Saturday, November 05, 2005

How To Mobilize the Wackos (As They Call Them)

I'll admit, I was a little surprised to find out that the Republican National Committee had been sending somebody to meet with the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum as far back as February. The CRC always likes to say they're just little ol' parents and citizens of Montgomery County, you're not supposed to think they're getting coached by the Big Guys. But there it is, in the minutes of their meeting.

Those minutes only quote the RNC guy saying they were on the right track, and do not go into any detail about what strategy they were really planning.

But we don't have to wonder how they do it. As reported in Salon.com, a memo was recently read into the public record at a Senate hearing, explaining the Party's approach to getting their way. In this particular case, they were interested in using Indian casinos to launder campaign funds. Michael Scanlon, a former aide to Republican congressman Tom DeLay, sent the memo to the Indian tribe, explaining just what kind of strategy they use to get people to support them.

You will recognize this. They've used this all over the place, and if you've been following our story you will recognize that this is exactly what they have been trying to pull here in Montgomery County. Salon quotes the GOP's memo:
"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." Salon.com

See how easy that is? You keep it in the churches, in the Christian radio shows that the ordinary public never listens to, you spread it through the Blah-Blah Family Blah-Blah organizations, which nobody pays any attention to, you have web sites and fax numbers and you call people.

And then, when you need to vote something down: bam. Here come the wackos, out of the woodwork.

You've seen that, right?

Think hard. The radical right turns out to vote, the complacent majority stays home ...

The beauty of this is that there's no need for public debate. Most people are caught sleeping, thinking everything's all right, and the "wackos," as the GOP calls them, never have to explain themselves or defend their views, which are often indefensible.

A guy was interviewing me yesterday, and asked something about the Recall Group's first meeting. And he had a point. At that first meeting, December fourth, they didn't talk about the curriculum and what their opinion was supposed to be. No, they had already done that, they knew what they were supposed to think about it. That first meeting was for organizing, it was for action. They formed a media committee, a funding committee, a legal committee ... they had already worked the issue using "the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees..." They only needed to meet face to face to break into subgroups.

These guys organize very quietly, below the radar of the media, where most people never notice. They want the whole thing to slip past you. Then, when you think everything's going along just fine ... they come out of nowhere.

This is why you have to keep your eyes open. This is why you need eternal vigilance.

53 Comments:

Blogger Kay2898 said...

They do what they do with goal to fly under the radar while achieving such a goal.
****************

From Recall/CRC Message Board from late 2004

Thanks Chris ( Core)
and WMAL for this long overdue forum. Despite the best efforts of the "star chamber" Montgomery Co. Government, you have exposed the failings of these elite snobs for what they really are.

For years now we who pay the taxes and yet have no say about our public school system have been told to essentially shut up and keep paying taxes while a few elite liberal activists run our schools and teach things to our children that we do not agree nor support. Like so many others I was told that if I did not support the liberal bias agenda on encouraging sexual exploration, "modern" morals (and I use the term loosely in this case) and an active promotion of homosexuality as normal then I should "opt out." So we did. We pulled our two children out after 5th grade from the public school system and put them in parocial schools. However we are to continue to pay taxes to support such liberal programs whether we agree with it or not. We are made to believe that we who do not agree with these oh-so-smart and intellectually superior people are the poor undeducated plebians. Well I say its about time for us lower class citizens to rise up and throw these knuckle heads out on their you-know-what! I support recall and will join any organized effort to do so. Count me in!!! Maryland is a lot more "red" then they know it to be!!!
[Date=11-11-2004] Name:Steve Fisher ,




*************************

Click on the name of any of the BOE members on this WMAL web page and a bio appears that also includes the link to the MCPS BOE. It is:
.

We should flood their email system so they realize that we are deadly serious about this stuff.

STF
[Date=11-11-2004] Name:Steve (Fisher)


***************************************



I sent an email to Sean Hannity and encouraged him to bring this up with Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family during the Hannity and Colmes show on FNC tonight.

