Ridiculous, disgusting, disturbing...how can anyone think that the state has more right to talk to my (hypothetical) child, about anything at all, than I do?

now, can you point me to a source without such an obvious political bias (or at least one with the opposite bias)

phrases like-

>>In other words, the 9th Circuit panel has come out wholesale in favor of Hillary Clinton’s Stalinist village

ruin your credibility.

kind of like someone on the left going on about our gas guzzling mass murdering president.

Further, the following statement

>>As far as I'm concerned, any administrator of any school district that would allow questions about these subjects to be asked of seven-year-old kids deserves to be arrested on general principles as a sex offender right along with the "researcher".

Is completely absurd. While some parents may not agree with the survey, I really can't see any proof that a child would be harmed in any way.

"kind of like someone on the left going on about our gas guzzling mass murdering president."

I'm guessing Um Yeah and the others will be along shortly.

In the mean time, you keep denying the obvious.

Admit nothing, deny everything and demand proof.

>>In the mean time, you keep denying the obvious.

sorry, but i don't consider anything obvious when it comes from the mouth of a politically biased source.

Mattk:

The 9th Circus, is the most overturned cout in the country. Even your communist brethern on the Suprimes have some standards, not much but some.

Bill

Ah yes, the old "I don't buy it" refutation.

Sorry, but i don't consider anything obvious when it comes from the mouth of a politically biased source.

Yeah...right....you buy every bullshit word coming out of sources with a certain "other" political bias.

How about WND? Nope, wrong political bias.

How about CSNNews? Nope, wrong bias.

How about straight from the 9th Circus themselves? You believe the direct source? Or are they too "biased" for you? Oh yeah....they have the "correct" bias, so yoiu should believe them.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

...and this: >>In other words, the 9th Circuit panel has come out wholesale in favor of Hillary Clinton’s Stalinist village

Is dead on, no matter how much you dismiss it without refutation.

"...and this: >>In other words, the 9th Circuit panel has come out wholesale in favor of Hillary Clinton’s Stalinist village

Is dead on, no matter how much you dismiss it without refutation."

Let me get a pen so i can write this down: it's not OK to compare republicans to Nazis, but it is OK to compare democrats to Stalin. Just want to get this straight for future reference.

As always Tom, it's much better if you can SHOW the truth. Stalinism is an interpretation of Marxist-Leninism and includes the whole "it takes a village" "the state is the authority and sorce of all" mentality shared by Hillary. I would have chosen to use the term "Masxist village", but "Stalinist Village" is the same damned "village", just put into reality. He took the words of Marx and Lenin and applied them to his governing style.

If you care to show that Republicans share the tenets of Naziism, I will care to show that you and UY (whenever he tries to come into this discussion with his obsession #3) are incorrect.

Who was it that wrote "It takes a Village", gleamed form her Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist thoughts again? You can put your pen down now.

Once again, a weak argument.

I'm someone in favor of abortion, but I agree with the conservative viewpoint that decisions like Roe v. Wade were not justified under current law. My proposal: change the law. But don't legislate from the bench.

Likewise, in this case, I would want to know the applicable law before I come to any conclusions about the decisions. Is this a case of bad judgement or bad law? I take no position on this until I have information about the law. But the argument is weak, unless you reject constructionism. Outrage over a decision should be confined to how the decision relates to the law, not its outcome. Since no such argument is being made, I assume that Steve is indifferent to the actual law.

OK, Bush share's the Nazi ideals of repeating propaganda to bludgeon people into seeing what you say as the truth. A great example of this is the Bush administrations repeated suggestions that Iraq and al-qaeda had a working relationship before the war and its guilt by association tactic of repeatedly invoking 9/11 when talking about the Iraqi threat.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Joseph Goebbels

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." G.W. Bush

Wow Tom....that's not only weak, but it has nothing to do with the tenets of the Nazi party. "Propaganda" is not a "Nazi-thing" or EVERY government and damned near EVERY politician would be a bunch of Nazis. Oh yeah, I forgot that the Democrat party doesn't use propaganda. It was a very clear 25 point program and you've provided a big fat zero in linking Bush to that platform. What you've provided is a tool used by members of every government in the world. Go on, ignore the Nazi party platform and run off at the fingers about propaganda.

What a lovely qualifier "working" is, isn't it?

Sarge,

Hillary took the the "it takes a village line" from an african proverb, which it meant express the sentiment that we all need to help look out for each other.

Sure, when speaking in terms of government, this would mean using taxpayers money to help the less fortunate in america.

But if federal social and medical programs are communist, then we and every other free market country, are communists.

Stalin exploited the people of Russia to instustrialize militarize the USSR. The poor suffered because of this. Clinton, right or wrong, is proposing to help those less fortunate.

So, basically, take your "the stalin comparison is dead on" and stick it up your ass.

Secondly, the third reich perfected propaganda, using fear and repitition of false propiganda to turn the nation of germany into a nazi state.

Bush co. has used fear and false proiganda to turn the USA into a nation that invades a nation that has not attacked us, not threatened, and did not have the capacity to threaten us if it wanted to attack.

Bush and company use the same methods as Nazis to hijack a great nation into abandoning its core values. Stalin

Stalin also killed tens of millions of his own People, but we're talking political ideology not human atrocities. I read "It Takes a Village" and it was Marxism at its best, straight from American academia. I wouldn't call western socialism "communist" and recognize the difference, but "It Takes a Village" had everything to do with Marxism and Stalin got his communist ideology from the teachings of Marx and Lenin.

Clinton "right or wrong" was teaching that the State is needed to raise a child in the manner that Marx-Lenin-Stalin used, philosophied, ideolized and put into action. So you can take your "shove it up your ass" and shove it up your ass.

You're right Tom, Bush is a Nazi regardless of whether or not he follows the 25 point Nazi Party platform. Somehow, Bush is a non-Nazi Nazi. The word you're looking for is "propagandist."

Continue with your inanities. You know....Bush is also Darth Vader....saw it over on the DU a few years ago.

