took William Wilberforce and his allies 20 years to shut down Britain’s slave trade; it will take years to win the battle for traditional marriage.

    Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 6:54 pm - March 13, 2006

  58. Sounds like someone is buying into the appeasment movement, and that someone should know better. For shame.

    I do wish Hollywood would figure out, though, that they can’t be nice enough to Islamic terrorists that they will escape on the day. If Christian fundamentalists are bad when it comes to censorship… what do they think Islam will get them?

    Comment by Synova — March 13, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - March 13, 2006

  59. 58
    What?

    Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - March 13, 2006

  60. Hank just a point, most conservative/doctrinally focused Christians think of Christianity Today as a liberal leaning magazine, so not sure what the significance of your quote from that magazine is, although I can say that I don’t think the issues addressed should lean conservative, because we want Islamists to like us better.

    Pick any jocks in high school or overexcited frat boys who’ve decided to beat the crap out of some guy they’ve decided is gay, or choose any guys in the military who’ve beat a gay man to death (e.g. Terry Helvey, convicted in the death of Allen Schindler — you claim I’m making this stuff up??*) — and what are the chances those guys are liberals? Practically zero. The chances they’re conservative, support the Republican party? Pretty darned high.

    Actually, I would like to see a study done on the political positions of people who bash/harm gays is. I think you are equating a willingness to harm gays as being on par with conservatism, although I would be willing to bet that most of these people are far more apolitical, than political. Most of the hate groups could be placed somewhere in the realm of anarchists or fascist (and neither are actually conservative).

    So, I actually think links with actual stats with regard to political position is called for here.

    And shoot, the biggest gay basher of all time, Phelps is a democrat and he is also aligned with the anti war crowd.

    As for the quote from the Baptist opposed to gay marriage-I don’t know that it is fair to argue that it fits your defintion of wanting to harm gays-his motivation isn’t so much to do harm, as it is from his point of view to prevent harm to the institution of marriage, rather than call him a bigot etc, perhaps the best tac to take is to counter argue his points.

    Comment by just me — March 13, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - March 13, 2006

  61. I’m sorry but I don’t follow you. I didn’t post anything about a Baptist, or jocks beating people up.

    Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 9:12 pm - March 13, 2006

  62. Oops sorry, that was Tim. Sorry about the mistake.

    Comment by just me — March 13, 2006 @ 9:15 pm - March 13, 2006

  63. Take a look at this. Nice to see that they are equal opprotunity haters.

    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=12741

    Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 9:43 pm - March 13, 2006

  64. And from those friendly folks a AFA.

    http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/132006b.asp

    Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 10:01 pm - March 13, 2006

  65. #59 The person who wrote the Christianity Today article. It was relying on a call for appeasment… that we can stop the Islamists from hating us and that is a reason to work for moral issues. Rather than a call for morality for morality’s sake it was a call for fear and appeasement.

    Comment by Synova — March 13, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - March 13, 2006

  66. We should “appease” the Islamists by stopping pornography and gay marriage?

    We have to “fear them”?

    I don’t give a damn what they think of us.

    Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 10:50 pm - March 13, 2006

  67. Yes I’m glad that port deal is dead. And yes, I fear what they might do to us. But “them”, NO I don’t let them tell me what I have to “fear”. That’s the game they play. They have cowed Europe with their crap. Are we going to let them dictate our “morality”? Why won’t the cowardly New York Times print the little cartoons? I assume eberyone has seen them. What’s the problem? We’ve seen worse.

    Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 10:58 pm - March 13, 2006

  68. No, *I* don’t think we should appease them.

    Are you sure you aren’t a conservative hawk, deep in your secret heart, hank?

    Comment by Synova — March 13, 2006 @ 11:15 pm - March 13, 2006

  69. LOL
    I’ve been saying for a year that I am not a liberal in any way.
    I hope that I’m not a “hawk”. But yes indeed, I am an old fashioned conservative. Not a republican at this time however.

    Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - March 13, 2006

  70. just me — I think a lot of the jock and Christian-bashing goes on because of unresolved teenaged resentments against the well-adjusted, popular kids. In high school, my crowd *was* the jocks, and I never had any problems with them. The gay-bashing jock is mostly a Hollywood stereotype, jocks got better things to do. My observation is that the ones most likely to do gay-bashing are the ones at the lower ends of the educational and economic scale, often on public assistance … in other words, the average core Democrat voter.

    Hey, it’s probably an unsupported stereotype, but it’s no worse than Timmeh! slamming Christans and jocks.

    Comment by V the K — March 13, 2006 @ 11:27 pm - March 13, 2006

  71. “My observation is that the ones most likely to do gay-bashing are the ones at the lower ends of the educational and economic scale, often on public assistance … in other words, the average core Democrat voter. ”

    Or some gay guy here.

    Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 11:42 pm - March 13, 2006

  72. hank at #69 “I am not a liberal in any way….I am an old fashioned conservative”. HA! That is so rich on so many levels.

    I love it when the Left is reduced to trying to pass for conservative in order to approach some level of acceptance.

    No, hank, you aren’t a conservative –old fashioned or not– you’re like a Maureen Dowd type who contends she’s Catholic just so she can continue to slam Catholics with some apperance of plausible credibility… to paraphase former Dem Veep candidate Bensen “I know a lot of conservatives and you, hank, are no conservative.”

    VdaK has it right: most of the gaybashing I know of comes from union hall goons, blue collar skinheads, and kids from areas where the families have been inbreeding and voting Democrat for generations. Hello, does Jacob Robida and the attack in New Bedford at Puzzles ring a bell –oh, I forgot, you’re listening to the clarion from Stephen. Ha.

    Face it, hank, VdaK speaks the unspeakable truth when he linked gaybashing to lower income, undereducated, Democrat types. The best our community can do is to try to convince future gaybashing Democrats to get a job, get some property, find God, become a Republican and stop the gaybashing.

    I still am smiling that you’d try to project you’re a conservative! Gosh, that’s rich.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 9:38 am - March 14, 2006

  73. 54: Wow, how incredibly out-of-touch can you be? Ever hear of Jay Bennish?

    At the moment, right-wingers hold America’s high schools in an iron grip, mostly through legislation designed to keep teachers (who tend to be squish-liberals, at least initially) toeing a well-defined party line. There are other measures to ensure continued right-wing dominance: For instance, the Texas Board of Education all but controls the content of our nation’s high-school textbooks — and these people march in conservative lock-step.

    Bennish is merely the exception that proves the rule. If he had made these remarks at a typical State U., no one would have so much as batted an eye.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 14, 2006 @ 10:37 am - March 14, 2006

  74. No, Jay Bennish never would have made his anti-American rant if he wasn’t in what he thought was a safe (i.e. hard-left) environment.

    And it’s hard to make a case that right-wingers “hold America’s high schools in an iron grip” when teachers aren’t allowed to make any value judgments, when the mechanics of gay sex are taught in sex ed… but a teacher can get fired for saying ‘Jesus.’

    Comment by V the K — March 14, 2006 @ 11:19 am - March 14, 2006

  75. 72
    Glad that you think you know who and what I am.

    “families have been inbreeding and voting Democrat for generations.”

    Hilarious. See a Doctor.

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 11:29 am - March 14, 2006

  76. Also, has the definition of ‘gay-bashing’ been dumbed down to the point where making jokes about Bareback Mountain now makes you a gay-basher? Or is this just more effete, cry-baby whining from people incapable of winning an argument with reason or facts?

    Comment by V the K — March 14, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - March 14, 2006

  77. At the moment, right-wingers hold America’s high schools in an iron grip, mostly through legislation designed to keep teachers (who tend to be squish-liberals, at least initially) toeing a well-defined party line.

    That would be codespeak for “having to teach their subject” AND “having their students’ results measured to see how well they’re doing it”.

    What the left wants is to get rid of testing and accountability standards so that they can use classes to perform leftist indoctrination without being caught.