I also passed the info on to Focus on the Family and they recommended a group to whom we can contact for support in getting the recall accomplished.
[Date=11-12-2004] Name:Steve , [IP Addr= 208.20.220.69]



********************************************************


I am glad to see so many of you outraged over the proposed Sex Ed curriculum. Please do not stop here! Make phone calls to the Board of Ed members as well as the County Council rep for your area.
And don't forget the media.
Be Persistent!!!

Michelle Turner
Member, Family Life
and Human Development Comm.



[Date=11-12-2004] Name:Michelle Turner ,



*****************************************
sex is scarryy enough anyways. nevermind some homosexuls making kids know about homosexuls. they should not know what GOD makes unholy and scarry. WE must prey on homos that they won't tell our kids what is homos for life.

in jesuss love,
stevon malkmus
[Date=12-03-2004] Name:stevon malkmus ,


*************************************

Lets all pray for Ms. Cox. Pray that God will put it in her heart to repent on this issue and that she will admit she was wrong. Pray that she will fulfill her responsiblities to our children and seek God's guidance in the future. To Ms. Cox: Please pray tonight that God will fill you with his wisdom, what do you have to lose? If God does not exist then you lose nothing and can honestly tell us you tried prayer, if he does and you are earnest, he may answer you. Only if God opens your eyes will you be able to see what is happening.
[Date=12-03-2004] Name:John Garza

****************************

To those worried about the fact that over 200 emails have been sent to the BOE, I would caution that these most likely come from an established mailing list provided by the pro-homosexual lobby who supports the Kensington delegate and avowed homosexual politician. It appears intriguing that he made the annoucement and not the BOE. How does he know how many the BOE has received unless he orchestrated the submission via his political friends and lobbists. I would be suspicious of the actual number and probably would find them to be essentially identical and created by a special software program which automatically churns these out for political and public relations goals. The fact that these happened in just 48 hours is equally telling as to how honest they may be.

Our prolonged and continuious genuine activity will carry the day over orchestrated moves by professional lobbists and their ilk.
[Date=11-24-2004] Name:Steve (Fisher)





***************************

Dissolute liberals like the members of the BOE are indoctrinating our kids in deviant sex life style.
The Gay mafia has infiltrated the educational system in this country taking advantages of our freedoms and the fact that public schools are government funded.

Their goal is to make our kids like them, (immoral liberals).
[Date=11-22-2004] Name:Olga Bravo

**********************

Folks, Sorry for my late entry, but I just found out about this great website this morning. I too was very disappointed in Sharon Cox's actions and comments, as you may read in my Times LTE below, printed on 11/12/04. Rumor has it that Ms. Cox is a closet "Republican," as she has conspicuously attended our Lincoln Day Dinners. Friends, with Republicans like this, we don't need Democrats. (Sorry if I offended any Democrats.) I ran for office because I was sick and tired of the liberal/socialist leanings of OUR OWN Montgomery Republican party. I appreciate what you are doing. You are helping me send a message to MY OWN party that we don't need two liberal Democrat parties in Montgomery, and that our GOP must stand on its principles of limited government & individual rights if it ever hopes to be relevant. Thank you for all you do, and feel free to contact me at any time. God



Bless you.



Steve Dirlik

Montgomery County Republican Central Committee,

District 18 10219 Day Ave

Silver Spring, MD. 20910-1043

Sex education in schools





****************************



From an intrested supporter from AA County. Please use our Conserative web site The Public Square for support. We will be watching your efforts.

Good luck

Bill Netherland

November 05, 2005 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, they're devious alright. They win because when it's time to vote, they'll actually get off the couch and do it.

This why the board made such a fatal mistake putting NARAL on the committee. No one gets off the couch in greater numbers than the pro-life community.

Notice that the CRC public meeting generated greater attendance than the TTF "sleaze-fest". It's all about who cares.

November 07, 2005 9:20 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon

By "sleaze-fest," do you mean our forum?

Do you really think you can just call it something like that? Were you there? Can you please tell us anything that happened there that could remotely be called "sleazy?"

