Comment by Apollyon

Outrage doesn’t even describe what I felt reading this. I live in this fucking banana republic of demented hippies and depraved socialists called California. I would probably beat the shit of the teacher to the point just under death if this was done to my child. I’m not interested in lawsuits; they’re going to literally feel my rage. Then I would hunt down the principal and drag him/her by the hair naked while repeatedly kicking them in the face and teeth. Then I would chain this toothless dreg to a tree by a major street and with a permanent marker write on their naked beaten body: “This liberal piece of shit taught first grade children about sex and asked if they thought about touching other people’s private parts.”

The parents that brought the lawsuit obviously should have won. The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is the most overturned court in the land. It should be bombed. Also Ahhnolds many initiatives, especially the tenure one, are critical.

Californians:

YES on73
YES on74
YES on75
YES on76
YES on77

FUCK THE SOCIALIST PIGS!!!!

Comment by JakeTheSnake

It’s for exactly this reason that I homeschool my son. He got one year of gubmint indoctrination. Kindergarten. That’s it. They start working on your kids the second you hand them over to them. What’s yours is not yours, but everyone’s. That kind of crap. I pulled him out 4 years ago and started homeschooling him. He’s now 9, reading at high school level. And, is studying computer animation, along with his regular curriculum. I highly recommend it. Public schools today aint what they used to be when we were younger.

Comment by Rowane

Judge. Rope. Tree.

Haha, I’d rather see a lot of cases of Judge…crosshairs…fire.

If it keeps going like this I predict that this will start happening soon, either that or a lot of teachers buying the farm from interfering with a family’s moral structure.

Comment by NewMexican

This is…this is so far beyond the pale I don’t have a word for it.

This is dancing on the line between “time to work within the system” and “time to start shooting people”.

If anyone involved in this decision ever sleeps again, it can only be credited to the seemingly unlimited stupidity of leftists. I’m neither a parent nor a Californian, and I’m tempted to take a knife for a very brief discussion with each of them.

Comment by LC Sterm26

I printed this out to show my co-workers….a bunch of apolitcal drones…and they didn’t understand my outrage. I try to be an optimist, but today I fear for America.

I’ve seen on some righty blogs that this decision, while repugnant, is actually “constitutional”. This is why I bang my head against the wall almost every night. I’m forced by circumstance to send my daughter to public school, but I do my damdest to make sure that she’s not indoctrinated…the 9th Circuit just said that my efforts are unconstitutional.

THIS is why we need “right wing” justices on the Supreme Court.

Comment by NewMexican

“…You are also implying that men can’t be trusted to be virtuous, that their personal behavior is the result of their genital equipment. Tell me, why aren’t you ticked off at men who drop their pants for bimbos and sluts? Aren’t these men sluts and bimbos too?…
Comment by LCkschlenker — November 4, 2005 @ 3:32 am”

I read that post not so much as absolving men of responsibility for their actions as stating that long-term, the womens’ choices will have more impact on the actions of the next generation.

The assumption behind it is that virtuous women inspire men to be virtuous, but not vice-versa. If this is true, if a disporportionally large number of men behave virtuously, they suffer for it whereas a change in the porportion of virtuous women does not hurt them, since the men will respond to meet the need. This in turn would tend to make any efforts to improve “men” as a whole self-limiting, since the more men changed the less chance there would be for any particular virtuous male to find a partner, and simultaneously the greater the chances would be that a non-virtuous male would be able to find a partner or partners. This doesn’t absolve any given individual of responsibility, but it would mean that women had a greater effect on long-term morality in a culture as a whole.

I’m not sure I agree with that assumption in the absolute sense. In our time and culture, I would say that because young women are taught that any virtuous male is actually a controling chauvanist whose actions somehow violate all womens’ freedom there is some validity, but I don’t know that the principle would apply without the femenist pressures for women to reject the virtuous philosophy, so to speak.

Comment by purrfect_mamma

To brnko,

To some extent, we are all limited by our biology and to that extent you have a point.

But we are attempting to be civilized, not animals. Therefore, we must each be responsible for our actions.