So, sarge, you think Hillary Clinton wants to turn the US into a marxist state?

I'd say it's a little early for this thread to go so far off-topic.

But as for the "It takes a village" line, I don't see anything nefarious about that. It just means that the community has a role in a child's development. It can be widely applied to many situations, and I'm sure social conservatives would love to use it if Hillary hadn't. Calling Hillary "Stalinist" is just as bad as calling Bush a Nazi. It's a silly excess of rhetoric.

Steve has a lot of those flourishes in his posts; he can't seem to get through a sentence without consulting a thesaurus for new insults for leftists. When anyone writes like that in regards to ANY political ideology, I know they cannot be taken seriously. People like that are prisoners of ideology.

Can someone please respond to the on-topic point I made in my last comment? I think it was a good one so I'd hate to see it ignored. More importantly, I'd like to see if anyone knows the applicable laws, and can inform the rest of us.

Some Fella - It seems that this case is "so obvious" that it is not necessary to cite law or previous decisions.

Sarge, Cheney is Vader.

Bush is Jar Jar.

As I said in another thread. Sarge will support someone who will run this country into the ground and lie about a war, but he will not support a man that gives a hungry kid a bowl of oatmeal on his dime.

Some principles.

SF:

Hitlery is a Salinist. Under the Common Law, until Roosevelt, children were responciple to their parents for their behavior. A parent could and did, in my personal observation, put a kid in jail, State supervision, by the court on petition, if he was declared a wayward child. ( this was Mass In the '60's.)

The trouble with liberal scum bags, is that they want to hold the parent responcible rather than the child, poor innocent things. I grew up in a VERY Tough area.

If you deprive parents of the right to have supervision over their children in all of their activities, you are destroying the family.

Bill

"But as for the "It takes a village" line, I don't see anything nefarious about that."

If it takes a village to raise a child, that means it takes more then 2 parents can offer alone to raise a child.

If it takes more to raise a child then 2 parents can offer, that means parents are unqualified to raise thier children.

If the community is qualified to raise children, moreso then the parent, the choices in how children are raised as best made (for the sake of the child) by the community and not the parent.

That means when those silly inadequate parents disagree with thier neighbors on how to raise thier own children, the community knows better. It takes a community, 2 parents are good enough, the neighborhood is better.

Now your neighbors (your community) make choices on how you are suppose to raise your children.

Tell me, if you lived in Texas, how happy would you be that the community demands your children attend fundementalist Bible school, join a boyscout group that condemns homosexuality, learn how to shoot a firearm in 1st grade, and get beaten with a switch every time they cuss or badmouth the president?

That's silly though, you'll say. It is. That'll never happen, you say. Nope, it won't. Because the majority of people who support those things really don't give a rats ass how you raise your child, they are busy raising thier own.

Something far more realistic is something you probably wouldn't have a problem with. You take that same gun-toting god-loving Bush-supporting sexually regressive diciplinarian and move him (by virtue of his job perhaps) to San Meteo county.

The neighbor has no bloody business raising your children. If he tries, shoot him.

"sorry, but i don't consider anything obvious when it comes from the mouth of a politically biased source."

Mattk, I don't doubt you. If Rush Limbaugh said the Earth was round, you'd immediately begin to question it as right-wing spin.

>>Mattk, I don't doubt you. If Rush Limbaugh said the Earth was round, you'd immediately begin to question it as right-wing spin.

Actually, I like to get more than one source on almost any topic.

It helps filter out the Rush Limbaugh types.

>>If it takes more to raise a child then 2 parents can offer, that means parents are unqualified to raise thier children.

That is the most asinine A to B I have ever read.

>>If it takes a village to raise a child, that means it takes more then 2 parents can offer alone to raise a child.

get over it. unless you live a secluded life, the kids has contact with a number of people.

THE VILLAGE IS ALREADY RAISING YOUR CHILDREN!

GET OUT OF THE VILLAGE!

So, sarge, you think Hillary Clinton wants to turn the US into a marxist state?

No, Tom. She will never have the power to turn America into a Marxist state. She might "want" to add Marxist elements to the State, but that's the limit of her power.

Fella and matt. This isn't about a "law", for I don't think even California enacts laws concerning the specific content in public schools (that's what a school committee is for). This is about a "right" or a lack of a "right" As in, do parents have the right to know that their 7 yo children are being questioned on sexual matters? Do they have a right to not have their 7 yo children subjected to this sexual questioning. Evidently, the 9th Circus doesn't think they do. I disagree with their decision. If this was dealing with kids that are going through puberty, fine. But we're talking 7 yo children here.

YAY....UY said nothing again. Go work on figuring out another nothing post. Nope....no need. I see you've already done that. How about another nothing post?

That is the most asinine A to B I have ever read.

Take a logic course, moron. That A-B is fine. Oh yeah...UY doesn't get it, so it must not be logical. We've already established that you don't understand logic, dumbass.

get over it.

Good answer. People should just "get over" that which bothers them right down to their core beliefs. Yeah...just get over it. Typical...

unless you live a secluded life, the kids has contact with a number of people.

No shit Sherlock. BUT, it's not about your kids coming into contact with other kids or other cultures or other people. It's about who gets to decide "how" your kids are raised and whether or not it's a good thing to question a 7 yo kid about sexual matters that the 7yo kid has ZERO clue about. How about we let 7 yo kids be 7 fucking years old?

THE VILLAGE IS ALREADY RAISING YOUR CHILDREN!

No, the village is not raising the children...yet. Parents are raising children and parents SHOULD raise their children. Schools are not there for raising children or indoctrinating them in any manner. They're supposed to educate the children, something they're not doing so well on these days.

GET OUT OF THE VILLAGE!

Yes...this asinine statement follows the "just shut up" mentality that UY uses. How about we let the parents and legal guardians raise their kids, eh? Afterall, now parents are getting sued for the actions of their teenagers. So is it acceptable that parents get sued for the criminal actions of their children, yet it's acceptable that parents are not the ones raising the criminal in the first place?

