How to Defend an Indefensible “Safe Schools Czar”

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Ad hominem attacks like this are so.... boorish.

I challenge you to provide examples to back your claim.

If I have an opinion I identify it as my own. I don't fabricate and I don't exaggerate except with the most moderate of literary license and, sometimes, for the sake of humor. Progressives, welfare liberals and Democrats have no sense of humor, so it is perfectly understandable that the leftish don't get the jokes.

I regularly quote sources and I am up front on identifying my references. I also quote a variety of opinions that I do not personally subscribe to - for the sake of discussion and to contrast with my own opinions.


WOW!! Double spit/take! Could what you post be more gratuitous?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
For example,

A Guide To Academic Newspeak

by a student at Harvard Divinity School, 1989

Gender - Radical feminism

Oppressors - White male heterosexuals

Bias - Basing scholarship on reason and evidence

Patriarchal models - Objectivity, logic, rational discourse, mathematics, science, the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, family values, motherhood and apple pie

Politically aware - Politically far-left

Being divisive - Deviating from the beliefs of the politically aware (see politically aware); synonymous with being hostile

Liberal arts education - Political indoctrination

Guilt - Feeling bad about your genes, but not about your actions

Women and men - The forces of good and evil in the dualism of gender (see gender)

Diversity - The gathering together of as large a group as possible of discontents, deviants and social misfits while excluding, suppressing and bashing conservatives, Republicans, evangelicals, adherents of historical religions, serious students and anyone resistant to indoctrination

Sensitivity - Being deferential toward and extraordinarily circumspect around those included in diversity while gratuitously attacking those excluded from diversity (see diversity)

Greater diversity - Doing a better job of weeding out those excluded from diversity (see diversity)

Being exclusive - Providing equal opportunity and equal protection under the law, regardless of race or sex

Hermeneutics/Deconstructionism - Interpreting texts from the perspective of gender (see gender) with a rationalization by anyone with a French name

Victims - All those not fitting the definition of oppressor (see oppressors) and officially recognized far-left groups; does not include refugees from leftist totalitarian countries, such as Vietnamese boat people, Cuban immigrants, etc.

Sexism - The discrimination against and stereotyping of women or the failure to discriminate against and stereotype men

Racism - The belief held by white oppressors (see Oppressors) that their race is superior to that of non-white victims (see Victims) or the failure to apologize for one's own race if that race should be white; term is not applicable to non-whites

Moderates - The Sandinistas, Castro, Lenin, Mao, Hillary Clinton and all those who are politically aware (see politically aware)

Ultra-conservatives/the far right - All those to the right of moderates (see moderates)

Leftists - The empty set; exist only in the rhetoric of ultra-conservatives (see ultra-conservatives)

Inclusive language - An ostentatious form of new speak which seeks to remove the generic use of 'man' and 'he' (along with common sense and eloquence) from the language, e.g. "What are persons, that thou art mindful of her/him? and the child of persons, that thou doest care for him/her?"

Censorship - A good thing when done by politically aware (see poltically unaware), e.g. punishing owners of baseball teams for alleged comments made during private conversations; a bad thing when done by ultra-conservatives (see ultra-conservatives).

Iconoclasm - 1. An activity self-righteously pursued by the politically aware; 2. an activity considered criminal when the icons of the politically aware are involved (see politically aware)

Iconoclast - One who can dish it out but can't take it
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Back on topic, it looks like all of the letter writing and calling is generating a response from some Members of Congress, if not President Obama.

I wonder why not? He has thrown many of his infamous supporters under the bus on the way to the White House, are they any more privileged now that they hold government jobs?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...g-renews-call-to-fire-obama-safe-schools-czar

Republican lawmaker renews call for Obama to fire the 'safe schools' czar
By Jordan Fabian
The Hill
12/17/09 11:41 AM ET

Republican Rep. Steve King (Iowa) on Thursday again asked President Barack Obama to fire his "safe schools" czar Kevin Jennings.

