Protest Warrior HQ

Thank you for your well thought out and well written reply.

Your welcome though it was a couple of six packs in the making...I would be dangerous sober.

1) You're right-the states pay for the bulk of publc school funding. So that brings up two issues:
a) Since the quality of education varies from state to state, indeed, from district to district-should the federal government then step in and take over completely so that it can ensure money is being distributed and spent evenly?

Not really, I don't see how the fed-co could do a better job other than creating more red tape. But that said, I do think that the federal govt can better utilize the oversight abilities of the dept of edu if they were to keep it around.

b) Should the federal government stop funding altogether and leave it completely up to the states? Why should I be paying for schools in a state of which I am not a resident?

I wouldn't mind if the govt disolved the dept of edu. It should be the responsibilty of the state and the parents anyhow. That said the fed-co gives so little that the negation of their contribution would have little affect on the education of our children.

2) While I mentioned "religion" in schools you felt it necessary to use it as an occassion to tear into Christianity and insult the religion and it's followers left and right, pausing just long enough to get in a little dig on the Jews Such behavior is indicative of people in the Left. Thousands upon thousands of Muslim fanatics are blowing up busses, flying planes into building, murdering school kids, but the only people you can find contempt for are the ones running soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Spew that much venom on Islam or Wicca or some other such more en vogue religion and watch your fellow Liberals tear you down like you were Rush Limbaugh. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple. Out of one side of your mouth you preach tolerance, while out of the other you're spitting on Christians.

I may have been a little venomous and for that I am sorry. It is not that I hate christians but more that I don't hear the wiccans, muslims, buddhists, hindus ect complaining that their religion is not represented in the school system. I do hear this complaint from christians and I do see them continuing to build these massive mini malls of god in the south and then default on the loans. While so many live in squalor or are completely homeless, these builds seem to fall short of godly in the christian sense when the money could be used for better purposes. But for that generalization I am sorry.

3) As for the Catholics and Protestants, we're all Christians. They are denominations of the same faith-not separate religions.

Say that in Ireland. And if this is the truth then why the need for denominations?

4) The tuition for perochial schools is not as outrageous as you may think. In fact I manage to send my daughter to one without breaking the bank. Why? Because that "holy facade" and "hard on for Jesus" that she attends provides tuition assistance to ensure that the flock can indeed get into the pasture.

This may be true in predominately catholic cities but it is far from the truth in other cities.

5) Please, someone show me a link to an article about kids being "forced" to pray in school.

Though I am not going to search around for cites of forced prayer other than the
Engel v. Vitale in 1962 which I didn't have to search for. I would suggest that you take note of the fact that prayer though not forced is already allowed in the public schools and protected by the 1st ammendment. All that I am asking is that children not be forced to pray. If they choose to do so then that is their right and there is the Equal Access Act of 1984 which allows them the right to form clubs for the purpose of prayer and religious pageantry.

-Kiamat Dusk
....remembers packing bags full of food at his church to deliver for free to people who didn't have any...

Good for you and you should note that those who us who abide left of the right do the same.

You state this as if it were a proven fact. I disagree. I think education, in terms of actual knowledge imparted, would markedly improve in the US without public education.

Average family currently spends $X(whatever it happens to be) on "education" as part of their taxes, leaving them little or nothing to spend on private education. Reduce their taxes by $X and all of a sudden, private education will flourish and develop everywhere. Already, we have things like Sylvan and Huntington Learning Centers and Hooked on Phonics, to make up for the fact that public schools are doing a terrible job of educating children, despite having tons of money thrown at them.

And if someone can't afford any private school at all for their child, then it's better to give them a direct tuition reimbursement on a private school than to put their child in an institution managed by the Government.

It is not the money that the government takes from us that hurts us the most (though that's not so great, either ). It is the management and control they have over our lives. Public school is where this all starts.

First off, private schools are already looked at as the best source of education in our country. All things being equal, most parents would choose to send their kids to private schools. How many politicians do you think have kids in public schools?