If you deprive parents of the right to have supervision over their children in all of their activities, you are destroying the family.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree, especially if taken to the extreme. But the question is, who is to blame: the law, or the judges. Does anyone know? Geez, if you think I've got a point, just say so and stop dodging it. That goes for all of you who have carefully avoided saying anything about my argument so as to preserve your indignation for all things "Stalinist".

If it takes a village to raise a child, that means it takes more then 2 parents can offer alone to raise a child.

So I guess everyone should be homeschooled? You guys are taking everything to extremes. Whether you want it or not, the community has a role in raising children. I'm not talking about "Stalinist" mother states, I'm talking about how kids are influenced by their friends, teachers, neighbors, etc. Unless you're ALL living on some farm out in the middle of Montana, homeschooling your kids. In which case, I fear for their sanity.

You guys sure throw that word, Stalinist, around a lot. It really is equivalent of saying "Nazi", because Stalin was a very very bad man. To start with some expression of vestment of authority in the state and take it to this extreme of total authority of the state (and MASS executions) takes the air out of your arguments.

If you just confined yourself to the example at hand, I'm sure we can all agree that parents should be able to decide that their kids won't be exposed to explicit surveys and teaching. Gimme a break! It's so hyperbolic that it's clear to me you have no idea how silly you sound. Those red-eyed demonic democrats who would molest your children and execute you for non-PC speech are mostly in your imagination. I say mostly because if you look hard enough, you can always find a lunatic to be your straw man.

Hitlery (sic) is a Salinist.

One of the most breath-taking misconceptions of the right. Most people don't really understand the difference between right and left. Conservatism and liberalism both have their authoritarian and anti-authoritarian varieties. For example, conservatives have libertarians and facists, while liberals have anarchists and marxists. Most people don't really understand what facism means, either. They see one common feature between marxism and facism (strong state authority) and decide they must both be left wing (because they are BAD). Very facile thinking.

The fact is, these divisions into right-wing and left-wing become pointless the more you know about the broad scope of such things. I would say an anarchist has more in common with a libertarian than a marxist, although anarchists and marxists are both supposedly leftists. Those of you who think that, throughout time and space, conservatism has ALWAYS stood for "smaller government" are thinking wishfully. It may be the credo of the GOP in the US right now (if not the practice *ahem*), but that's a very local thing.

Get a hold of yourselves. It's just not necessary here to let your arguments slide down the slippery slope into totalitarianism. You don't know how ridiculous you sound when you throw around adjectives like "Stalinist". It REALLY is just as stupid as the "Nazi" label.

>>That A-B is fine.

Crackhead.

Other people help a child get through life all the time all through out history in every culture.

The fact that its not the greatest idea to do it REALLY alone, does not mean parents would be unfit to raise their kids.

Sarge is the most ignorant, drug addled dunce ive ever had to converse with.

You know, I find it amusing how people posting here that have no children are SO sure of how they feel about this. Wait til you do, you MAY change your mind, or maybe not if you're a really committed lib. The village is already raising your children you say? Nothing nefarious,you say? Just means that the community has a role in the childs' developement? O.K. What sort of a role? How intrusive should it be? Should a school[directed by the state], be able to make you show proof that your child has gone to the dentist that year, or said child can't go to school? What the hell business is it of theirs? Cavities are not contagious. Little by little, the "village" is taking away parents' true right in the raising of their children. That IS nefarious. Liberals just eat it up.

The fact that its not the greatest idea to do it REALLY alone, does not mean parents would be unfit to raise their kids.

Pre-cisely.

Sarge is the most ignorant, drug addled dunce ive ever had to converse with.

Haha oh c'mon! You're like Sarge's tar baby on every thread. It's almost erotic.

Some Fella, No. PARENTS are supposed to raise their children. Friends, etc., are an influence only. SCHOOLS are not to raise children, just to TEACH them their ABCS'. You say that we can all agree that parents can decide if their kids can be exposed to explicit teachings and surveys? Not according to the 9th circuit court. So they are "lunatics"? That is what this post is all about.

Lisa,

I think you missed the entire point of everything I said.

The point is, whether you want it or not, the "village" always has and always will have a role in how children are raised. Always. That's why the expression is an aphorism.

The point is, the ideological extremism that motivates you to make the idea that the community plays a role in one's development equivalent to totalitarianism is ridiculous. No one is defending giving dirty surveys to little girls, just the very innocuous "it takes a village" phrase. They're not the same.

The point is, we've strayed off-topic because we don't want to talk anymore about an indefensible idea. You repeat the trend of not taking up my argument against the original post.

The point is, I'm not a "committed lib" or a "lib" of any sort, and this sort of dogmatic ideological labelling is hurtful to intelligent conversation.

Not according to the 9th circuit court.

Or the law. Or do you know? Or do you care?

Sarge -

>>This isn't about a "law"

Oh really? Then what is it about? I was under the assumption that courts apply law.

>>This is about a "right" or a lack of a "right"

Hm...aren't our rights written down somewhere? Oh yeah, in LAWS.

>>People should just "get over" that which bothers them right down to their core beliefs.

Some people are similarly bothered by the teaching of evolution. So?

>>It's about who gets to decide "how" your kids are raised and whether or not it's a good thing to question a 7 yo kid about sexual matters that the 7yo kid has ZERO clue about. How about we let 7 yo kids be 7 fucking years old?

How a 7 year old will be harmed by questions they have "ZERO clue about"?

>>No, the village is not raising the children...yet

Is TV part of the village?

>>Schools are not there for raising children or indoctrinating them in any manner.

Of course not - because there is such a clear line between "raising" a child, and educating and socializing them.

>>They're supposed to educate the children, something they're not doing so well on these days.

Actually, they do just fine when the parents do some degree of parenting.

My mistake, Sarge did address my main point. Sorry I skimmed your comment, Sarge. I disagree with your argument, but at least you addressed it.