I went to high school when the responsibility for virtue WAS the girl’s responsibility. The upshot was that boys wanted to date bad girls and wanted to marry good girls. And girls were warned not to put out because boys would not buy the cow if the milk was free. But even though she was the same tender age as her boyfriend, it was forgiven for him to pressure her to have sex but not okay for her to give in. And if she got pregnant, it was her problem, she was the slut. The boy was rarely punished, but if he was, the punishment was he had to marry the cow. And boys could date the bad girls and then when they were ready to marry, could marry a good girl and be washed clean. While a bad girl generally was considered a bad girl forever.

The solution is to teach girls respect for themselves. That sexuality is a gift to girls as well as to boys (as opposed to the cute but trite idea that a girl’s virginity is a present to her husband on their wedding night), but that gift has a purpose and should not taken for granted or abused. That girls have a right to self-determination as well as boys, but that having children too early and without a husband will limit their choices and make it very difficult to achieve their dreams.

Boys need to be taught the same thing. They also need to be taught that women are not sex objects but are people in the world just like boys. Some of the women they meet may be girlfriends or lovers and probably one of them will be their wife. The rest will be friends, co-workers, neighbors, whatever, but they are not pleasure objects created for men’s amusement and boys who flock to the bad girls are just as bad as the girls.

Comment by NewMexican

“Boys need to be taught the same thing. They also need to be taught that women are not sex objects but are people in the world just like boys. Some of the women they meet may be girlfriends or lovers and probably one of them will be their wife. The rest will be friends, co-workers, neighbors, whatever, but they are not pleasure objects created for men’s amusement and boys who flock to the bad girls are just as bad as the girls.

Comment by purrfect_mamma — November 4, 2005 @ 5:31 am”

The problem with that is that it’s exactly the same line that feminists use now. It’s used as an excuse for “sexual liberation”, and the result is that it’s now meaningless. Guys look at who’s whining about the objectification of women and put that saying in the mental file marked “hypocritical bullshit”. The only acknowledgement this kind of statment gets now is from guys who decide that it’s worth playing along with the bullshit to get laid, which isn’t exactly the response you have in mind if your goal was actually to foster respect between men and women.

Once that happens, the only “cure” is women worthy of respect. And, as brnko said, not so many women seem to be stepping up. I mean, for fuck’s sake, Oprah is actually considered a role model for women. How sad is that?

Comment by LC Gutshot

This is getting so repetitive. What is it going to take for our elected representation to grow some cherries and excise this cancerous blob from our country?

The author of that rejection, Stephen Reinhardt, has an interesting history. Not only does he find ways to use the “right to privacy” only when convenient to his own agenda, he finds ways to strike down absolute rights defined in the Bill of Rights, for instance, the 2nd Amendment

Sorry Misha, no matter how fulfilling a lynching would be, I’d rather see him suffer more. I think he should be tied to a tree, while the Bible is read to him verse-by-verse. For a liberal, that would be the highest form of torture imaginable!

OK, you want to see a hanging…we’ll let you do it after the Bible reading. We’ll call you when we start Revelation.

Comment by TexanPatriot78

OK, here’s my take on this freakshow ruling by the courts. It comes down to standards and how liberals want none but their own.

Here’s my FISKING of the 9th Jerkit Court of Shlameels.

LET’S TALK ABOUT SEX, BUT NOT WITH PARENTS
LINK: http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/11/2/22125/7274

“There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has previously ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, has again thrust a dagger into the heart of the American way of life — and has this time attacked the very institution which has kept the foundation of this country secure — the family.

Well, the Ninth Jerkit Court of Shlameels, or Circus Court is at it again. When do they not hear a controversial and loaded case? But, for once, it’s not ruling against God and Country. This one is targeted at your kids….

Fields v. Palmdale School Dist., — F.3d– (9th Cir. 2005), was decided today by the court. In that case, parents sued the Palmdale School District for giving a survey, which included ten questions of a sexual nature, to students between the ages of seven and ten.
The School District sent a note home to parents asking for parental consent to engage their children in a survey of early trauma. The survey was prepared by Kristi Seymour, a volunteer “mental health counselor” at Mesquite Elementary School while she was enrolled in a master’s degree program at the California School of Professional Psychology. The School District, collaborating with the School of Psychology and Seymour, developed and administered the questionnaire to first, third, and fifth grade students. While parents were informed that the survey would cover “baseline . . . exposure to early trauma (for example, violence),” it specifically did not mention sex. In fact, the survey asked seven year olds to “rate the following activities” among which were these:
Read on . . .

