I've been skimming the red state thread, and while a large number of them are truly nuts (sincerely calling for impeachment over an obviously correct ruling), and even more of them are just enjoying venting about how evil the 9th Circuit is, irrelevant of the ruling, at least some of them are annoyed by what appears to be an unduly broad dictum from the opinion. The only reason I say it's too broad is that it wasn't necessary to decide the case at hand, I'm agnostic as to its correctness:
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.
I have no sympathy for the parents/redstaters because I have no sympathy over such prudishness about sex.
I don't know enough about legal theory to back up my preference expressed above with a legal argument, but, really, any arguing I did would be ex post facto justification. It's just not the typical human way of thinking to dedudct policy opinions from one's jurisprudence. Which is why cries of "judicial activism" are so annoying - it's a lie to pretend to care about something when really you're just using it as a cover.
Speaking of, Kevin is starting to suspect that the whole orginalist movement is just such a cover for policy decisions. Susstein, I think, is sort of arguing this too, that very few conservativs are consistent with orginalism. And it seems that if one is not consistent with a theory, then it is a tool, not a principle.
Real activist judges, "perfectionists" Susstein calls them (I don't know if anyone else does), at least are transparent that their legal theory is to use the law as a tool, and don't pretend that they're merely interpreting arcane text. Points for honesty over their sentitious opponents, I think. (Not that they're the only legal theorists taking honest positions.)
What gets me is this: 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.
Has such a law ever been passed? And why would the Ninth Circuit not uphold such a law if they were asked to rule on its constitutionality? And does it matter at all that this hypothetical case is nothing whatsoever like the present case? Reasoning such as this does not rise to the level of bogus.
In a last desperate attempt to salvage the site, Unf is dragged from retirement -- while the indispensible Ogged continues to sulk in his tent attende4d by his catamites. What does he want?
If I had a daughter, I would certainly feel entitled to be the one to personally initiate her into the mysteries. Not some creepy middle school teacher.
I finally clicked through the link (having a little resistence to visiting Redstate.org..)
I really don't like those questions.
I'm in no way opposed to sex-ed. Partially, perhaps, because contra Emerson's apparent experience, I never had any middle school teachers I would describe as "creepy." (I might not send my kids to schools with "creepy" teachers, if I had a choice.) Also, as a middle-schooler, I was much more comfortable with sex-ed class than when my mom occasionally broached the subject. (Dad never did, for which I was thankful.)
All that said, fifth-graders, let alone 1st or 3rd, should not be subject to saying whether they touch themselves "too much." How the fuck are they supposed to know what's too much? Nor should there be this inquisition into what they're thinking. Protecting kids from abuse is great, but this kind of intrustion is an abuse of its own.
And this seems a little tricky to me: I see that parents can't tell the school what to teach and what not to teach. However, is there not a difference between imparting knowledge and extracting knowledge? This is a difficult line, I realize. Obviously, one wants teachers, who presumably care about their charges, to be able to ask children, "do your parents abuse you?" Still, I'm uncomfortable with the kids being asked, "Do you think about sex a lot?"
When I read the above few comments, I thought, "Don't they have to get consent to carry out any sort of survey?" And they did get consent, but it seems not to have mentioned sexual questions. That seems potentially troublesome--you want the consent forms to be accurate.
Plus, the correlation seems a little tenuous, doesn't it? Sexual abuse may inspure seuxal obsession, but, lots of non-abused kids are fairly obsessed with sexual thoughts. My kid-friends were collecting adult magazines at that age.
28. I am a worse speller the Wehttam, and, as well all know, there's an inverse relationship between spelling ability and intelligence.
Well, maybe that's because we keep teaching kids that sex, their genitals, masturbation, etc., are horrible and shameful.
It's ludicrous that we think keeping all talk of sex away from kids is going to somehow protect them from it. I remember in the 2nd grade, my friend told me that her mom told her that you could get pregnant from blowjobs (not those words, obviously). Luckily, I was curious enough (and knew how to use the Dewey Decimal system) that I did some research (I think the following year), otherwise I may well have gone on thinking that until high school or some shit.
I see no reason why children have to be insulated against most straightforward talk about sex. It just doesn't make sense to me.
But I agree, generally, with MW's point in 32. Regardless, there is no fundamental right here, as it seems most of us agree.
But i'm not objecting to sex ed. I just don't like the intrusive personal questions; questions which are further bound to confuse the kids. More abstractly, I don't like that adults in positions of authority have the "right" to demand what a child is thinking.
Re 24: I agree with you. I do not like the questions either and do not think they are appropriate for first-graders. And as was pointed out in 32, the consent forms were vague and inaccurate at best and deceptive at worst. But that is not the legal claim that the parents based their lawsuit on. Instead, they asserted a fundamental right to be their children's exclusive source of information about sex. Such a right is nowhere described in our laws or Constitution, so their lawsuit got thrown out. Had they sued the school district on the issue of whether the consent forms were vague or deceptive, the outcome could have been much different.