Jim

November 07, 2005 9:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, did you guys see The Apprentice Thursday night? It was a perfect example of the double standard our media has developed favoring gays. The gay apprentice made anti-semitic remarks and should have been fired but was not because Trump wanted to show everyone how sophisticated and tolerant he is.

November 07, 2005 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:Trump wanted to show everyone how sophisticated and tolerant he is.


No one would accuse you of that anonymous. Your intolerance and bigotry show all over the place.

November 07, 2005 1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:Notice that the CRC public meeting generated greater attendance than the TTF "sleaze-fest". It's all about who cares.

Funny you did not notice the hundred plus of TTF'rs at CRC's "hatefest". CRC members did not have the guts to attend TTF forum.

Truth hurts that bunch....and apparently you too anonymous.

"anon free"

November 07, 2005 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey other anon,

Tolerance is a greatly overrated virtue. It's efficacy depends entirely on what you're talking about tolerating.

Also, what form does this "intolerance" take? Is disagreeing with someone's lifestyle constitute intolerance? Does that lead, inevitably, as Jim has contended, to imprisonment and execution?

Is there anything that you're intolerant of? or do you just tolerate anything?

And don't say somethin' stupid like:

"The only thing I'm intolerant of is tolerance itself."

For example, many don't think Jim's presence on the CAC should be tolerated by the community.

November 07, 2005 2:07 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

"Many?"

In general usage, many>1.

JimK

November 07, 2005 2:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Funny you did not notice the hundred plus of TTF'rs at CRC's public forum. CRC members did not have the guts to attend TTF forum."

Not a CRC member but I did go to the sleazefest. Very entertaining. I thought the moderator reminded me of a silly goose.

I know a handful of you tried to disrupt the CRC public forum but what is this "hundred plus" you're claiming?

"Truth hurts that bunch....and apparently you too anonymous."

If you mean TTF, you're right. Still waiting for the fact or facts they want to teach about homosexuality.

November 07, 2005 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What would be the number on "community representative", in general usage?

November 07, 2005 2:16 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I'm close to cutting you off again. We attended the CRC town hall meeting and did nothing disruptive. Just watched it and listened. You are the first person who has ever even implied that we did anything disruptive there.

And you have yet to explain what could have possibly been sleazy at the teach the facts forum. You have failed to address any of the challenges anybody here has presented you. The name-calling is out of line. Next time, I'm deleting you.

We don't invite people to our house if they're going to poop on the carpet.

JimK

November 07, 2005 2:19 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

AFA "community representative," there is nothing that says that all members of the committee represent all of the community. I represent a certain, very large, portion of the Montgomery COunty community.

JimK

November 07, 2005 2:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor anonymous the anonymouse..being ugly to those here...

Like we care....

If you attended teh TTF forum them answer Jim's questions..otherewise you are just lying as usual. Get back on the school listservs.

November 07, 2005 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I represent a certain, very large, portion of the Montgomery COunty community."

What in the world? That's ridiculous. If the school board thought your ideas, which match theirs, were widespread in the community, they'd have put more everyday citizens on the CAC. You might represent a majority in Takoma Park. Not the rest of the county.

I remember when you came back from the public forum. You all used virtually the same language- as you continue to. Did your embarassing consultants write that stuff? Who were the group advising you?

Yeah, you better throw me off "again" before we get around to discussing what you refer to as "facts".

November 07, 2005 2:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We attended the CRC town hall meeting and did nothing disruptive."

Were there a hundred plus of you?

November 07, 2005 2:56 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, it is not clear what you are saying. Which public forum? The CRC town hall? We hardly spoke about it here. It was a profound experience for all of us who attended, and to tell you the truth we don't like to talk about it. If anyone is curious about that meeting, we have sound files and transcripts availble on our Resources page here. Look over on the left.

I'm on the committee to represent Teach the Facts. They voted on it, so I guess they must feel my views wil represent them ok. And we get a lot of support from the community, lots and lots.