    Unfortunately for them instead of being docile sheep, students and parents are fighting back, realizing that “teachers” like Bennish have no interest in teaching children geography, but are more interested in brainwashing them — and that teachers’ unions and administrators, beholden to the Democratic Party first, are fighting to sabotage their childrens’ education.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2006 @ 12:48 pm - March 14, 2006

  78. “What the left wants is to get rid of testing and accountability standards so that they can use classes to perform leftist indoctrination without being caught.”

    http://towleroad.typepad.com/towleroad/2006/03/high_school_stu.html

    Oh really?

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 12:56 pm - March 14, 2006

  79. From Hank’s link, it looks like the school admin just asked him not to show a scene of two naked dudes in a post-coital … but permitted him to show the rest of the movie. It was when he showed it with the scene — which he had been told not to, that he got in trouble. Never mind whether showing soft-porn in a high school class was appropriate for a classroom environment. Furthermore:

    “West Linn High says they’ll pay for me to finish up my last 2 months of high school at Clackamas Community College, and I’ll be able to walk with my high school class at graduation and attend Prom as a guest.”

    Yeah, those right-wing fascists are just oppressin’ the sh*t out of him.

    Comment by V the K — March 14, 2006 @ 1:44 pm - March 14, 2006

  80. Gee, does pointing out those facts make me a gay-basher?

    Comment by V the K — March 14, 2006 @ 1:47 pm - March 14, 2006

  81. No. We all know what a macho guy you are. You hung around with the jocks, dint ya?

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 1:57 pm - March 14, 2006

  82. It’s not just Texas that controls text books but California. The reason it works that way is that text selections are made at the state level for the whole state. Local school boards to not decide. Teachers do not decide.

    Why not? For the same reason that teacher certification is such as issue. Education is so divorced from local accountability that a teacher simply *can’t* choose his or her own textbooks. A local school board can’t decide that their school will part from the State mandated courses.

    Parents have little idea of what is taught in their children’s classes, be it Bennish style rants or the opposite. There’s no way to tell if a teacher is good or not during the hiring process or afterward, so “certification” takes the place of evaluation or personal judgement during hiring.

    Education is probably the most intimate process that anyone does (even sex is just the body, while education forms the mind) and it’s the most impersonal in practice. Sameness is valued over difference.

    How does that make any sense?

    The whole system is dysfunctional which is why stupid things happen so often. No one dares to make personal judgments, it’s all about the rules. The result is over reactions to minor incidents while, often enough, serious issues go completely igored.

    Comment by Synova — March 14, 2006 @ 2:02 pm - March 14, 2006

  83. #82 — Well said, Synova.

    Comment by V the K — March 14, 2006 @ 2:10 pm - March 14, 2006

  84. Also, has the definition of ‘gay-bashing’ been dumbed down to the point where making jokes about Bareback Mountain now makes you a gay-basher?

    Years ago, V. What rock have you been living under all this time?

    (-:

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 14, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - March 14, 2006

  85. If not liking Bareback Mountin’ is a hate crime, then I guess my blog is a concentration camp.

    Comment by V the K — March 14, 2006 @ 2:23 pm - March 14, 2006

  86. I don’t know what planet hank and TimH have been living on, but here in Ann Arbor, the liberal radical Left do hold control over the grade schools, high schools, and middle schools. They control the interviewing panels for new teachers clearly laying out their expectations for group think assimilation, support of the education union and political lobby, and expectations for social community activism for potential new hires… don’t go along with the rule book, you aren’t making it to the cut.

    One prospective econ teacher of 15+ yrs, interviewed for a high school post, offered that he wondered if involvement with the local Chamber of Commerce or Rotary group covered the informal social/community activism “requirement” and was told by a panelist, No. We mean liberal groups.

    Yeah, that’s why teacher stewards across the US tend to be liberal, activist and cross pollenating other political movments like the Democrat Party, eco-terrorists and Jay Bennish’s favorite group –PETA.

    Oh no. The high schools are in the grips of conservatives. HA!

    I wonder if hank or Stephen can hear the screams of hate coming up from the pitchfork carrying peasants seeking to storm his castle keep yet?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 2:31 pm - March 14, 2006

  87. Oh for Gods sake, grow up Matt.

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 2:36 pm - March 14, 2006

  88. I think V the K brings up the salient point, hank, which was WHY IN THE HELL SHOULD A HIGH SCHOOLER BE MAKING SOFT PORN MOVIES AS A CLASS PROJECT?