Nov 2nd, 2005: 22:01:25
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

Seven year olds were asked these questions.

Seven year olds? Frickin seven year olds? OK, in junior high, it’s time for THE TALK, but seven? WTF are these liberals thinking? Don’t kids get confused enough without introducing graphic terms and questions about sex? And what if some of the kids had been molested? Ready to open that can of worms?

Another reason why the state ought not to play nanny with our kids. I’d sooner trust that British nanny with the kid shaking perclivity over these idiots. And this ruling, is from the Board and School District. I do wonder which promiscous or twisted liberal parent thought this was a good idea.

OK, in Kindergarten Cop, a kid said; “Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.” That was funny at the time, but like then, Arnie is not laughing. Many parents are not laughing. And I don’t blame them. Shall we let the teachers explain intercourse and mid-coitis to der kinder also?

The parents of the children learned of the survey questions when their children started telling them about the survey. Horrified, the parents complained to the school, arguing that had they know the true nature of the survey, they would have never offered their consent.

You’d be pissed off also, but the state would never admit fault. They’re perfect, right? (chuckling)

The school district rebuffed the parents, and the parents sued.

About time the parents woke up and did something. And who does the school board think it is? True, we entrust bureaucrats to make teachers play second parent. But when that trust is breached, there is a time and place for reform or cleaning house in the education system. Where was the ACLU for the parents, this time? People for the American Way? No comment, again….

The trial court rejected the parents arguments and today, in stunning language, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the rejection.

What a shock, the Marxist Kangaroo Court ruled for the state. This is the same court that ruled against the Pledge of Allegiance, One Nation Under God, protects terrorists, cop killers, and pedophiles. What a fine bunch Clinton appointed in his tenure….

In fact, the Ninth Circuit, in its opinion stated
The district court dismissed the federal causes of action

“for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the state claims without prejudice to their right to re-file in state court. We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. “

Translated: We’re taking over and there’s nothing you can do about it. We don’t want em to say God, we don’t want patriotism, and we want the state to educate them on sex and other private acts of intimacy……

“We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.”

Translated: If we want to, we reject your rights. Granted, you birthed and are raising the kids, but they are ours now. And you may not challenge your own school board, which you voted for in the elections. You cannot change it, since you the people are under us, the mighty court.

Son of Jor-El, kneel before Zod! Says the court. Snootchie Bootchies! Hehehe. Bunch of Potheads…..

Interestingly, while the court ruled that parents have no “right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which children might be exposed,” the public schools, according to the Ninth Circuit, can only expose children to sex. Exposing children to prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance would indoctrinate the children unfairly.

OK, it’s fine to make kids learn what fellatio, reacharound, and other weird crap is, but they cannot say ONE NATION UNDER G-D! What the fuck is wrong with these shitbags? Are they so stupid and so callous to throw a blatant double standard and think we WILL NOT challenge it?

More hypocrisy. It’s fine to expose them to sex and weirdo behavior, but God forbid we let them see or talk about God, or patriotism. Idiots. Roland Freisler and Judge Vishinsky would be proud of these kangaroo socialist judges. Rubber stamps for the time warp stuck hippies and rapists of this country.

Indoctrinate unfairly? So Christian and conservative Orthodox kids ought to be “fairly exposed” to homosexuality which goes against their own private families and religious teaching? Well, these morons on the 9th Circus will run out of steam, and will push their luck one time too many…..

As a legal matter, the case was most likely rightly decided based on the law. But, we should all be outraged at the lack of respect the Ninth Circuit showed to parents — who should be the the only party introducing seven year olds to issues of sex. As Neodanite said, if the town pervert had grilled the seven year olds on masturbation, it would have been a crime. In the same way, I can hardly imagine the Ninth Circuit upholding a law that would give parents the exclusive right to education their children about sex. And that is just not right.

Bravo on the article, RedState.Org. And to rip off George Clooney and retake an honest love of America phrase, Good Luck America, and Good Night…..