Am I splitting some fine hairs, today! Obviously, tests are in some ways a demand for the child to think and to show their thought. I suppose the hair here has to be "school business" and "not school business." That's not so easy to determine, but I don't see anything else, so I guess I'm going to have to go with it.
Isn't there a difference between keeping all talk of sex away from kids and discussing at what age (recognizing that people mature at different rates) it is appropriate to discuss which aspect of sex?
I (and I believe Michael) agree with 37--the RedStater's growling about prayer and the pledge of allegiance is especially tooly. (There is a fundamental right not to have the state teach your kids religion. I don't see sex in the First Amendment.) My position pending more information is "Probably bad policy, probably no grounds for this lawsuit."
MAE: Good point. I think the concern I'm bringing up is different from the one resolved in court.
39. How did other people's sex ed classes work? Mine started out with pictures, then slide shows, then videos of birth and sex. The teachers presented information and statistics. We asked questions. But they never asked us questions.
The difference between the questions, I think, is that the others risk making the child feel guilty for what I would think is perfectly normal behavior. The ones I point out seem to me to be much more clearly associated with negative sexual experiences. If one is going to try and decipher whether a child has been sexually abused, it seems prudent to stay away from questions which are too vague and which there are significant reasons for not asking.
I'm not violating my "no first strike" policy, because I'm only nitpicking the errors you make when correcting yourself. It's like I'm intervening because you gassed your own people.
I realize I'm having a really bad typing day. Also, I think my keyboard is possessed.
50. Yeah. I went to conservative schools in a conservative state, so it'd be kind of funny if my sex-ed classes were more explicit than normal. The infrared sex was 9th grade. (At least, I can't specifically remember any infrared sex before that, though I'm fairly certain I at least saw infrared naked people) We did watch a birth in 8th grade, though. Noninfrared.
Michael, I think I saw that video (I remember an infrared growing erection, at least). It was very weird and everyone was too busy giggling about the inflatable penis to learn anything.
Whew, times sure have changed since they showed me the chalk board drawings.
Technology will do that, I suppose. I caught a smidgen of MRI-sex on TV the other night. Someday we'll be watching an ovarycam as the intruders try to storm the gates. In real time. Of ourselves.
It was an old video. But memorable because, as I've mentioned here before, the lady voiceover narrator stated that the average erect male penis was 12 inches long, and 6-9 flacid.
In my 9th grade biology class (1961-2), the facts of life were taught via crayfish, which apparently mate belly-to-belly like we do, but without the unnecessary foreplay. Really.
Oddly enough, my smalltown high school did end up with a sex scandal, ca. 1975. Oddly enough, the teacher and student involved got married and are still married to this day.
I actually have no interest in initiating my hypothetical daughter into the wonders of sex. I justr thought that some of the Red State commentators seemed too much into it. I think that this is actually something better done by a third party, or by scuttlebutt as far as that goes. My parents dutifully told me the facts of life, but didn't make it seem like much fun. But on the other hand, it would have creeped me out if my dad had enthusiastically explained to me how hot my mom was.
And when the match was over we'd all have a cheer for the winner, and a little tear for all the wee little losers. And then some hot chocolate. With a marshmallow.
And as our heads were on our pillows and we were dropping off to sleep we'd think that, hey, we were that winner once. We won the race. And we'd imagine we were the most beautiful, but not vain. And proud, but still humble. And not really the runt, who is cute, in a way, but not something you would really want to be, ever. No, not the runt.
This is so analogous to having troops quartered in your house in time of peace I could spit. There are also big time 20th amendment problems. the 9th circuit, impeach them now!
Whew, times sure have changed since they showed me the chalk board drawings.
We didn't even have chalkboard drawings -- just Mr. Donohue palming a basketball in each hand to represent the ovaries, as Ms Gilmartin pointed at his arms, representing the fallopian tubes, his torso, representing the uterus... They married later.
The headquarters of the Ninth Circuit is in San Francisco, but the circuit covers Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and Montana. The judges are spread out over the circuit (for example, I think that the current Chief judge sits in Arizona), with the largest concentration of judges being in southern California, I believe.
I didn't know most of these things. So do cases argued before the Circuit have to go to the home court of whichever judge they draw? Do the judges all go to San Francisco for panels and en banc reviews? Do these questions even make sense?
And apostropher, apropos of nothing else, today was another airport day, which included a brief stop in apostropher country. I waved, but had no time to purchase pork products.
re: 84 Panels sit all over the circuit and judges, no matter where their home courthouse is, are called upon to hear cases all over the circuit. There is an effort to hear appeals near the state where the case originated, but this does not always happen. I am pretty sure that en banc panels sit places in addition to San Francisco, but I am not sure where.
re: 85. They have been talking about splitting the circuit for years. It will happen eventually, but who knows when.