This isn't about a "law", for I don't think even California enacts laws concerning the specific content in public schools (that's what a school committee is for). This is about a "right" or a lack of a "right"

That's exactly true, but as mattk pointed out, we codify rights as laws. The court can only rule on laws. They should NOT "decide" what our rights are. They MUST base their rulings on laws.

"Can someone please respond to the on-topic point I made in my last comment? I think it was a good one so I'd hate to see it ignored. More importantly, I'd like to see if anyone knows the applicable laws, and can inform the rest of us."

SF, I'm usually not inclined to read more than a couple lines from a Dr. Bowers anti-iberal rant. I did this time and came up with nothing new. No credible links, and he has two topics going so I'm not sure which to approach. His interest in protecting the children doesn't seem as strong as his bent on the 9th being split. Maybe he's still looking for a slot for Harriett?

1) Did the 9th rule against the type of educational material the children would be taught? 2)Did they rule that parents couldn't dictate State/School dist. policy? i.e. We (the parents) are allowed to see all material before it's presented for/to the students.

In what I read, it seemed the school dist. was misled by those responsible for the survey, and they apologized. How many times did this (sex survey) occur?

The scariest part of the article is the notion that Steve's a parent.

Mattk, Are you really saying that "raising" and "socializing" are totally different things? Nothing to do with each other? And the school should be the "socializing" entity?

"Some Fella, No. PARENTS are supposed to raise their children. Friends, etc., are an influence only. SCHOOLS are not to raise children, just to TEACH them their ABCS'. You say that we can all agree that parents can decide if their kids can be exposed to explicit teachings and surveys? Not according to the 9th circuit court. So they are "lunatics"? That is what this post is all about."

Lisa, Where? Where do/did you get these ideas? Is this why you stay awake at night worring about your children?

To raise a child? What does this truly mean? When are they "raised? By whom? When does "raising" and "influence" become separated?

Russ,

I'm with you on Steve. The rants are a real turn-off. This is from someone who doesn't give a damn about either part or wing. I like to imagine that if people could step outside their adversarial mindset, they wouldn't be so quick to go along with him.

This is another page from the lab of Dr. Bowers.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/02/sex.survey.ap/

Steve, try again and be specific about your intent. Did you take the time to look at the lower court ruling? Just ran with the anti-lib rant again.

MY point that YOU seem to have missed is that the 9th circuit court said,"We conclude that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to PREVENT the schools from providing information on the subject in ANY FORUM or MANNER THEY SELECT." I was referring to that ruling when I posted. I don't agree that this survey and "It Takes a Village" are unrelated. The embracing of the "Village" notion is WHY you have these kinds of ridiculous school antics.

Lisa, I perfectly understand your point. But you KEEP missing mine. You disagree with them? You think there is such a constitutional right? Show me where it is. Doubtless it is in the same section as the "right to privacy." i.e. the section of laws which SHOULD exist but do not. Blame the legislature not the courts!

It is so frustrating that you can't follow this basic point. If they are wrong, and there is such a law, tell me what it is. So simple!

Russ, "raising" a child means the parents are the primary source for the socialization, nurturing, and education in life of that child. The 'outside world" is an influence, but is not suppossed to take over the parents' role. I am not unduly worried about my children. I worry about my daughter Tara because she lives in Philadelphia. Need I say more?

Some Fella, I don't miss your point about the constituion. Honest, I really do get it. Your posts are really good, I enjoy reading them.

Damn Lisa, you have a great way of making me feel bad for attacking you. It's very nice to hear that, especially from someone who disagrees with me.

I find it interesting, and intellectually honest of you Fella, to state that while you favor abortion, you agree that there is no right to privacy inherent in the Constitution. That is one thing that I like about you.

Lisa - Parents don't need a constitutional right in this instance. Its a much better idea to handle this at the local level. Obviously the parents attempted this and weren't happy with the results. If the local community agrees with them, changes will happen. If not, then the parents should take their kids out of public schools.

Well, Fella, I believe that you are someone that I could have a great debate with about "stuff", and still come away with a feeling of respect, thanks for your contribution here. O.K. enough of that! Back to the fight!!

Agreed mattk. but I believe there is no contest as to what most people would desire here. I want to know WHY the school gets away with claiming ignorance of what was in the survey, and also what was in the survey that they claim they thought was going to be given?

Lisa - Thats information that just hasn't been given in the posting. After all, Steve's main goal here is to speak out against the 9th circuit. I don't feel like digging for the info I should have been given.

Russ, "raising" a child means the parents are the primary source for the socialization, nurturing, and education in life of that child. The 'outside world" is an influence, but is not suppossed to take over the parents' role. I am not unduly worried about my children. I worry about my daughter Tara because she lives in Philadelphia. Need I say more?

Is the first sentence confirmation as to why conservatives have a narrow view of life? I couldn't pass that one up. :-)

Nuturing, well one out of three isn't bad. Yes the other two also and more. The basic necessities for their survival come first, then you pass on the skills you learned to your children and as they expand their boundaries the rest is out of your control. On topic...I want to know WHY the school....?

Ask Steve why he chose to give third-hand biased info? Is that the lesson you want your child exposed to? You want Steve or the school system to teach your child? Have you read anything about this other than what came from Steve? Parents do have a say and it's usually parents that are involved in their childs life that get a vote. The survey in question was stopped by parent protest three years ago. I haven't read how long it was conducted. It seems to be an isolated case.

"Hey little girl, do you think about sex a lot?"

This being the opening line; who's the perv?

UY still has nothing to say but lies. Good.

How a 7 year old will be harmed by questions they have "ZERO clue about"?

Who the fuck said a kid will be "harmed". This is the fucking problem with you "feel good" idiots. You think that anything should go so long as no 7yo is harmed. How about letting 7 yo kids be 7 yo kids, eh? It's not appropriate for a school system to ask their 7 yo kids about their sexual exploits.

You think there is such a constitutional right?