And to read the moonbats justification of this BS, click here…..

Angry Young Conservatives…..

Comment by Skank

And this is the reason I foot half the bill for my niece to go to private school. If I could get a job that pays half as good I would get the hell out of California for good. My son went to public school as I didn’t have this job when he was growing up, lucky he was and seems to be resistant to there crap I don’t know how or why but he did good. I thank G-d for that.

Comment by Emperor Palpatine

Judge. Rope. Tree.

Some assembly required.

And it’s loooooong overdue.

Heh.

And HOW true

Comment by juandos

Well there is always that old standby, Parochial School…

Comment by brnko

Alright - first of all, LCkschlenker, I do not believe that we fundamentally disagree. I believe you misunderstood my point (which may be my fault). I am not blaming women at all - read carefully - I am saying that the left targets young girls in order to destroy the unity between men and women (notice my point - if women choose weak men, then many, but NOT all men will be weak). The point of self respect is essential here - I am NOT saying that we are ruled by biology. I am saying the contrary; we can strive to be virtuous, decent. The left wants children to succumb to biological urges. Also if you noticed, I wrote “a strong man does not want a burka-wearing slave - he wants a partner”. If you had noticed that part, perhaps you would not have accused me of being like the mohammedans. What is a partner to a “strong man”? A strong woman of course. A major point of the entry is not that “women should bear the burden of morality” but that the evil sexualization of children, especially little girls, will have a tremendously destructive effect on the future. I am saying that YOU, the parents, should teach children morality, not the leftist-run schools. And I am sorry you left insulted, that was not my intent. What the left is doing is a crime against children and their attempt to make “sluts” of males and females will evoke the evils that I mentioned at the end of my post.

And New Mexican, you wrote that girls are not pleasure objects. Is that not an underlying theme of my post? I stated that the left attempts to sexualize children in an effort to destroy morality and moral institutions. I stated that in doing so, they remove the beauty and spiritualism of life and replace it with the total state. Again, I do not believe that on a fundamental level we disagree. Since this topic became a bit of a tangent (I was specifically mentioning the leftist attack on little girls), I must mention that of course it is the responsability for ALL males, boys and men, to be moral and just. They alone will make that decision; I do believe there are influences, however, and one of them is the desire to be accepted by the opposite sex (I believe that for males, speaking from experience and from other’s experience, this influence is especially powerful). Based upon what you said about raising your family, LCkschlenker, if everyone followed your model (” I also happen to believe in PERSONAL responsibility. If someone screws up, it is their own damn fault, no one else’s. That means both men and women.”) this world would be a much better place. But the public school influence is powerful over children, and combined with the other influences can result in severe damage to a child’s sence of right and wrong (nocite how many children “support” teachers’ attacks on the US Army). As I implied (but perhaps should have made explicit - if so my apologies) both men and women are responsable for their own morality, but I do believe that in primarily targeting little girls, leftists are attempting to plant a seed that will weaken BOTH women and men.

Comment by Perro Malo

This is one of the many reasons why His Rottieness supports school vouchers. Let the parents decide where to send their kids, then watch the publik skool “teachers” sit around and throw spit balls at each other in empty classrooms.

Until then, can you say “homeschool?”

Here’s an interesting link regarding some of the underpinnings of the Publik Scrule system foisted on our society. The Bellamy cousins spoke out loudly for a school system that was designed to influence children to be militaristic socialist robots. They envisioned a school system of indoctrination where students were taught to be pliant to the will of the system rather than free thinkers.

After 113 years of this socialist indoctrination while parents dozed, is it any wonder that our children are now assaulted with this latest phase of social engineering?