Completely privatizing the education system *would* make it "all about profits" as another poster pointed out-but that's not a bad thing. Competition would simply force schools to be better as they compete for students. This can only benefit students.

Secondly:
"I do hear this complaint from christians and I do see them continuing to build these massive mini malls of god in the south and then default on the loans. While so many live in squalor or are completely homeless, these builds seem to fall short of godly in the christian sense when the money could be used for better purposes.
Isis, I couldn't agree with you more. God never asked for big shiny churches-he asked us to take care of the poor. These groups seem more interested in self promotion than doing God's work. But, just as we must separate the minority radical, jihadist Muslims from the peaceful, law abiding majority, so must we separate the Sunday Christians from the rest. Christianity the religion is not to blame for the acts of some of it's so-called "believers". My own church is the Salvation Army (yes, it *is* a church and was one long before it was a philanthropic organization). Salvation Army churches are always located in the worst parts of town specifically to be of service to those most in need. The churches are not large, glittery affairs, but simple buildings not easily recognizable as churches. We run soup kitchens but NEVER make listening to a sermon a condition of getting a hot meal or ANY service from the church. We believe in conversion by example not by force.
*steps down from his soap box*
"Good for you and you should note that those who us who abide left of the right do the same." Indeed. As much as I give Hollywood a hard time, there are many in Hollywood who do truly great works of charity and they should be recognized for that.

Third...
On sex ed. I agree that, if it is just a simple biology lesson on human reproduction, there should be no issue. But that is not that cases where people want to teach fellatio as an alternative to intercourse. Or discussing the pros and cons of anal sex. As for abstinance, why shouldn't it be taught? It is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs. Also, the fact is, sex produces children. Not always, but that is what the act is designed for. How many HS kids do you know who are truly prepared financially , emotionally, or physically for a child? Abstinance *is* the best choice. But, again, if it is only a biology lesson these issues shouldn't even be approached. This is the domain of the parent.


-Kiamat Dusk
Father of 4

Excuse me?

Teenagers are going to shag. There is no two ways about it - no matter how many millions of dollars are pumped into abstinence education, the teens are going to be pumping into each other. As this is an inevitability, shouldn't we be teaching them safer ways of satisfying their sky-high sex drives such as oral sex, and intercourse with condoms, rather than telling them not to do it and letting them find out the hard way?

Perhaps because absitenence only programs don't work...
http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7490040

I'm willing to bet if uptight politicians and islamic extremists were laid more often, we wouldn't be at war right now.

So very true but finding someone to do the deed would cost a pretty penny.

Ah, see, if they had been raised to believe that sex can be a nice thing and been tought how to be responsible about it, they'd have come up much nicer people and they'd be able to score a lot easier.

Again, if it is just a simple class on the mechanics of human reproduction-I'm fine with that. However, when it gets into a how-to on oral and anal sex, I draw the line. Abstinance or not, and the various vageries of sex are the realm of the parent.

I find it terribly hypocritical that you Lefties get all outraged about people on the Right shoving their religion down your childrens' throats, but you have no problem shoving your sexual views down our children's throats.

-Kiamat Dusk
Concerned parent

I have no doubt that the vast majority of people (including myself) would agree with you on that, with the only possible exception being in regards to transmission of disease. Please provide evidence that how-to's for anal and oral sex are being taught in sex ed classes anywhere in the country.

And most parents sadly won't touch the subject. =(

And kids, when they need the coaching most, are too embarassed to talk about it with peers - because for years they've been tought sex = sin.