    Do you even REALIZE how dumb you look for this? What if that had been a teenage boy and girl laying naked in that bed? You whine about how the religious right unfairly says gays are trying to push sex in schools, then you bitch about a teenager being prevented from making pornographic scenes because it was a “school project”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2006 @ 2:37 pm - March 14, 2006

  89. Based on most of his comments, I don’t think hank CARES how dumb he looks.

    Comment by V the K — March 14, 2006 @ 2:40 pm - March 14, 2006

  90. ‘Whine”?
    And NO I don’t think that a highschool boy should bemaking “soft porn”.
    But you keep screaming about the schools being run by the “left”. Here is an example that they aren’t.

    And V, you look like total fool to me. Constantly reminding us of how manly you are.

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - March 14, 2006

  91. hank, it’s always belittling when you try to intimdate others by saying “Grow up”. Did you know you were trying to impair my self-esteem? Why would you do that? Are you, at your core, truly hurtful? I know the Christofascist and hick comments were written by you in the heat of passion… No hank, you’re the one who avoids the policy points and goes for the little slamfest.

    You were wrong. High schools aren’t in the grasp of conservatives. And West Linn HS administrators were perfectly justified in stopping the student from showing the movie –it isn’t art. It isn’t free speech. He showed the film in a class for which it wasn’t a work assignment.

    You need to distance yourself from any porn addictions and realize that for most minors and parents of those minors, watching soft core porn is wrong. Period.

    No wonder our community can’t make civil rights progress as long as we cop a page from the ACLU and start defending porn producers as art purveyors.

    We’re waiting for you to admit your error, hank. hank? (crickets abound)

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - March 14, 2006

  92. My 16 year old sister is required to take a high school course called “Environmental Science,” and looking at the curriculum I wonder if it doesn’t violate the disallowance of teaching religious beliefs in schools.

    Comment by Attmay — March 14, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - March 14, 2006

  93. hank, there’s progress. Thanks for finally being accountable. You’re forgiven –by the judge, jury and everyone else.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - March 14, 2006

  94. #91 — Oh, no, Matt. I hope hank isn’t threatened by your assertion of masculinity.

    Actually, I don’t, but he is comical.

    BTW: It’s Timmeh! who originally asserted that secondary schools are in the iron grip of right-wing conservatives.

    Comment by V the K — March 14, 2006 @ 3:20 pm - March 14, 2006

  95. Is this the ravings of a “grown up”? Does this sound like someone who is “truly hurtful?”

    “You’re an atheist along with the whole anti-America, anti-business, anti-GOP, anti-conservative, anti-Life Democrat/GayLeft/Unionized Educator waltz boi…. I hope God wipes that smirk off your face right before she sends your sorry ass to Hell for an eternity. You deserve nothing less.”

    “No hank, you’re the one who avoids the policy points and goes for the little slamfest.”

    Really?

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 3:39 pm - March 14, 2006

  96. here in Ann Arbor

    shudder …

    It could be worse; you could be in Madison or Berzerkeley.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 14, 2006 @ 3:40 pm - March 14, 2006

  97. Hank or Stephen just how do you know the schools are controlled by conservative right wingers? Are you involved in education, do you have children in schools?

    I can answer yes to both, and I have to say, if the conservatives are in charge, I haven’t seen it. As a matter of fact, certain discussions in the teachers room on politics leave me very unconfortable (in general I don’t do politics at school, because I don’t want to get into an argument, although I have opened my mouth a few times, when I couldn’t hold it in any longer).

    Oh and I have to say that some curriculums are flat out terrible-not because Texas or California is controlling them, but I htink half the time it is written by people who haven’t been in a classroom in years, and don’t have a clue about children. We live in a very rural area, and our curriculum is overly urban in nature-half the stuff in the curriculum my students have no experience with at all. Most of them have never even left the state.