Comment by THANOS

ahightower mentioned that he was taught sex-ed in 8th grade….myself it was 10th grade…high school….and it was much like he said…very simple and dry sex-ed…just the very basics….i can just imagine what it is now….why not just put in a xxxrated movie and let the kiddies wacth that, eh leftists????….when does it stop, when does it end???….from what i get from reading the article is that sex-ed, or whatever they call it now, is taught to elementary age children, and its much more explicit if youre asking them, boys and girls, if they masterbate,touch each other, or whatever these sick liberals want to know what little kids do….sounds more like the left is commiting child molestation and this should be stopped forcefully….id knock the teeth out of any persons mouth, man or woman, if they asked my son if he touches himself, since its none of youre goddammned business and its a sick fucking question to ask, so be prepared to visit a world of pain….How the fuck did the liberals/leftists get control of our school systems???…and when do we, the conservatives decide that enough is enough and put a stop to it all before our children are morally bankrupted by these sick, twisted people???…..the liberal/leftists in this country are trying so hard to get our children ready for the hoped for Islamification of the US by making the boys into soon to be rapists and the girls into soon to be baby machines…thats were the conection lies as far as i can see….Islam and the liberal left….partners in crime…time to bring the big hammer right down on their heads before its too late

Comment by JakeTheSnake

ahightower….I had the same fears. Go for it, brother. You will not regret it.

Comment by tweell

My youngest children go to a decent charter school here in Arizona. The sex talks are left to parents, holding hands is grounds for detention, and grabbing gets the perpetrator expelled. To the surprise of some parents, these rules are strictly enforced. The school handbook enumerates these and other rules, to enroll both the student and a parent must sign a statement saying they have read, understand and will abide by those rules. Thank G_d for teachers who couldn’t take public schools any more and decided to make a school of their own!

Comment by maxxdog

Parents are responsible for everything to do with their children!
No due process, my ass! We’ll see. This has to go to the USSC where it will be overruled as so many decisions of these fuggin liberal idiot judges from the 9th are. Absolute lunacy!

Do you heat the tar up before spreading it on and applying the feathers? Just wondering

Comment by purrfect_mamma

You aren’t. Women as a gender are. It doesn’t matter how early you start or how often you repeat it, as long as guys who treat women as objects are rewarded, guys will learn to do so.

To New Mexican,

You’re missing the point. If a person leaves her house unlocked, are we to excuse the thief who breaks in? Do people lock their houses to make the thieves honest or to protect themselves against thieves? Do you teach your children that it is the fault of the homeowner if he gets robbed? If you teach your children to be honest, they can walk through an entire city of houses with doors wide open and no one will be robbed.

You wish to place the major responsibility for virtue on women, arguing that if women were virtuous, men would be virtuous too. But you could make the opposite argument, if MEN were the ones assigned to protect virtue, women would have to be virtuous as well.

The problem with both arguments is that if you don’t assign virtue to both genders (regardless of the virtue of individuals you may encounter), you’re simply locking the thieves out, but you’re doing nothing to actually make the thieves honest, they’ll just keep looking for another house. And men ought to object to this even more than women, because it has to lead to the inevitability that women must view all men (regardless of the worth of an individual) as thieves of their virtue.

Assigning men responsibility for their own virtue would also innoculate men against women who would take advantage of them (can you spell Kobe Bryant?) If men believe that it is okay to have sex with “bad” women, are they so naive as to believe the women are only bad with their SEXUAL virtue? If men were responsible for their own virtue, there would be no issues of consensual v. rape. Men couldn’t be “tricked” by women who claimed to be using birth control. If someone breaks into an unlocked house and steps into a booby trap, how sorry should we feel for him?

LCkschlenker talked about having her breasts grabbed and you blamed women. Well I was in eighth grade in the early 60s and had the same thing happened to me. I was walking the midway at the county fair in broad daylight with a group of friends, and a boy walking the opposite direction grabbed me and then disappeared into the crowd with this group of friends. He was a kid, younger than me. I heard him and his friends all laughing. My friends wanted to go after him and I wanted to sink into the ground. Where did he get the idea that this was okay? The sexual revolution hadn’t hit yet. Girls were still responsible for guarding virtue. But we were still just objects to be grabbed.

You cannot make one person responsible for another’s virtue. You cannot make a whole gender responsible for the other’s virtue. Both genders need to be taught to respect the other from the outset and the dis-respect is earned one on one–not the other way around

Comment by NewMexican

In response to Comment by purrfect_mamma — November 5, 2005 @ 6:22 am

What you miss is that I seperate cause from morality, and reality from idealism.