You may pretend everybody is like you, but even on the high school listserve you are a minority of one.

JimK

November 07, 2005 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim said to anonymous:but even on the high school listserve you are a minority of one.


.....and about to be censored there as well for his usual idiotic responses to only TTF members. I guess since Elvis died Wyatt believes he is "king.."

"anon free"

November 07, 2005 3:07 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

I'm sure MCPS would love to put more members of the community on the Citizens Advisory Committee, Anon. The old CAC had 27 seats for community members. Of course that was before the Dobson and Falwell groups, and their local cohorts, sued to stop the curriculum from being pilot tested. The settlement agreeement reduced the CAC from 27 to 15 community members.

Go ask them why they insisted on having fewer community members on the committee.

Christine

November 07, 2005 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Christine said:Go ask them why they insisted on having fewer community members on the committee.


***************

Anonymous does not care about that...he is more concerned and upset that he did not get picked to serve on CAC. He truly thought he would be warming a seat next to CRC.

That is what all those idiotic postings are about.

Jealous anonymous????????????

"anon free"

November 07, 2005 3:16 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

Anon- I do not watch trash like the Apprentice- I suggest you don't either. I have problems with the media all of the time but I hardly consider "reality TV" - real. I think it is all made-up and scripted. I don't know if anyone is gay on the show or what was said but I would never put it past the producers to create a racial, sexual, religious, political issue- anything to get people to talk.

As to being disruptive at the hatefest-that is a lie. Only what I would expect from someone too ashamed to use their name.

November 07, 2005 3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't apply but all citizens that are supposed to be represented should be outraged by the board's lack of care to following state law.

Believe me, if the board thought the general community supported this curriculum that they're planning to recycle, they'd have chosen representatives "broadly representing the county". It'll be interesting to hear what the judge thinks of all these board shenanigans.

November 07, 2005 3:29 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

It may be that the committee is supposed to broadly represent the committee -- you really don't think that means that every single member of the committee should be so bland as to have no controversial opinions, do you? The committee will represent the community by having diverse views.

As someone has noted here, it will not be as diverse as before, because the suers have made sure the committee is smaller. So groups like the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Peoples Community Baptist Church, the Archdiocese of Washington, Parents Against X-rated and R-rated Books, and the Maryland Coalition Against Pornography won't have seats on the committee, like they did last time.

JimK

November 07, 2005 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The committee will represent the community by having diverse views."


very few county residents have views as extreme as yours

November 07, 2005 3:58 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Very few residents are a dazzlingly handsome as me, either. Does that bother you?

JimK

November 07, 2005 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, maybe with all the goodwill you're generating, you'll get a free haircut out of this.

November 07, 2005 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm taking off now. Taking one of my daughters to a Father/Daughter laser-tag event. Won't be online much this week but if you have any inquiries or, Jim, you want to make any disclosures, e-mail me at EHollis4123@aol.com.

November 07, 2005 4:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm sure MCPS would love to put more members of the community on the Citizens Advisory Committee, Anon. The old CAC had 27 seats for community members. Of course that was before the Dobson and Falwell groups, and their local cohorts, sued to stop the curriculum from being pilot tested. The settlement agreeement reduced the CAC from 27 to 15 community members.

Go ask them why they insisted on having fewer community members on the committee.

Christine"

Why don't they just televise the CAC meetings?

November 07, 2005 4:41 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

With all the assertions about who is representative of how much of the community, I would note the following:

In the last election, John Kerry beat George Bush in Montgomery County by a 2-1 margin. Given how Bush ran against Kerry, I would be astonished if anyone who agrees with Anon's views voted for Kerry. On the other hand, I know Republicans who voted for Bush on economic and/or foreign policy grounds, even though they do not agree with the Republican "social conservative" base.

A lot of people in Montgomery County voted for Bush in spite of, not because of, his connections to the Dobson/Falwell groups. While they don't live in Montgomery County, I am sure that former President Gerald Ford and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, who lead the Republican Unity Coaltion (a group supportive of acceptance of gays) voted for Bush, even though they reject the Dobson/Falwell approach to sexuality. I'd bet Republican Mongtomery County Council Member Howard Denis and former Republican Congresswoman Connie Morella would fall into that category.

In contrast, I rather doubt - and I would be surprised if Anon would disagree --that very many (if any) people in Montgomery County voted for Kerry despite the fact that he and the groups backing him were generally supportive of people who happen to be gay.

Given those realities, I think it clear that the 2003-2004 Citizens Advisory Committee which approved the revised curriculum -- and included Retta Brown (CRC's nominee to the new CAC), Michelle Turner (CRC's President), and representatives from PFOX,Parents Against X-Rated and R-Rated Books, the Maryland Coalition Against Pornography, and the Archdiocese of Washington among its 27 members -- was very reflective of the County.

I also must note, since The Peoples Community Baptist Church has been mentioned as one of the organizations representated on the old CAC, that the representative from that church was very supportive of the curriculum revisions. And just so there is no confusion, I also want to state -- as I have in the past -- that the representative of the Archdiocese always conducted himself in the most honorable and collegial manner, even when he found himself in the minority on some votes.

November 07, 2005 5:39 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

If E Hollis(a real name?) thinks Jim is extreme- I wonder how much he knows about Montgomery County. Of course, extreme means accepting gay people and making honest sex education available(and remember- to take the class requires opting in).

November 07, 2005 7:26 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

Does anyone know what the number of private school kids in Montgomery County is versus public school kids ?

I found the first post about Steve Fisher interesting.

I had not realized he had moved his kids out of the public school system for the same reasons that I did.

My point is, that I would bet a significant number of private school and home schooled children are taught out of the public schools because of their parents stong objections to what the public schools are doing.

So, how many home-schooled kids and private schooled kids versus public school kids, I wonder ?

And how many moved out of the public schools this fall ? Was there a jump in response to this controversy...

November 07, 2005 9:06 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

My point is, that I would bet a significant number of private school and home schooled children are taught out of the public schools because of their parents stong objections to what the public schools are doing.

**************

It is not about sex ed for the largest number. It is about educationing children in the most challenging environment. Yes for religious but more on other. Even families who have children in special education put children in private....just as gifted kids...just as gen kids, etc..if they can.

It is certainly not all about the health curriculum because there is the opt out component to what mores folks like CRC are objecting to. Of course there are those who object to anything.

November 07, 2005 9:28 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Theresa said...

My point is, that I would bet a significant number of private school and home schooled children are taught out of the public schools because of their parents stong objections to what the public schools are doing.

November 07, 2005 10:10 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

My friends whose kids are in private school did it for religious reasons(not opposition to public school teaching but wanting a strong grounding in religious education)and for smaller class size. I also have friends whose kids are in private special ed schools like Kingsbury and Chelsea. Interestingly, I know kids who went topublic elementary, private middle schools and MCPS high schools. I cannot imagine with the opt-in process that anyone pulled their kids from school because of health ed alone. I don't think that is why Steve Fisher did it but it sounds good for his "cause". My daughter had a very good elementary experience and had a good HS experience- middle school was a disaster-7th and 8th grade. I personally blame the local school administration(principal) and we put her in private school for 9th grade. We should have put her in private school for 8th grade and then sent her back to MCPS for all of HS.

November 08, 2005 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is not about sex ed for the largest number. It is about educationing children in the most challenging environment."

This is where TTF fails. They don't favor challenging children with uncomfortable truths about homosexuality but instead want to present a liberal fairy tale version of truth.

November 08, 2005 11:18 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anonymous spouted: This is where TTF fails. They don't favor challenging children with uncomfortable truths about homosexuality but instead want to present a liberal fairy tale version of truth.
******************

A sex education curricula should be comprehensive and not about fairy tales of "ex-gays".

November 08, 2005 11:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A sex education curricula should be comprehensive and not about fairy tales of "ex-gays"."

Well, it might be nice not to mislead them about this "wonderful" lifestyle.