    Comment by just me — March 14, 2006 @ 4:31 pm - March 14, 2006

  98. Oh, and with regard to the student made movie.

    I don’t think a film with any sex scene or post coital scene is appropriate-hetero or homosexual in nature. I think the fact that the student was asked to leave it out, but chose to show it anyway is also important. But you are going to have a hard time convincing me that the only way to present the story was to include a sex scene. As a parent I would be unhappy with this situation no matter what the sexuality of the characters involved.

    Comment by just me — March 14, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - March 14, 2006

  99. hank, really. No, really really. ‘kay?

    My advice, unsolicited as it might be, is you should either stay on topic or refrain from posting comments you later regret and need to retreat from… like the Christofascist or hick ones you’ve done most recently.

    It’s all about accountability, hank. A bitter pill for the liberals –but there you have it.

    And you still haven’t offered a rebuttal to which characterizations aren’t true. Nor whether you now agree the concerntration camps = GOP line was incorrect. And so on, and so on.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 5:32 pm - March 14, 2006

  100. Speaking of PETA… is tomorrow “Eat a tasty animal for PETA day?” I don’t want to miss it. 😉

    Comment by Synova — March 14, 2006 @ 6:27 pm - March 14, 2006

  101. 97
    I didn’t say the schools were controlled by right wingers. I just don’t but into “they’re all controlled by leftwingers”. Thats why I posted that link. And I agree with you. A sex movie is INAPPROPIATE for a high schooler to make.

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 6:48 pm - March 14, 2006

  102. #101 — So, you’re saying if they were controlled by left-wingers, it would be fine and dandy to show soft-core porn in the classroom. Thanks for clarifying that.

    Comment by V the K — March 14, 2006 @ 6:53 pm - March 14, 2006

  103. 102 No, I believe that YOU just said that. I said NO such thing.

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 8:42 pm - March 14, 2006

  104. Synova said…

    “Speaking of PETA… is tomorrow “Eat a tasty animal for PETA day?” I don’t want to miss it. “

    I’m already on it, Synova…

    I’m planning on blowing a biker tomorrow. 😉

    Sorry about that…I just HAD to go there!

    Eric in Hollywood (make that WEST Hollywood for those in the know!)

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 14, 2006 @ 9:15 pm - March 14, 2006

  105. #103 — Let’s backtrack. You said… I just don’t but into “they’re all controlled by leftwingers”. Thats why I posted that link.

    And your link was about a kid who was apparently expelled for showing a movie with a soft-core porn scene in it. Since this was your “proof” that left-wingers don’t control the schools, the obvious implication is that if the left were in charge of schools, it would be okay to show soft-core porn in class.

    Or, don’t you think these things through logically, Mr. hanky?

    Comment by V the K — March 15, 2006 @ 5:00 am - March 15, 2006

  106. BTW: It’s Timmeh! who originally asserted that secondary schools are in the iron grip of right-wing conservatives.

    And I can support and stand by that claim, Mr. “V for Vendetta.”

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 15, 2006 @ 9:19 am - March 15, 2006

  107. #196 — Supporting and standing by a claim that’s been abundantly refuted? You really are an idiot.

    Comment by V the K — March 15, 2006 @ 9:58 am - March 15, 2006

  108. No V you are the idiot.
    The post merely was to show you twisted mindless lemmings that there ARE indeed highschools with a right wing administration. That’s ALL it is. Nowhere ,and in NO way, does it say, that I say I would support a soft porn film, if the school were “left”. You are a hate filled evil man.
    This is mad house, where reality doesn’t exist anymore.

    Comment by hank — March 15, 2006 @ 11:57 am - March 15, 2006

  109. This is “a” madhouse.

    Comment by hank — March 15, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - March 15, 2006

  110. Hank said…

    “This is “a” madhouse.”

    All of a sudden, I’m picturing Charlton “Bright Eyes/Taylor” Heston, screaming this very phrase as he’s being hosed down by the gorilla zookeeper.

    Damn, I spend WAY too much time watching movies…

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 15, 2006 @ 12:24 pm - March 15, 2006

  111. Yes, you do. “You pube encrusted dildo.”

    Comment by hank — March 15, 2006 @ 12:40 pm - March 15, 2006

  112. You are a hate filled evil man.

    I was gonna argue this, but then I remembered I used a date-rape joke on my blog today.