The conservative lawmaker penned a letter to Obama to express his disappointment that the administration did not respond to his first letter in October. The previous letter was co-signed by 52 other GOP lawmakers and called for Jennings' ouster.

King also refers to a resolution introduced by a Republican congressman pushing for the czar's resignation.

"I am disappointed that concerned Members of Congress have been forced to resort to legislative action as a result of your unwillingness to act on this important matter," King wrote.

Republicans have recently turned the heat back up on Jennings.

Last week, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) introduced a resolution calling on Jennings to resign. Jennings has come under scrutiny from a wide array of conservatives who accuse him of pushing a "pro-homosexual agenda" in public schools.

"Kevin Jennings needs to be replaced, he needs to be replaced today," Burgess stressed in a floor speech last week. "The so-called safe schools czar appointed by the Obama administration to the Department of Education is dangerous for our school children."

King lobbed the same accusations at Jennings.

"Mr. Jennings has a history of pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America’s schools, ignoring the sexual abuse of a child, supporting inappropriate sexual relationships between adults and children, using illegal drugs without regret and facilitating certain types of sexual behavior by children," he wrote. "Mr. Jennings must be removed from his position as the “Safe Schools Czar” immediately."

Full text of the letter after the jump

_____________________________


December 16, 2009

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

In a letter dated October 15, 2009, I, along with 52 of my colleagues, respectfully requested that you remove Kevin Jennings from his position as the “Safe Schools Czar.” To date, we have received no response. Due to the inaction of your Administration, Representative Michael Burgess has introduced a resolution calling for Kevin Jennings to be fired from his post as “Safe Schools Czar” immediately. I am disappointed that concerned Members of Congress have been forced to resort to legislative action as a result of your unwillingness to act on this important matter.

Mr. Jennings’ record proves that he is unfit to serve as the “Safe Schools Czar.” My colleagues and I, along with the American people, deserve to know why Mr. Jennings is still serving in your Administration, despite his lack of appropriate qualifications or ethical standards. Mr. Jennings has a history of pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America’s schools, ignoring the sexual abuse of a child, supporting inappropriate sexual relationships between adults and children, using illegal drugs without regret and facilitating certain types of sexual behavior by children. Mr. Jennings must be removed from his position as the “Safe Schools Czar” immediately.

I have enclosed a copy of the October 15, 2009, letter for your convenience. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Steve King

Member of Congress
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
BTW, how many copies do you think would be OK to distribute to middle school kids, grades 5 – 8, ages ages 11–14?

To males, unlimited copies. Females might be a different story, due to (a) subject matter being slanted towards males, and (b) pictures of male genitalia which could be considered to be pornographic by some when viewed by females.

As far as (b) above, applying to gay males, that is true, however the value of the knowledge of "sexual safety" and "street smarts" that this book contains significantly outweighs the "pornographic" aspect. Not to mention the reality that pretty much all males (gay or straight), after day 1 of puberty, watch porn on the internet. It's like masturbation... If you find a guy that says he doesn't do it, 999 times out of 1000, he's lying.

There was nothing in there that could be construed as pornographic to a male. The images that I'm sure you were referring to, were right in the middle of a section on "how to correctly use a condom", which is a valuable skill for every man to know.

I personally think that their choice of non-medical terms, and "curse" words (I use the term lightly, because I think it's completely fucking retarded that people get their panties in a bunch over a couple of letters thrown together in a certain order), to get their point across is probably not the best. But, the reality is that kids in public school (and very likely private school as well) have heard 100% of those words by the time they are 11-14, and very likely do know what they mean. The reality also is that kids in public school (and very likely private school as well) know significant amounts of information about drugs and alcohol by the time they are 11-14. Whether you choose to accept these realities or not, is of no concern. The authors were obviously trying to reach their audience using terms that their audience is primarily familiar with. Did they go too far? Probably. Is it the end of the world? No.

Sensationalist AHRRRG Journalism FTL.
 
Last edited: