Riddle: How Many CNN Reporters Does It Take to Write a One-Page Article On Morality? Answer: Two.

Yesterday, two children who go by the strange and possibly made up names of Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate spent their whole summer vacation coming up with a one-page article entitled: “Our Moral Code is Out of Date.”  They submitted it to their fourth grade teacher who immediately emailed it to CNN and it was of course summarily published on the CNN website.  By the way, for any of you public high school teachers who would like to use this CNN primer as a short-cut to actually doing your job, you may find the article here:

 //edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/16/brook.moral.code.outdated/index.html

(Just do me a favor and don’t tell anyone I sent ya.)

Anyway, I, for one, was very interested and excited to learn just how our morality–being around for two thousand years or so–had suddenly gotten out of date and was in need of an extreme makeover.  I mean, since CNN has been a premier (tee-hee) news agency for about two or three decades, you would have thought they might have jumped on this story earlier.

Anyway, if I understand what these two kids are saying, our morality is out of date because Christianity (there ya go, blame those damn Christians again!) screwed up.  By failing to predict the advent of the industrial revolution and the benevolent greed of the robber barons and their modern-day P.C. equivalent (e.g. Bill Gates), the Bible and other similar undisclosed texts have basically become obsolete, and hence let us down. Until, in the words of the authors, “science, freedom and the pursuit of personal profit” are embraced, our morals cannot truly be caught up with the morality of September, 2010. Now, what the shifting standards of moral relativism will be like in October, 2010 is anyone’s guess, so I suppose we’ll just have to wait for CNN to find two more smart fourth graders to explain it to us.

Oh, by the way, there is just one little thing in the article written by these kids that should be pointed out: They assume that “giving money away to strangers” is not a morally significant act inasmuch as morality is only about pursuing one’s own happiness.  Assuming, for the moment, that their definition of individual morality  is the correct one, since when does the personal decision to give one’s own money away fail to meet the definition of the pursuit of happiness?

Who Is This Man and What Does He Want To Do To Your Child?

WARNING: The following contains mature subject matter.  Reader discretion is advised.

 

Before we get into just who this man is, let’s examine what he wants to do to children, including your child.  First, he likes to start when they’re young—very young, say around five or six years old.  So when you are not around and when your children are at school—in Kindergarten—he will have them taken aside and talked to about their bodies.  All about their bodies.  They will be told such things as what nipples are and where they are found on the body; what penises and vaginas are and where they are found on the body; and what testicles are and where they are found on the body.  And then after your children become a little older and wiser, in other words when they reach First Grade, they will be told that sexual relations between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman, are perfectly fine and natural. 

Then when they get to be even older than that, say around ten years old and when they are in Fifth Grade, he will have it explained to your children that there are many different ways and positions in which they can enjoy sexual intercourse and that that includes, but is certainly not limited to, vaginal, oral, or even “anal penetration.”  The year after that, your children get to know that sexual intercourse also can be with fingers, tongues and even “objects”!  And when they reach the ripe old age of twelve, after they have gotten themselves so screwed up by being overly sexualized, he will have it told to them that it is okay to make their own personal decision to have an abortion because the Supreme Court says so. 

So who is this man? A pervert? A pedophile? Your local child molester?  Nope, none of the above.  He is Dr. Bruce Messinger, the Superintendent of Public Schools for the City of Helena, Montana.  And if you haven’t guessed it already, he is advocating that all of the above and much, much more be taught to public school children, grades K through 12, by way of a new Health Enhancement Comprehensive Curriculum, which was recently proposed before the Helena Public Schools Board of Trustees.  According to the good doctor, “As educators and as parents and as communities we need to be more proactive in helping inform our students at an appropriate age what the risk factors are associated with their own behaviors so that they can make better decisions about their well-being.” 1   Oh really?  What about the risk factors associated with attending a public school system run by a moron like you? 

The nine-member Board votes on the proposed new Curriculum next month.  Fortunately, outraged parents were at least permitted to voice their concerns before a decision is made as to whether and when the new Curriculum will go into effect. 2

By the way it should be noted that, according to the new Curriculum, children will not have the urinary and excretory systems fully explained to them until they reach the Sixth Grade.  So presumably they will first learn that the anus is to be used for entering before they learn it is really for exiting; giving new meaning to the phrase: “ass backwards.”

——————————-

Notes:

Fn. 1:  To view the Fox News article on this story, click here:

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/07/14/helena-montana-considers-sex-ed-for-kindergarteners/comment-page-6/?action=late-new&order

Fn. 2:  To view the entire proposed new Curriculum, click on the link below and follow the link to K-12 Health Enhancement Curriculum (in PDF format.) 

http://www.helena.k12.mt.us/district/departme/

curricul/curricul/healthen/index.dhtm

Gem of the Week: Condoms for Kids!

An elementary school in Provincetown, Massachusetts (here we go again with those nutty New Englanders!) has decided the time has come to make condoms available to kids and also to teach kids how to use them.  Young kids; as in first and second graders.

Last week, the Provincetown School Board Committee unanimously adopted the condom distribution policy which will go into effect in the fall.  The only debate, it seems, was whether or not the kids would actually have to ask school officials for the condoms or whether they would simply be handed out along with the pencils, rulers and protractors.  But reason prevailed and it was decided they should ask the school nurse first.  So now seven, six, and even five-year-olds can, upon asking, be given a condom and taught how to use it.  As to whether parents should ever be informed about this: absolutely not!  The wise men and women of the committee directed school leaders not to honor demands from parents who object to their kids receiving condoms from the school. 

Despite criticism, Provincetown School Board Chairman Peter Grosso says there is no set age when sexual activity starts.  And Beth Singer, the school’s superintendent, said she wanted to guarantee younger students get information on how to use condoms because there just is no age limit.  “We’re talking about younger kids,” said Singer. “They have questions they need answered on how to use them, when to use them.”

By this logic, I suppose that if a seven-year-old happens to ask questions on how to safely engage in sado-masochistic sex that these school officials will indulge those requests too.  So next year, the Committee intends to propose that all elementary school kids in Provincetown, Massachusetts be taught the safe and proper way to wear a gimp suit.

 For a related post, click here:

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/gem-of-the-week-glen-or-glenda/

Gem of the Week: Wear the American Flag to School and Get Sent Home

Students at a California high school were sent home from school on Wednesday for having the unmitigated brazenness to wear T-shirts sporting the American flag.  The five teens were sitting around a table outside Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California, when Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez (pronounced, mee – gel / rod – ree- gez) asked them to accompany him to the principal’s office where they were ordered to turn their T-shirts inside-out or be sent home.  You see, Wednesday was Cinco de Mayo day, an annual holiday that is celebrated in another country called Mexico.  But it would seem it also is celebrated with quite a bit of hoopla at this particular California school.  On this day, school officials had enthusiastically encouraged the students to wear Mexican red, white, and green, but deemed the display of Old Glory as “incendiary.”  Hence, the disciplinary action against these students.

You know, I had never really given much thought before to Cinco de Mayo.  But Señor Assistant Principal Rodriguez has inspired me.  From now on, I am going to make the effort to celebrate it every year.  In my own special way.

Incendiary enough for ya?

——————————–

For more on good schools gone bad, click here:

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/gem-of-the-week-glen-or-glenda/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/gem-of-the-week-2/

Gem of the Week: Glen or Glenda?

This week, the Maine Human Rights Commission moved to ban gender specific bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams in all public schools and even some private schools.  That’s right.  The girls’ room ain’t just for little girls anymore!  Nor is the boys’ room only for little boys.  Nor are locker rooms, showers, etc. That is, if the Maine Human Rights Commission gets its way.  (Just as an aside, whenever I see the words “Human Rights” linked with “Commission” I get very nervous.)

Apparently, this issue really got going last year when the Commission ruled that, under the Maine Human Rights Act, a school had discriminated against a twelve-year-old boy who identified himself as a girl (they call it self-identifying), by denying him access to the girls’ bathroom.  Now the Commission is looking to issue guidelines on how schools—including even pre-school and nursery schools—should adjust themselves in order to deal with this issue.  Maine would be the first state to implement such guidelines.  Not surprisingly, the Commission has drawn fire for this decision and has recently been compelled to back-pedal a bit, but the issue is not entirely a dead letter; it has merely been postponed. 

I’m just curious, does a twelve year old have the mental and emotional (to say nothing of legal) capacity to sort out all the factors that go into whether he/she is a boy/girl?  I’ve heard of adults making the transgender switch only to realize later on that they may have been a little too hasty (I think it’s called transgender regret).  So I wonder about the parents of a mixed up child being so positively certain that their kid is this or that other gender. Something to think about and I wonder if the Commission did think about it.  Also, while I am no doctor or school guidance counselor, I do know what it was like to be a kid in public school, and the Commission’s decision has “really bad idea” written all over it.

Oh well, just another example of progressives meddling with the culture.  Even worse: Maine progressives meddling with the culture.  If the Maine Human Rights Commission ever succeeds in pushing through its radical-progressive agenda, I sincerely hope that the old aphorism, “as Maine goes, so goes the nation,” proves to be no more than a fairy tale.

Gem of the Week: Oh Canada, What A-Houles You Are!

University of Ottawa's Francois Houle

Conservative columnist and best-selling author, Ann Coulter is visiting Canada this week where she is scheduled to speak at three universities. (Boy, I hope they’re paying her a lot of money for that!)  However, before she even got off the plane, a senior University of Ottawa administrator warned her to use “restraint, respect and consideration” when speaking at the school.  In an email to Ann, Academic provost and all-around douche-bag, Francois Houle, wrote:  “Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or ‘free speech’) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here… Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges… I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.”  He said some other things too, but I don’t want to offend the sensibilities of average Americans.  By the way, I wonder to how many Jihad-chanting Muslim speakers he sent that kind of an email before they arrived on campus to speak.

Anyway, it’s all good because Ann, being smarter than your average college guest-speaker and infinitely smarter than the liberal provost of some third-rate Canadian university, has turned the tables and is claiming that the provost, by his email, targeted her as a member of an identifiable group, namely conservatives, and as such she will be filing a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that she is now the victim of hate speech.  Go Ann!

When jackasses like the University of Ottawa provost are able to wield a criminal statute like a martinet school master would a yardstick, any kind of insanity can ensue.  But should we expect anything less from a university administrator in the age of political correctness?  In addition to the liberal bias that is rampant across college campuses in the U.S. and Canada, this incident points out the utter absurdity of the Canadian “hate speech” law, and, for that matter, any laws that would attempt to criminalize speech.  And yet, this Kafkaesque theater of the absurd is precisely what Liberal-Progressive ideas about how to create a politically correct society inevitably lead to.

Well, thank God the Progressives in America have yet to accomplish this item on their agenda (though given the swift and corrupt process by which they rammed healthcare into law anything could happen!)  Until then, I will continue to exercise my right to free speech and, to prove the point, with all due restraint and respect, I cordially invite the University of Ottawa provost and every other French-speaking Canadian to suck frozen moose cock.

For related posts on this topic, link to:

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/why-i-love-ann-coulter/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/gem-of-the-week-2/

Gem of the Week: Porn Exchange

As a publicity stunt, it seems a cabal of Godless young enterprisers at the University of Texas at San Antonio are offering their fellow students porn in exchange for their bibles.  According to the student atheist group, pornography is no worse than the text of the Bible, so why not do a fair exchange?  Well, not to get too technical, but the standard dictionary definition of pornography is: “films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal.” (Emphasis added.)  While there appear to be arguments out there (way out there) that the Bible contains some passages that could be interpreted as slightly suggestive (eg., The Old Testament’s Song of Solomon), one can hardly seriously argue that these rise to the level of sexual explicitness intending to cause arousal.  Or to put it another way, if you’re reaching for the Bible to get your jollies, you’re pretty pathetic.

At any rate, there is nothing novel about yet another group of self-important college students employing sophomoric shock tactics to seek attention.  However, what is news is the school’s reaction to the event.  When asked for comment, school officials mildly replied that the atheist group is perfectly within its legal rights to conduct the swap.  According to University Spokesman David Gabler: “As long as students are not violating laws or violating the Constitution, they have the freedom of speech and assembly.”  He elaborated, “We are a marketplace of free ideas here at UTSA, and our students have all constitutional rights afforded to all individuals in the United States.”

Well isn’t that nice.  Apparently, the school is not the least bit scandalized by any of this.    At a time when colleges seem to think of every reason under the sun why a conservative group cannot have this or that speaker appear on campus, how refreshing it is to see the open-minded University of Texas officials suddenly standing up for free speech and assembly in the marketplace of ideas.  Given this new laissez-faire approach, one wonders if they would be quite so accommodating of other groups employing similarly obscene tactics.  Suppose a Christian student group decided to do a Bible for Quran exchange?  What if a white supremacist student group offered an exchange of Hitler’s Mein Kampf for copies of the Torah?  Or an even greater sacrilege: an exchange of Mein Kampf for Barrack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope.  Would the liberal thinking administrators of the University of Texas still be so tepidly neutral?

Our rights are guaranteed under the Constitution and are there for our protection, not for our abuse.  On the spectrum of bad examples the school could set for its students, the only thing worse than condoning the abuse of a right (in this case free speech), is the picking and choosing of when and for whom a right applies, and when and for whom it does not.  And that is nothing short of obscene.

For a related post, link to:

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/gem-of-the-week-oh-canada-what-a-houles-you-are/