Everybody read today's Post, health section. It describes the crystal meth plague spreading through Washington's gay community and the $1 million the DC govt is spending to fight it.

November 08, 2005 1:09 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Are you now saying because they are homosexuals..they have to be drug addicts too?

Meth is a problem all over...city and rural... state to state and not just among homosexuals I might add.

November 08, 2005 2:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kay

You're drawing the same ignorant line of reasoning you always do. I didn't say all gays are drug addicts. I'm saying drug use is more common in the gay community and there's probably a good reason. It's another negative of that lifestyle kids should be aware of.

You usually say all these negative social aspects that are more common in the gay community are the result of society's stigmatization but this problem in DC is right in the Dupont Circle area where they would presumably feel most comfortable. There's something seriously unhealthy - emotionally- about homosexuality and the more accepted it's become the worse the problems have become.

November 08, 2005 3:23 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anonymous how ignorant is not signing your posts?

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

Then again folks like you that try to persuade others to believe that are part of the bigotry and hate thrown at gays and lesbians..in pretending it is a choice vs. an orientation and who they are.

November 08, 2005 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Then again folks like you that try to persuade others to believe that are part of the bigotry and hate thrown at gays and lesbians..in pretending it is a choice vs. an orientation and who they are."

Science has yet to find any evidence to support innate orientation.

The prevalence of negative social problems among gays is a fact. Before you start: no, generalizations don't apply to every individual but higher rates must have a cause. That's just straight out science.

November 08, 2005 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous how ignorant is not signing your posts?"

Not ignorant at all. Gay advocates have a long history of personal attacks on individuals who disagree with them. Look at the viciousness of the reaction whenever you hear Michele Turner's name. I have a family to protect.

November 08, 2005 3:50 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

...higher rates must have a cause. That's just straight out science.


No, that's not remotely scientific. A fluctuation in a system may be random, as in the case of Brownian motion, and it may be an emergent property of a complex system, where no cause can be identified. It happens every day.

JimK

November 08, 2005 3:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you think then that the fact that there is a drug epidemic among the Dupont Circle gay community and not among, say, the young hetero singles in Germantown is just a random coincidence?

Consistent correlation likely has a cause.

November 08, 2005 4:10 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, where I come from, "crank" was a drug for bikers. I think that has been the story for most of the time that meth has been around. The Hells' Angels were the biggest producers and marketers of the stuff, as well as users, and there were rivalries among the different biker groups over turf and resources etc. So you're not going to get much mileage by saying that it's a gay drug now. Different stuff goes through different communities at different times. So what?

JimK

November 08, 2005 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think your post answers itself.

November 08, 2005 4:33 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anoymous said:Look at the viciousness of the reaction whenever you hear Michele Turner's name

As head of Recall/CRC(a very public organization) that promotes bigotry and hate does she not expect those to hold her accountable on present statements and past ones?

Being challenged on statements is not anywhere near what you may be implying. She holds herself out there. She chose that.

She and Garza are not above sending out bogus threatening letters to others. We all know that.

November 08, 2005 4:50 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon, I just love your logic. Gays, even in Dupont Circle, have a crystal meth problem. Therefore, their drug addiction is caused by their homosexuality.

OK, let's assume your logic is valid. Here's mine: People in Oklahoma are predominantly heterosexual. People in Oklahoma have the highest rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births in the nation. Therefore, their lack of family values is caused by their heterosexuality.

Or another: People in Texas and Mississippi (we can agree that, like Oklahoma, these are red states and hotbeds of good ol' American heterosexuality) are straight. People in those states have the highest rates of illiteracy and the lowest levels of educational achievement in the country. Therefore, ignorance and stupidity is caused by heterosexuality.

November 08, 2005 5:14 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

Gosh, anon- have you checked out the use of X or coke among hetero singles in Germantown? how about their STD rate? Maybe how often they engage in anonymous sex? Do you know all about that?

And how typical of a nameless coward- claiming we would do anything to anyone. I would say there is a lot more right wing violence out there(Klan, Neo-nazis, clinic bombers, gay bashers).