Is sexual harrasment right? No. Is telling men that “women aren’t sex objects”, even if you start telling them when they’re 5 and keep on ’til they are dead going to make even a tiny impact on the incidence of sexual harrasment? It will make none whatsoever. There is no way to “train” all men to respect women. All that can be done on a societal level is arm women to protect themselves.

Telling men not to be “thieves” in your analogy is stupid. Some men choose to be thieves, some choose not to; those who choose not to would not steal regardless of whether they are asked not to and those who choose to steal do so no matter how much their victims complain. The only solution is to change how rewarding the thieves’ occupation is - for example, by locking your damn house.

To extend your analogy to what I’ve been saying, my point is that if all houses were adequately protected (i.e. all women were virtuous), thievery would not be a lucrative occupation and men in general would have to find productive jobs. However, many if not most women not only leave their houses unlocked, they leave the door open. The result is that “thievery” is indeed a lucrative enterprise, and those who fail to protect themselves from it will suffer.

When you say that men should be “taught to respect women”, it’s no different from telling people not to steal - it has no effect whatsoever.

This does not in any way absolve each individual of his responsibility to act righteously. All will answer for their own choices, ultimately. What it does mean is that if you want to have an actual impact on the incidence of “thievery” you have to change the factors that support thievery, not just announce that you don’t like thieves.

Let me put it this way: Men as a gender pursue sex, and don’t give a fuck what whiny feminists think of them, except when pretending to give a fuck gets them more sex. If you want to control their actions, you have to control who gets sex. Since women as a gender refuse to cooperate with what you want, you’re what we call “shit out of luck”. Men who choose to respect women will continue to do so, and men who want sex will continue to obtain it from the majority of women who are unvirtuous.

Comment by purrfect_mamma

To New Mexican,

Congratulations. You have achieved the nearly impossible. You have rendered me (nearly) speechless.

Maybe I am a stupid, whiny feminist. But I have more belief in the basic goodness of men than you apparently do.

If you are right and I am wrong, it would make me very very sad.

Comment by NewMexican

“But I have more belief in the basic goodness of men than you apparently do.

Comment by purrfect_mamma — November 5, 2005 @ 7:35 pm”

Which is where we differ.

I’ve seen too much to have any belief whatsoever in the “basic goodness of men”. I’m not saying all men are evil. Rather, I’ve seen much to indicate instead a balance of good and evil within men, and the evil must be overcome before any goodness is seen. Most men have never chosen to fight it at all.

Some men choose to walk a righteous path. Those I have known all suffered for it. As long as this remains the case, such men will be the exception and not the rule.

I expect it would have been easier to do what was right when it was expected as a matter of course. Those days are gone, and few are willing to accept the disadvantages in this life for nothing but an honor that the rest of the world sneers at.

Comment by purrfect_mamma

To New Mexican,

If you believe that men behave the way they do because they are rewarded for being bad and punished for being good, why do you not grant women the same indulgence?

Comment by Kit

JakeTheSnake:

I’m thinking of homeschooling my son, who is 8. Can you contact me via email? I’ve got a few questions for you. =)

kit.jarrell@gmail.com

Thanks!

Comment by sig94

It is kind of sad that God has been pretty much written out of the equation here. We have discussed the self control exercised by a soldier as an example of manly behavior, and well we should. As any Western man well versed in the rules of-war, we should be aware that St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologicae) and other men of God (here and here) developed those rules which continue to be examined and taught today.

But what about ALL aspects of manliness? Do we omit the Creator in these discussions? At no time was this country ever perfect, but there was a common acknowledgement of God and His precepts as a basis for all behavior.

Purrfect_mamma and LCkschlenker, there have always been fools, jackasses and cowards; society will never be rid of them. That’s a fact of life. But society’s acceptance of this type of behavior is a great problem. The common culture has been corrupted by pornographic images (and that includes soft porn) in movies, magazines, television, etc. Prostitutes and porn queens now vie for attention as “professionals” on Oprah. And we wonder how woman come to be considered as sex objects?

Boorish behavior is considered “cool” and glorified as something to be emulated. So why are we surprised that when our young people grow up and become teachers and researchers, they see nothing wrong with presenting questions to children that forty years ago would have had hordes of angry parents reacting. Forty years ago there may not have been lawsuits, but there would have been beatings…