No, I like the Constitution kept as simple as it is/should-be but if the courts are gonna hold parents criminally and or civilly responsible for the delinquent actions of their children, as they frequently do, then the parents should have the right to raise those children in the manner in which they choose so long as those children are not adversely affected in a negligent manner.

who's the perv?

Those asking 7 yo children the questions on that survey in the name of "research".

>>It's not appropriate for a school system to ask their 7 yo kids about their sexual exploits.

Yes it is. It can reveal cases of sexual abuse that wouldn't have otherwise been prevented.

Nice leap of non-logic. That's not what's happening here, matt. They're not rooting out evil pedophiles. They're conducting a sex survey that had nothing to do with pedophilia using 7 yo children. DO come back to the real world.

so mattk, School has become a therapists' couch for kids being abused? Not what is it intended to be! Remember the 3Rs'? Wait, no, you are right. Out of all the seven year olds, there MIGHT have been one that was being abused, and gee, isn't that what SCHOOL is for? Correcting the ills of society, yes.

Sarge - You made an unqualified statement and I suggested an example where your statement wouldn't be true.

>>so mattk, School has become a therapists' couch for kids being abused?

Yes, Lisa, schools have a responsibility to make a report if they suspect abuse.

not what I said. It is not the schools' function to LOOK for it, where no suspicion exists.

Lisa:

The Suprimes have ruled on a number of occasions the raising Children is a fundimential right of the parents.

If s parent wants to send his kid to a Christian School, they are suprisingly good by the way, highest SATS in my City, Home school them, I know some people involved in the movement, if you want some pointers, ask Aaron for my email addy and I will send you a contact. If you want to teach them to shoot, my dad waited until I was 10, late comer, and yes I did live in Montana.

The school committee is your represenatives and they should represent you not the teachers unions, if you have a problem with those people raise hell and vote them out.

In fact if you have a problem with your local government raise hell and vote them out, you would be suprised what one man or one woman can accomplish by being a pain in the ass.

Bill

LB:

Proof reading is your friend.

LB

>>I find it amusing how people posting here that have no children are SO sure of how they feel about this.

I was a kid less than 100 years ago hag.

I and most of my friends growing up did not have a complete family.

We spent about as much time at school and being on sport teams as we did at home.

If it wasnt for my extended family my neighbors etc. I would probably be feral right now.

Bill, thanks, I actually did homeschool my daughter Caitlin. My son is still in the "system" because he has Autism/PDD which I am not equipped to handle. But, it is still intrusive! As to the Supreme Court, what were the cases, if I may ask?

Um Yeah, I can't believe you would leave yourself open with that last sentence. But, I won't do it.

An "unqualified statement"? This entire fucking thread qualified my statement. You know, the topic of this thread? Just because you wanna go off on a pedophilia red herring doesn't mean that what they did was right.

DO try to stay on topic.

Um Yeah, I can't believe you would leave yourself open with that last sentence. But, I won't do it.

I'd love UY if he wasn't such a prick to everyone here. He really doesn't care what anyone says, for the most part. He just likes to get conservative blood aboilin. Any opening he gives you is just an attempt to engage you in a battle that you can't win (because you care more than he does). He's a lot smarter than you give him credit for, and when he bothers, he can make a decent point. Which is almost never. There are a lot of times I want to LOL at what he says but I don't want to insult the target of his attack.

"Those asking 7 yo children the questions on that survey in the name of "research"."

Truth; you don't know what was asked, just an assumption. I was refering to Dr. Bowers comment and you can bet the question wasn't asked in that manner.

well, Fella, it is pretty hard to think of Um as "smart" given what he usually spews here. He NEVER gets my blood "aboilin" precisely BECAUSE of the silly, immature lines.

Has anyone read the court docs?

I like UY's posts because he doesn't bother dressing up his insults in incoherent political ramblings. Like the "liberals wear slutty t-shirts" thread.

>>and when he bothers, he can make a decent point.

When I am polite and make a good point, I either get ignored or Sarge says I said nothing, no matter what is actually said.

But I am 100% behind my previous statements about how Cons deserve scorn.

Lisa doesnt have a mind nor a soul, so I dont feel bad about her anyway.

Does anyone ever read her posts?

She is a drone.

Truth; you don't know what was asked, just an assumption

Truth, not only do you not know what I know...but what yoiu just said is incorrect as well. Yes, I have read the court document...I PROVIDED THE COURT DOCUMENT....AND THIS is in the court document:

The students were asked to rate the following:

8. Touching my private parts too much

17. Thinking about having sex

22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts

23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to

26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

34. Not trusting people because they might want sex

40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex

44. Having sex feelings in my body

47. Can’t stop thinking about sex

54. Getting upset when people talk about sex

See UY...everything you just said is irrelevant and full of lies.

When I am polite and make a good point, I either get ignored or Sarge says I said nothing, no matter what is actually said.

You are not and have never been "polite" on this site and have not made a "good point" that will stand up to even a cursory glance. Not since my day one here. Nothing but pathetic ad hominem trolling.

Truth, not only do you not know what I know...but what yoiu just said is incorrect as well. Yes, I have read the court document...I PROVIDED THE COURT DOCUMENT....AND THIS is in the court document:

Sarge, I stand corrected. I don't believe an apology is in order because I still believe you are unwilling to see the truth.

1) Your link was worded 9th "CIRCUS" I don't us a link unless it's in URL form.

2) I had read the court documents, and based on your posts, it was evident that you had not. After all, you do state your perfection at not straying from the written word.

3) In liberal math terms, and rounding to the nearest whole number, 10 questions (13%), of a 79 question survey does not a sex survey make.

When you twist something to portray it as it wasn't intended, for reasons anyone may guess, what kind of response do you expect. You're correct again, I don't know and I'm just guessing in hope of making sense of your posts.

The questions causing the uproar were asked because they are symptoms of abuse and trauma. I think the personnel responsible for the survey were amiss in not fully disclosing the survey intention. The test was administered to 7-10 yr. olds. When someone chooses to state 7 yr olds, it seems they are intentionally leaving something unsaid to skew a view.

unwilling to state the truth. in essense see.