November 08, 2005 7:43 PM  
Anonymous Marie said...

Do you people hear how you sound?? You defend anything and everything -- there is no middle ground for you, therefore there is no hope of ever meeting you anywhere in the middle. You have zero tolerance for anyone who espouses a different point of view and go out of you way to proclaim them 'hateful'and 'bigoted'. But keep on talking, because your true natures become more apparent the more you defend this stuff.

The Wash Post story named the Dupont Circle area a one that has a large gay population and said that gay men who use meth engage in very risky sexual behavior. Do you have a problem with the Post for saying that? It is a fact, you say you are so big on 'facts'. Do you hear yourselves defending even this most egregious form of sexual expression -- promiscuous unprotected sex through the night with many partners, while on crystal meth? You are defending this. Can't you see that this extreme position makes it very hard for people to agree with you? You are the extremists when you cannot admit that you just might agree with the CRC --who does not want this kind of sexual behavior made out as some kind of I have no-choice, this is how I am, get over it, normal and natural, no holds barred kind of stuff.

I do not want my children learning that risky sexual experimentation is acceptable. And a condom does not make it any less risky -- having sex through the night while on drugs with multiple partners even with a condom is NOT SAFE. You will go down defending this behavior as acceptable because you cannot in all honesty say that it is not right because then it becomes about CHOICES and of course, TTF says that none of this involves choice in the least bit. (Except when a teen becomes pregnant, then the only choice according to your friends at NARAL PRO CHOICE AMERICA is a trip to the abortion clinic.)

November 09, 2005 3:50 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Hello, Marie, and welcome to teachthefacts.org.

I'll tell you what I object to. I object to the implication that there is any kind of causal relationship between sexual orientation and drug abuse. In this case, we see a story in the Post about gay people using meth. Well, apparently they have a problem, I don't doubt the Post. But in previous years, as I noted, it was mostly bikers who used meth, and certainly we can link ethnic groups and subcultures with other drugs: Who uses crack? Who uses angel dust? Who uses ectsasy? Who drinks alcohol? Who abuses painkillers? Who sniffs glue? Who inhales poppers? (Ah, ya got me there!) Who snorts cocaine? Who smokes marijuana? Who shoots heroin?

Don't tell me -- you're going to these are problems of "gay people."

Some people here want to conclude that being gay makes you susceptible to such things as drug abuse. I don't know about the others, but for myself I see that as a crock.

Nobody here has defended "promiscuous unprotected sex through the night with many partners." In fact, the article in question only mentions that sort of thing indirectly, it does not imply that anyone on meth has "promiscuous unprotected sex through the night with many partners," unless I missed something. It does say that meth use increases the risk of catching AIDS, but ... what doesn't?

So Marie -- get off your high-horse. It is incredible that you have taken what people have said here, and twisted it to mean that they endorse high-risk sexual behaviors. Look back at what was said. Even better, go read the article. Your inference is way out in left field.

It appears, from this article, that meth is a problem right now in the gay community. OK, that is a problem that can be addressed, and several attempts are described in the story. But do you think that's the only community with a drug problem? How far is it from your house to the nearest liquor store? Is it going out of business? Ah, no? Do you think alcohol is ever involved in decisions to engage in risky sex? Do you think that ever happens in your neighborhood? Do you believe no one you know does that sort of thing?

Get off your high horse. Listen to what's being said and quit making stuff up.

JimK

November 09, 2005 4:17 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

In response to Marie's post, I agree with Jim's analysis. I do want to expand on it.

I strongly believe that promiscuous sex and illegal drug use is a hazard to participants' physical and mental well-being. The challenges we, as a society, face involve how to persuade and encourage people to act in more responsible, non-self-destructive ways.

The gay issue is fundamentally irrelevant to these very important challenges, except in one respect. To the extent we marginalize any group of people, we create environments that foster self-destructive behavior. To the extent previously-marginalized groups are welcomed into the mainstream of society, their members are more likely to act responsibly. That is why, for example, public policies that encourage people to form lasting, monogamous relationships are so vital to public (and individual) health. And that is why same-sex marriage ought to be encouraged, not forbidden.