    Comment by V the K — March 15, 2006 @ 12:52 pm - March 15, 2006

  113. A real half-wit.

    Comment by hank — March 15, 2006 @ 1:25 pm - March 15, 2006

  114. If hank will halt the name calling and his consistent attempt to extinguish discussion, we can return to the topic: which is how the Left have taken the basic 3 R’s in education and turned them into the 3 T’s –tolerance of the anti-American, hatefilled unatoned conduct of a former Taliban official now studying at a leading liberal ivy league college… protecting the liberal political tirade of a geography teacher who ought to be teaching something other than Bush-Nazi-101 to his students… and the liberal apologists seeking to defend their political-simpatico terrorist’s wanton violence on innocent citizens.

    Liberals just don’t get it. They can go to the floor of the Senate and call for the unilateral disarmament of America in the WOT, they can demean the mission of the troops while seeking cover under the rubric of protected dissent, and they can still –with a str8 face– bring WeScreamHowieDean out of wings and have him contend Liberals are the champions of national defense, the military, and anti-terrorism.

    I think George Orwell couldn’t have pictured a more farcical face of Big Brother and govt doublespeak if he were writing the news, today.

    What I don’t understand is how average Americans can listen to this crap and not have exploding heads all over the landscape.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 15, 2006 @ 1:49 pm - March 15, 2006

  115. Respectfully, Matt, it’s because the average American doesn’t just let his head explode. We are a resourceful and practical people. Real Americans don’t whine about problems, we solve them. The answer to the leftist grip on academia is home-schooling, which is a booming movement in which I am a participant.

    Comment by V the K — March 15, 2006 @ 1:57 pm - March 15, 2006

  116. VdaK, with respect, I come in contact with “average Americans” every single day on the campaign trail somewhere in the Midwest… you, sir, are no average American. Unless we expand the definition of what constitutes average.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 15, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - March 15, 2006

  117. Aww, Matt, your kind words warm my hate-filled evil heart.

    Here’s what I think happened. Mr Hankey wanted to prove that high schools were in the vise-grip of right-wingers as his friend TIMMEH! asserted. So, he found a blog run by a left-wing gaybie that said that some kid was expelled for making a movie about a gay romance.

    I don’t think Mr Hankey actually read what he was linking to, because even someone with Hankey’s feeble reading comprehension skills would have seen that the kid was expelled for showing in class a scene of soft-core p0rn within the movie that the admin had asked him to remove.

    But hank can’t admit that he was wrong, and this is where it gets hilarious. Rather than admit his mistake, hand insists his link still proves the high school was run by right-wingers. So, one can then assume that hank believes that if the school had not been run by right-wingers, the kid would have been allowed to show his unedited movie in class. hank furiously denies this, saying it would never be appropriate to show scenes like that in class.

    hankey is then in the absurd position of insisting that the link proves his point about schools being run by right-wingers, while also insisting that the outcome would have been no different if the school had been run by left-wingers. hank could have just admitted that his link does not prove his point, but he can’t bring himself to do that, so he just digs himself in deeper.

    hank may be aware at this time that he looks like a complete idiot, but he doesn’t back down, and instead begins throwing a tantrum and hurling insults at those who showed how flawed his example is. He reminds me of the little girl in the Red Meat comic strip crying “I hate you, Milkman Dan.”

    Comment by V the K — March 15, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - March 15, 2006

  118. Hank said…

    “Yes, you do. “You pube encrusted dildo.”

    Hank doesn’t like me cause I don’t play nice.

    Heartbreaking, that is.

    Eric in the sandbox all by himself

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 15, 2006 @ 9:21 pm - March 15, 2006

  119. And, as it turns out 1.) the kid was never expelled 2.) he was being transferred because of his poor attendance record and left to finish high school at community college, and 3.) the “right-wing” administration has caved into pressure from gay groups and re-admitted. So, what exactly remains of hank’s so-called point?

    Comment by V the K — March 16, 2006 @ 5:29 am - March 16, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.