Sarge is still upset that his first day I confused him with a different brain dead Bush supporter.

1) Your link was worded 9th "CIRCUS" I don't us a link unless it's in URL form.

Nice excuse. You DO know that you can right-click and check the properties and it will give you the URL don't you? No? Well, you are so informed and your lame excuse for not reading the court document is noted.

2) I had read the court documents, and based on your posts, it was evident that you had not. After all, you do state your perfection at not straying from the written word.

That's a baseless claim...and incorrect at that. Good job being as consistant as UY by constantly making baseless incorrect claims.

3) In liberal math terms, and rounding to the nearest whole number, 10 questions (13%), of a 79 question survey does not a sex survey make.

See Russ, this is called a red herring because it doesn't deal with the fact that the questions were there. The other questions are not relevant to that fact and that fact still stands. Nice non-logic.

When you twist something to portray it as it wasn't intended, for reasons anyone may guess, what kind of response do you expect. You're correct again, I don't know and I'm just guessing in hope of making sense of your posts.

I have twisted nothing and you don't understand my posts because you're a liberal and think differently than I do, but that's just an excuse, not a reason. You don't want to understand and you don't try to understand.

The questions causing the uproar were asked because they are symptoms of abuse and trauma.

That's an excuse after the fact, Russ. They never should have been there in the first place.

I think the personnel responsible for the survey were amiss in not fully disclosing the survey intention.

As do I...look, we agree on something....mark the date.

The test was administered to 7-10 yr. olds. When someone chooses to state 7 yr olds, it seems they are intentionally leaving something unsaid to skew a view.

This is called a straw-man Russ. Strawman becasue the fact that this survey was passed on to 7 year olds is still fully intact in every manner. I'm less bothered by 10 yo kids seeing this because they're much closer to puberty and some of them are going through puberty. However, that has nothing to do with them asking 7 yo kids, which is a still-standing fact, Russ. Using your non-logic, if they gave this survey only to 5 year olds and 15 year olds, it would be more "OK" because they DID question 15 year olds too. That's non-logic for ya Russ.

Sarge is still upset that his first day I confused him with a different brain dead Bush supporter.

Once again UY adds emotions where there are none. I'm not upset in any manner UY. I just know you for what you are...the asshole you have been since my day one here, from comment one here. AND no, it has nothing to do with you confusing me with another mythical "Sarge" out there. It's the fact that when I cleared up your pathetic confusion, you kept on lying about it. That made you an irrational lying sack of shit and every time you continue to lie even after the truth has been made evidently clear it continues to show that you are a lying sack of shit....and quite pathological.

Mythical?

"3) In liberal math terms, and rounding to the nearest whole number, 10 questions (13%), of a 79 question survey does not a sex survey make."

wow, Russ, I hope you know how horrible that makes you sound. Who cares if it was a "sex survey"??? The fact of the matter is, these questions were there. You're telling me you have no problem with someone asking a seven year old these questions?

And, to whoever said this isn't going to hurt the kids, I have news for you... Ask any child psychologist what introducing sexual terms and ideas before a child is ready for them can do. Not only that, you don't think it's up to the PARENTS when to teach their kids about sex?

Come on, I know you just want to prove Sarge wrong by throwing around numbers, but really, look at the issue from the perspective of a parent of one of these kids.

OK, to an extent I have to agree with Sarge, here. The issue is not the questionaire itself. It is the question of whether or not parents have authority to control their childrens' education, and if so, what are the means at their disposal. The ruling here said there was no legal basis for their suit, which was an attempt exert control over their education.

There are a few things I'm confused about. Was this suit an injunction, or were they suing for damages? An injunction would make more sense, although only in principle; the school already apologized and said they wouldn't do it again. Suing for damages of some kind seems pretty silly to me, at which point questions of how seriously these questions "damaged" the kids become more relevant.

The underlying issue remains: can parents dictate the specifics of their kids educations, and what are their means? I would say they obviously should be able to, but I can also see a reason for limits. When it gets to the point where demands for specific education of one kid are disruptive to the education of others, then the parents should be given the option of homeschool i.e. our way or the highway.

How would something like this be codified into law? I think it would be very hard to put something in the constitution unless it was very vaguely worded. I would say California law would be a more appropriate home for such measures. In which case, this is the responsibility of the legislature.

Of course, if such laws do exist, then the court has erred in judgement. Nobody has suggested that so far, and I suspect it is not the case. I can easily imagine such a gap existing in law. And the thing is, it probably won't be fixed anytime soon, because there isn't going to be the kind of demand from the street. Especially as long as people focus their indignation on the court, instead of where it belongs.

OK, just before I sent this out, I checked the CNN article, and caught this bit:

The parents had sought unspecified damages.

Sounds like suing for damages. How would anyone assign a dollar amount to this? Not to mention the fact that, as inappropriate as the questions seemed, I don't expect that the kids were traumatized in any way. This suit seems more frivolous now.

UY, would you just propose to Sarge and get it over with?

>>would you just propose to Sarge and get it over with?

He is the one who is obsessed about me.

And probably Tiny.

"wow, Russ, I hope you know how horrible that makes you sound. Who cares if it was a "sex survey"??? The fact of the matter is, these questions were there. You're telling me you have no problem with someone asking a seven year old these questions?"

Just how horrible does it make me sound DT? I have read and I have followed this. The article here isn't the first time I've seen or heard about the legal proceedings. I didn't need to read again to prove that Dr. Bowers was full of shit, because all of his topics are the same.

Do you understand the law? Read the court docs and I hope you get a better grasp of what transpired than Sarge did. In speaking of Sarge, since you brought it up; "I don't need to prove Sarge wrong, he does a pretty fair job of doing that himself."