Are we more likely to foster responsible behavior by “just saying NO,” or are we more likely to foster responsible behavior by honestly explaining the emotional and physical hazards involved in sexual activity outside of a committed relationship? I think most people believe the latter, and recent research suggests that the latter is more effective.

Are we more likely to foster responsible behavior and protect our children’s health by not explaining ways that people may lessen the physical risks of sexual intercourse, or are we more likely to foster responsible behavior and protect our children’s health by honestly discussing means of contraception and safer sex – information that most of our children will eventually need? Again, I think most people believe the latter, and recent research suggests that the latter is more effective.

MCPS has taken the latter approach. There are always ways that any curriculum may be improved, and discussion along those lines can be useful. Sadly, the public discourse in Montgomery County since CRC was launched has become a simplistic either/or debate.

Everything I have just written is, however, irrelevant to those who take the theological position that homosexual activity is per se sinful – like murder and thievery are sinful – and/or that contraception even within marriage is sinful.

As to contraception, my understanding is that in America only the Catholic Church takes the position that it is sinful – although polls demonstrate that most Catholics choose to disregard that teaching of the Church.

As to homosexual activity, we have seen in recent years huge disagreements both between and within different faith communities. That theological debate, of course, does not belong in our health education classes.

Just a few decades ago, there was a similar theological debate about racial segregation. That debate is over and, fortunately, the view that encouraged inclusiveness in our society prevailed. I predict that in the years to come, we will see a similar outcome regarding sexual orientation.

Last weekend, my wife and I were in Atlanta for a wedding. We took the opportunity to visit the Martin Luther King Historical Site. One of the exhibits noted that Dr. King had relied upon Bayard Rustin to manage the 1963 March on Washington. Rustin, as many of us know, was openly homosexual – and Dr. King resisted all entreaties to distance himself from Rustin. I suspect that is one of the reasons why Congressman John Lewis – the last surviving leader of the 1963 March – has always been so supportive of gay rights. John Lewis still speaks of fashioning a “beloved community,” in which all of us, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation may live in harmony and peace. And I believe that Dr. King was correct when he said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

November 09, 2005 5:43 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Hi, Marie,

Since I'm one of those you've attacked, I'd like to respond personally. I agree with Jim and David.

I have never said that promiscuity is a good thing. I don't believe it is. I never said unprotected sex is a good thing; I don't believe it is, either. That holds for hetero and homosexual sex.

I believe one chooses to be promiscuous or celibate, monogamous or multi-partnered. I do not believe that one chooses one's sexual orientation nor sexual identity. One can choose to defy it or ignore it, but one does not choose it. Bottom line -- one chooses one's behavior, not one's sexual identity or orientation.

I'd like to believe you're simply confused, because you are conflating behavioral choice with identity. If you insist on persisting with that false association, then indeed we have no common ground. If, however, you recognize that behavior is not the same as identity, and that risky sexual behavior is just that, risky sexual behavior, then you will find we will agree on much.

I can even admit that I agree with Ruth Jacobs, that anal sex is more dangerous than vaginal sex with respect to STIs. Not with respect to pregnancy, of course, but STIs. How's that for common ground?

November 09, 2005 10:22 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

I really object to the idea/ the suggestion/ the belief(!!) that TTF or MCPS thinks or would teach that anonymous sex with multiple partners is okay(yes, even with ten condoms- it is not okay). Get a grip, Marie- be honest about this. No one is defending drug use or the effects of it- we are saying that meth use is not limited to nor a hallmark of the gay population. How many times have we heard about every racial, religious, ethnic, even state population- oh, they drink, they use crack, they are cheap, they are dirty, they are stupid- when you claim it for a single group as being a hallmark of that group or a result of their identity is when you go from being rational and honest to bigotry.

November 10, 2005 10:11 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home