<$BlogRSDURL$>
Google

11.04.2005

A Brief Look at Conservative Overreaction 


Conservatives are like banty roosters who can't wait to crow. They are easily tricked and fooled by anything that appears to be the rising sun(i.e. flashlights, matches, fireflies, WMD's etc.) and will crow their little fool heads off to bring attention to themselves and their cause.

Here are just two quick examples from my favorite right wing website, camedwards.com.

In the first, we see an overreaction to a ruling by the 9th circuit court of appeals in which the ruling by the court reads in part:

...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. 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.

Now Cam Edwards, banty little rooster that he is immediately starts crowing:

Really? I, as a parent, have no right to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters?

I'm so angry by this decision I can't even think right now. I'll have more on this later.

I will say this. I'm not a subject. I'm a citizen.


The only problem, Cam did something conservatives love to accuse liberals of; he reacted with his heart and not his intellect. A later comment on the subject by a logical reader states:

Yes, Cam, no exclusive right. Just as there's no exclusive right to tell your kids about, oh, gun control, or chemistry, or Intelligent Design vs ... well, whatever it is it's supposed to be versus, since it's not actually in conflict with Darwin. What's more, there's no exclusive right for you to tell your kids about the multiplication tables, the War of 1812, or whether or not a split infinitive is good English.

Now, you do have the right to take your kids out of any school that insists on teaching that sex happens, the Second Amendment is an individual right, or that "to boldly go" is as good as "boldly to go". But you still don't have an exclusive right to be the only one to tell them about those things.

In other words, take a couple of deep breaths, walk around the block, and get over it.


Cam thinks about the subject instead of just reacting to it and then:

I guess you could argue that with compulsory education laws, parents lost the right to decide how to best educate their children.
I'm not as angry about this decision as I was when I first heard about it. A lot of attorneys say federal court was not the proper jurisdiction for this suit to begin with, and that legally speaking the 9th circuit probably ruled correctly.

Just like all good conservatives, he does not alter his original post to reflect the truth and only admits after being shown logical evidence that his original thesis is incorrect.

He does not change the post to reflect his change of heart though and a casual reader will come away with a ridiculous ruling by the "Ninth Circus" court which will allow teachers to demonstrate live sex acts to your kindergardener.

In the post immediately following this one, Cam, apparently not one to learn from past mistakes, reports:
A 5-year old boy in Tulsa was forced to strip down to his underwear for a day because he dared wear a Halloween costume to school.
A Tulsa parent is outraged over how her child was disciplined at school for wearing a costume.
Crystal Harris says her 5-year old son was forced to take off his costume, and go through the entire school day with only his underwear on.
The incident happened Monday at Walt Disney Elementary.
School officials acknowledge they have a policy that forbids costumes, and that's why the teacher did what she did.
They say they've have apologized to the family.
Harris says however the teacher should be disciplined for embarassing her son.

Disciplined? I'm thinking charged.


Shocking!

Unbelievable?

Apparently not to conservative bloggers and readers.

The only problem? It is not true.

A little googling and research results in this:

Setting the story straight

An erroneous report has been posted on its website by KJRH. The story says that a Tulsa Public Schools teacher “disciplined” a 5-year-old student by forcing him to take off his Halloween costume “and go through the entire school day with only his underwear on.”

The first serious error is that the child was being “disciplined.” Dress code infractions are handled through corrective action. In this specific instance the child was offered the opportunity to have his parents called to go home to change. He said he could take the costume off. He was specifically asked if he was wearing clothes on underneath the costume and he replied, “yes.” When he took off the costume he was wearing a tee-shirt that went below his waist and blue patterned pants that appeared to be jogging pants. He went through the school day without incident.

The implication from the KJRH story is that he was wearing brief or jockey-short-style underwear that should have been recognized as underwear. That is not the case. The pants in question closely resembled other childhood attire. Plus, the child wore a tee-shirt.

Disney Elementary School prohibits the wearing of Halloween costumes to school for two reasons: safety and classroom distraction. Costumes, many of which are long and flowing, are a hazard on the playground. Costumes in the classroom are a distraction from the positive learning atmosphere TPS schools maintain.

Of more than 800 students at Disney Elementary, this was the only child who showed up for classes on Monday wearing a costume. Parents and students had been informed earlier by posters of the prohibition on wearing costumes.


From www.tulsaschools.org

No retraction from Cam. No apology for defaming the teacher and school. In fact, many of his longtime posters attack the truth and the messenger, another tactic of the banty rooster right.

|
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?