Which is worse DT, talking about sex or having sex? In case you go blank, I'm talking about sex with a 7-10 year old (in keeping with topic here). Have you ever looked into the eyes of a parent whose child committed suicide? Committed suicide because they had been molested and there wasn't anyone who would listen. The parent was pre-occupied or in denial; "It just wouldn't/couldn't happen to my child." Now, pick a state, any state in the US where you think this might happen, or name one where you think it wouldn't happen. Are all parents like this? No, yet there are many like Steve, who think they are qualified to do the talking themselves. The problem is; they don't explain sex (good or bad) to the children, and they're not qualified to answer question. The penis becomes; "private parts." Hell, people all my bady parts are private!

So the parent is facing guilt over lack of communication with their child. They didn't listen to the child and they were to pre-occupied to be in touch with the aunt, uncle or neighbor who seem to have a special interest in their child. Twist this (since you choose to see things differently) Mommy or Daddy says; you cant' tell Mommy or Daddy because it will hurt them.

How anyone can turn this ruling into a topic and call it a sex survey escapes me????? Steve attempts to twist this into a liberal judge issue, it isn't.

When I asked; Who's the perv, it was a significant question, even if you failed to see it. Steve opened this article with; "Hey little girl, think about sex a lot?" In his blind obsession, he choose to ignore that the survey was given to boys and girls. That in itself isn't healthy thinking. Unhealthy because his view is limited. The questions were asked without the conotations applied by Steve. Maybe Steve isn't concerned about the children, since he spent most of his time running down the court.

FYI; The survey was dropped by the school district before the issue saw the doors of a courtroom. If the parents had true alturistic motives they wouldn't be asking for money.

"Nice leap of non-logic. That's not what's happening here, matt. They're not rooting out evil pedophiles. They're conducting a sex survey that had nothing to do with pedophilia using 7 yo children. DO come back to the real world."

Real world? Hopefully not the one you hibernate in. Raise your idiot flag a little higher. Even the parents involved in the lawsuit didn't call it a sex survey.

Mythical?

Yes...mythical. I didn't stutter or misspell it.

The ruling here said there was no legal basis for their suit, which was an attempt exert control over their education.

The ruling by a 3-judge panel in the most overturned Appelate court in the nation saw no legal basis for the suit. That doesn't mean the basis does not exist, just that 3 judges came to an understanding that it doesn't exist. Try this in a non-9th Circus court and you might find 3 judges that disagree.

Sounds like suing for damages. How would anyone assign a dollar amount to this? Not to mention the fact that, as inappropriate as the questions seemed, I don't expect that the kids were traumatized in any way. This suit seems more frivolous now.

I agree, there should be no damages sought, BUT that has nothing to do with the principle point of parents having a say in teh education of their children..or not having a say.

He is the one who is obsessed about me.

Day one UY. One comment by me and you've been lying about me ever since with a perfect record of lies.

"I don't need to prove Sarge wrong, he does a pretty fair job of doing that himself."

Yeah Russ. Visiting UY land again I see. Run along and hold his hand and skip on over to the DU and claim an empty victory over the Sarge. How about your inability to prove me wrong Russ? How about your inability to prove your ad hominem lying labels Russ?

No Russ, it's not about the lack of communication between a child and their parents. It's about the subject of sex and those lame questions being innapropriate for 7 year old children....and a parent having a say or not in what a school puts forth to their kids concerning touchy subject like sex and 7 year olds.

"The ruling by a 3-judge panel in the most overturned Appelate court in the nation saw no legal basis for the suit. That doesn't mean the basis does not exist, just that 3 judges came to an understanding that it doesn't exist. Try this in a non-9th Circus court and you might find 3 judges that disagree."

The 9th upheld th lower court. Address that.

I don't need to prove you wrong, look at the court ruling.

The parents do have a say in their childrens education. They could have opted out, they didn't.

Ten questions, not a sex survey and you still don't know what you're talking about.

In the context of abuse and trauma most teachers know more about the children than the parents. Including which parent the child spent the weekend with if the parents are divorced.

Rather than be Steve's lemming look at the article, court ruling, the other survey questions, the laws of the State of CA.

Ever wonder how Steve would react if the survey produced evidence of abuse by a pedophile?

When is it appropriate to ask the questions? Oh my GOD, after the fact!

I think we can all agree, I hope anyway, that if they were asking these questions for the "safety" of the children, they went about it in a very very horrible way.

When law enforcement questions a child suspected to have been molested, do you think they plop a paper in front of them with such poorly, bluntly worded questions??? Come on Russ, you know damn well that wasn't the motive behind this and I'm sure a lot more parents would have "Opted-out" if they had known there would be sexual questions asked of their 7 y/o.

On the other hand, as a parent myself, I would not allow my child to take place in any type of research or survey or however it was presenter. But, that's just me, some parents feel they're contributing to the good of society by letting their kids participate.

That doesn't mean the basis does not exist, just that 3 judges came to an understanding that it doesn't exist. Try this in a non-9th Circus court and you might find 3 judges that disagree.

Very hypothetical. If you want to challenge their ruling, you have to challenge their legal basis. You're saying it was the wrong ruling, right? Well, prove it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the right ruling, but then, I don't know the relevant laws. But then again, I'm not challenging it, or taking a strong position. As usual, I'm pointing out that others are rushing to judgement, at least in THIS courtroom.

You have two possible candidates for blame here: the court, and the laws. Why assume it is the court at fault? It's a lot easier to make an argument when you don't take a strong position on what you don't know. Of course, the strongest position of all is knowledge.

"And, to whoever said this isn't going to hurt the kids, I have news for you... Ask any child psychologist what introducing sexual terms and ideas before a child is ready for them can do. Not only that, you don't think it's up to the PARENTS when to teach their kids about sex?"

DT, I ask you; "what will any child psychologist say?" I don't think you can support this comment. I don't believe there was harm done by the questions. In the context of good vs bad, it's good. I don't think there was a remote chance of trauma caused by the questions. Do you have an example of a question that you consider harmful or inappropriate?

What exactly is bad, harmful or immoral about SEX? Why would a child think the word sex was bad, and how did they come to understand this.

In regard to the survey, the motive was stated. I see nothing to lead me to believe it was intended to be other than stated. I stated earlier that I believe the people directly responsible for the survey were amiss in how the letter to the parents was worded. It was clear that the survey focus was on behavior related to abuse and trauma. They might have worded "physical abuse, sexual abuse and trauma?"

Do you think it appropriate to give the survey and omit questions that pertain to sexual abuse? If you say yes, then I think the logic runs parallel to school officials not having a need to confirm dental check-ups.

I don't think you've done your homework on this topic, and you've allowed yourself to be led around by Steve. I hear you and others state; "it's the parents responsibility" and I agree in part. In many cases the parents "don't" take responsibility, and in the cases where they "do" they use logic such as what I read here. No I don't believe all parents are like PME parents.

hey russ, what exactly IS the "need" for school officials to confirm dental check-ups? Inappropiate question? ALL of them!!!

Lisa, you asking the question gives credence to the question.

A childs physical and mental health is important to their education. The questions asked are important to the child, yet not necessarily to the parent.

We shouldn't assume all children revieve the proper attention. Medical, dental and psychological care is available to children entering school. It's important that they recieve the care, and the school system is a means to ensure they do.

It never ceases to amaze me how conservative slip over the edge regarding a question that obviously does no harm, yet they are perfectly willing to allow the FBI to access (without knoweledge) the private records of their life.

Lisa, I don't assume that all parents try as hard as I do to ensure the best for their children. When they enrolled in school I provided the records requested. The requirement is for all children and it's beneficial to their education. A child in class with a toothache isn't able to concentrate on the lesson presented.

There's more good than evil in the world. Choosing a narrow view of the world and the people around you limits your joy.

Inappropriate question? ALL of them!!! All seventy nine? If so, why, the parents did agree.

Lisa, just agree to disagree. You know very little about this survey and you are making huge judgements. Follow Dr. Bowers over the edge.

The 9th upheld th lower court. Address that.

Simple, that's how the system works. If they still feel the need to pursue their case, they get to move on up to the USSC. You DO know how cases get to the USSC don't you?

Like you're the only one that's read the court ruling....

Address California law, address the lower court ruling then if you have a case, address the ruling of the 9th. Steve's focus (if on chooses to believe Steve has the ability to focus), is on berating the 9th, the school board, and the need to split the 9th. in order to facilitate more judicial appointments by "W", and his obsession with Senator Clinton.

The opening line in this topic is sick and reflective of Steve's thoughts. "Hey little girl, do you think about sex a lot?" was in no part reflective of this case.

You've hardly made a comment, other than the fact you disagree, that reflects the ruling of this court. That you choose to disagree is relevant only to you. So based on what comment should I assume that you read the court docs. The following comment reflects how little you know on the subject and is only reflective of your weak opinion, and how you try and twist facts to fit your "I'm always right" mentality.

"This is called a straw-man Russ. Strawman becasue the fact that this survey was passed on to 7 year olds is still fully intact in every manner. I'm less bothered by 10 yo kids seeing this because they're much closer to puberty and some of them are going through puberty. However, that has nothing to do with them asking 7 yo kids, which is a still-standing fact, Russ. Using your non-logic, if they gave this survey only to 5 year olds and 15 year olds, it would be more "OK" because they DID question 15 year olds too. That's non-logic for ya Russ.

Contrary to what you believe, the survey wasn't a sex survey. The survey was addressing the behaviors of children subjected to abuse and trauma. Nothing you have stated accurately reflects or relates to this case. Your lack of comfort in a 7 year old child being asked a question about sex is of little importance. Based on your logic, would you be more comfortable with a 10 year old being molested? I seriously doubt it.

For the record; how many topics has Steve written about abused, raped and murdered children?

When a survey is presented with the potential to expose the abuse or abuser, the most he is willing to offer is scorn. Where's the logic?

How many time have parents protested the release of a pedophile in their neighborhood. How many laws are in place restricting the convicted offender from residing near or being within a described distance of a school?

Do the children have a right to know why the parents protest, or the need for the laws, or would this be to uncomfortable for the adults? Where the logic?

I agree with you, Russ, I do find it ludicrous that anyone would think that this survey somehow hurt their kid. However, I have to admit that the real issue here is how much control parents have over their childs' educations. I believe that if a parent doesn't want their kid exposed to sex-ed or whatever, however ill-advised, then they should have this right.

Up to a point. Like I said, if their demands for their particular kids are going to disrupt the education of other kids in a significant way, then they should have to go through the usual process of getting involved in school politics. Could this be codified into law? I don't think it would be easy to get a precise wording, but it's worth a try. Maybe it already is, beats me.

This case is funny because parents were asked for permission first, and then the surveyors lied to the school and distributed a different questionaire. It was the school's responsibility, but then again by excessively assigning blame, we lead ourselves into this overly-bureaucratic culture of cover-your-ass, where lawnmowers have stickers that say "don't put your face in the blades, dumbass" to avoid lawsuits. The school should be more careful next time, handing out the questionaires themselves. Does everything need a lawsuit? I thought conservatives hated the lawsuit culture.

SF, It seems the survey in question was the same as the parents granted their permission. The parents are asking for damages and the basis for their suit is weak. They do have first rights, not exclusive rights. The federal and state laws governing requests for parental approval are vague.

Hmmmm, not sure what happend to the last post?

The laws governing the parental consent request forms are not specific in regard to detail and clarity. I believe the survey administrators were (as I stated earlier) amiss in their disclosure of subject matter in the survey. They were correct in disclosing the purpose of the survey. Citizens want the truth, yet they lie to get it.

Ten, of seventy nine questions refer to sex, and it's called a sex survey. "Sex", can we discuss a topic without really being clear about what we are discussing.

Sex questions asked of children are inappropriate, yet no reason as to why. The same questions are stated as harmful, yet no answer as to how. No one who's spoken out against the survey has been willing to support their comments.