It's quite a hole we've dug ourselves into. I don't see a ready solution... teaching mechanics is tough to do without discussing responsibilities (not morals, two different things) - maybe directly mailing parents materials that they can opt to teach, or have their child return a signed "We will teach this at home" slip?

whoa there buddy. If you remember correctly, I already stated that I am against the how to put a rubber on a banana using only your mouth sorta class. I don't really see the need for a seperate sex ed class outside of the health classes offered to the gen pop kids. I do believe that some parents have neglected to raise their children in healthy sexual environs. I see it everyday, 15 year old girls hooched out like 32nd street hookers with skirts up to their bums and more cleavage than Anna Nicole post trim spa, hanging out with a group of guy "friends" with mom and dad's permission. That is not the schools problem though, it is the parents problem. The schools are doing the best they can because so many parents have shirked the responsibility. With the number of teen pregnancies and STD's in the US you have to admit that there is a problem; the solution I do not have.

Isis,

1. I do remember correctly which is why I said "if it's a simple class on the mechanics of human reproduction-I am for it." I agree with you 100%

2. While I believe anything beyond that should be left up to the parents, I agree as well that many parents are not doing their jobs. Still, it doesn't need to come into the school. I mean, really-do we want the government teaching our kids about sex? (this question wasn't pointed at you, Isis, as we both agree that we don't.)

3. How about this for a middle ground? Kids should have to read the entire "What To Expect..." series. *That* oughta give the girls at least something to think about.

-Kiamat Dusk

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1998/10/25/loc_sexed25.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0%2C6903%2C1212734%2C00.html
(not our country, granted, but it goes to the point)
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=15218
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/apr01/sex11041001.asp


-Kiamat Dusk
'nuff said

From your links...

"considering broadening the sex education curriculum to include discussions of oral and anal sex, prompted by concerns that some students believe these acts do not "pose any health risks and are not ... sex acts at all""

"Starting next year, district planners are recommending that older middle school students be instructed that oral and anal sex are sexual contact - same as intercourse - and carry the same disciplinary sanctions with police and school officials. "Some of the adolescent population thinks oral sex is no different than kissing," explained Rosalynn Kiefer, director of curriculum and instruction"

In that context talking about anal and oral sex and their consequences sounds like a good idea to me, and is in no way advocating those practices or demonstrating them! So, you failed to provide any evidence of "how to's" being taught in sex ed anywhere in this country. The examples you posted in no way equate to liberals "shoving your sexual views down our children's throats."

I could make a joke about things being shoved down throats, but I post from an academic ISP, so I shall refrain.

What exactly is wrong about teaching these teenagers (not children!) what they're going to learn somehow anyway. Kiamat, would you rather they learned it in a safe environment in school, or decided to have a curious look around the internet one day? Or worse, tried it out for themselves without knowing the risks involved? I refer you to my previous point - young people have high sex drives and are going to do it whatever happens.

Pay attention to the Left long enough and one thing becomes abundantly and annoyingly clear-they are hypocrites of the first order. To say that they are divorced from the truth would be to insinuate that they ever had a relationship with it and that is clearly not the case. Liberalism has become like a religion in this country so, like the zealots they are, they cling tenaciously to their beliefs suffering no dissent.

Don't believe me? Of course you don't. So here are some examples:

Freedom of Speech...

You cannot get together in downtown Manhattan with 80,000 of your closest friends and protest the incumbent president during his National Convention nor his Inaugaration in the nation's capital.....AND SAY THAT HE IS RAPING YOU OF YOUR FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS!!!

...or at least you can't and then expect to be taken seriously.

Honestly, doesn't it even seem a *little* bit odd to say in an internet forum such as this that your freedom of speech is being trampled!?


You want to talk about trampling of freedom of speech, try talking to the pro-democracy students in Tiananmen Square. Oh, wait-the ones who weren't slaughtered by the Chinese military are in prison.

Well maybe you could talk to some of the pro-democracy protestors in Burma. Oops-most of them are dead, too. The Burmese army opened fire on them, then rounded up the dead and wounded and buried or cremated them-yes, the wounded, too.

Funny thing-I don't recall seeing a single tank in NY or DC.

Think you got it bad on the internet? Again, try talking to someone from Mainland China. Try sending them a link to CNN.com or BBCNews.com...guess what-they can't see it. The Party's firewalls make sure of that.

You also can't run around screaming about the suppression of your First Ammendment Rights then go around throwing pies and salad dressing at people when they present a differing point of view.

You ESPECIALLY can't do it and then turn around and defend the rights of a man who says of the 9/11 WTC victims "As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. "

Pot...
You cannot go around espousing the virtues of pot smoking because it's "natural" and "just a leaf", then turn around and condemn the smokers of another natural leaf-ie tobacco. While tobacco smokers are pushed out into the elements or consigned to plexi-glass cages so passers-by can point and stare, the Hollywood Left regails us with comedic tales of happy pot smokers ala "Harold and Kumar" as if to say "See? Smoking pot is fun! No harm here!". But if you think that smoking a filtered cigarette causes lung cancer, just think about what smoking unfiltered pot is doing to your body. But then, when you're high, who cares? Think about that movie or any of the Cheech and Chong movies....now subsitute the joints for cigarettes. Still as funny?

Abortion...
You cannot say that a woman has the right to kill her unborn child while hiding behind the excuse "who's to say when life begins?" and then turn around and demand proof "beyond a shadow of doubt" before the execution of a convicted murderer...annnnnnd then turn around and protest against said death sentence anyway.
Why do we demand more evidence before taking the life of a convicted murderer than we do an innocent baby?
Moreover...you cannot tell Jane that she needn't get consent from John before murdering their unborn child because Jane isn't yet ready for the responsibility, then turn around and tell John that he's got to pay child support for the next 18 years if Jane wants to have the child and *John* doesn't feel ready for the responsibility then claim "it takes two to tango".
If it takes two to tango, then John should have a say in the abortion.

Now, of course, in this country we *do* have freedom of speech so you on the Left can say these things if you want....the problem is, you talk out of both sides of your mouth and then expect to be taken seriously.

And the backlash has already begun. The LA Times has seen the most precipitous drop in its circulation ever. Meanwhile the NY Times has pledged to restrict its editorializing to the editorial pages and PBS' new head has vowed to make the channel's programming more balanced.

If the truth hurt, then the Liberals might have something to cry about.


-Kiamat Dusk
100% Flame Proof

Wow, it took you 3 months to come up with that? I feel compelled to read it because of the obvious effort involved, but nah.

Crimeny jeez, panda! Does Einstien know you're breaking his laws? That's been posted-what-2 seconds!? Did you fold space time or something? Does NASA know about you?

-Kiamat Dusk
..almost impressed.

I am just a hypocritical liberal destroying the time-space continuim.

For the part I read, he makes a good point about Pot (ASSUMING that the people who want to legalize it ARE going after tobacco companies as well.) Both are things that "liberals" generally speaking do but I suspect there is some disagreement among liberals regarding the two. If there isn't, then Kiamat's point is 100% correct. But this is why generalizations are EVIL.

Although the abortion issue could be turned right around to show that conservatives are being hypocritical too. BOTH sides are being inconsistent, unless you want to argue that capital punishment and abortion are very different.

I do! I do!!! Lemme summarize:

Abortion: Taking of innocent life....for CONTRACEPTION!
Capital Punishment: Taking of guilty, convicted-by-a-jury-of-his-peers. had-his-chance-and-blew-it, committed-hienous-crime-against-another-person life.

See the difference?

Killing a baby. Killing John Wayne Gacey. Very different.


-Kiamat Dusk
Guns don't kill people; abortion clinics kill people.

Good point, I'll let someone more to my left argue with it if they like (probably most of the forum, so...), since I don't disagree with it...

Us vs. Them! Us vs. Them! They're evil! We're not! God likes us best! Blah blah blah. *yawn*

Anyone who uses the word liberal as if it were a swearword tends to pin the needle on my bigot detector causing me to tune them out completely.

That's two Second Left luminaries ho-humming rather than bothering to remark. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

And 'bigot' is usually the first word to spring to the Liberal mouth when they don't have a leg-or a soapbox-to stand on.

-Kiamat Dusk
McCarthy was right about the commies.