84: Let's see if I can remember anything from first-year civil procedure (unlikely; it was an 8:45 AM class).
So, each of the federal circuits have a number of districts. Usually, each state has at least one district, for example, the 7th circuit courts in Illinois are the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of Illinois. Once it is determined that a particular circuit has jurisdiction over a case (which is a somewhat more complicated question), a judge must decide where "venue" is proper (see the official federal rules concerning venue http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001391----000-.html" Venue determines in which district of the circuit the case will be tried.
If that's even your question. The 9th circuit court of appeals is different from the 9th circuit. The court of appeals is what 87 is talking about. And, I believe, there is only one court of appeals for the 9th circuit, but has four offices (which are the ones apostropher references). However, the list of all the district courts in the 9th circuit can be found here.
And I am pretty sure each district court has several offices, or at least some of them do. But ben is right 82, offices and court are different.
Well, it's as clear as it's likely to get without my spending more time than I ought to on it (if I'm going to take up a new field of study at this time of my life, looks like it ought to be accounting). I couldn't understand most of the blog slol linked though the top post AOTW was an amusing echo of the 85/86 exchange. (There may be some administrative merit to the proposal, but the utter abuse of power that they seem to be engaged in--non-budget matters on reconciliation bills, yay--makes me think that the people who are pushing it really care about a chance for conservative court-packing.)
That Dowd article has been entertaining me all week long; every time I want a good laugh I just go and look at her ridiculous picture. Works like a charm.
But I was going to suggest BEFAFILF. Bitter, or possibly Bad, excuse for a feminist. It has notes of beef, with an aftertaste of FIFA, and I approve of both.
Well, you've also got iocaste and Sisyphus Shrugged. And Movable Typers have Insty and Powerwhatsis and like that. Eh, blogz is blogz, and I still seem to be on my drive to ensure that only one thread has exactly 100 comments.
If the parents of the children don't like the law, they can always pressure the legislature to change it.
Only activists would suggest otherwise, right?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:23 AM
You have an errant apostrophe somewhere in that post, but I'm not saying where.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:26 AM
So sue me.
Posted by unf | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:31 AM
Thesis: Ogged and unf are the same person.
Unf gets engaged.
Ogged suddenly has no time to post.
Ogged goes on 'hiatus'.
Unf mysteroiusly begins posting again.
Has anyone ever seen them in the same place at the same time?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:31 AM
Kotsko and I have.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:51 AM
But how do we know you and Kotsko are not the same person?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:54 AM
Not only the same person, but that person is... ogged!
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:55 AM
The jig is up!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:05 AM
"My name is ogged, for we are many."
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:09 AM
I've been skimming the red state thread, and while a large number of them are truly nuts (sincerely calling for impeachment over an obviously correct ruling), and even more of them are just enjoying venting about how evil the 9th Circuit is, irrelevant of the ruling, at least some of them are annoyed by what appears to be an unduly broad dictum from the opinion. The only reason I say it's too broad is that it wasn't necessary to decide the case at hand, I'm agnostic as to its correctness:
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.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:16 AM
Ogged is legion. Welcome to the HiveMind.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:18 AM
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all ogged.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:22 AM
Welcome to the HiveMineshaft?
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:24 AM
I have no sympathy for the parents/redstaters because I have no sympathy over such prudishness about sex.
I don't know enough about legal theory to back up my preference expressed above with a legal argument, but, really, any arguing I did would be ex post facto justification. It's just not the typical human way of thinking to dedudct policy opinions from one's jurisprudence. Which is why cries of "judicial activism" are so annoying - it's a lie to pretend to care about something when really you're just using it as a cover.
Speaking of, Kevin is starting to suspect that the whole orginalist movement is just such a cover for policy decisions. Susstein, I think, is sort of arguing this too, that very few conservativs are consistent with orginalism. And it seems that if one is not consistent with a theory, then it is a tool, not a principle.
Real activist judges, "perfectionists" Susstein calls them (I don't know if anyone else does), at least are transparent that their legal theory is to use the law as a tool, and don't pretend that they're merely interpreting arcane text. Points for honesty over their sentitious opponents, I think. (Not that they're the only legal theorists taking honest positions.)
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:38 AM
if one is not consistent with a theory, then one is a tool (at least in this case)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:48 AM
What gets me is this: 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.
Has such a law ever been passed? And why would the Ninth Circuit not uphold such a law if they were asked to rule on its constitutionality? And does it matter at all that this hypothetical case is nothing whatsoever like the present case? Reasoning such as this does not rise to the level of bogus.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:50 AM
That said, "to education their children" does rise to the level of "Is our children learning?"
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:53 AM
In a last desperate attempt to salvage the site, Unf is dragged from retirement -- while the indispensible Ogged continues to sulk in his tent attende4d by his catamites. What does he want?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:04 PM
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:05 PM
If I had a daughter, I would certainly feel entitled to be the one to personally initiate her into the mysteries. Not some creepy middle school teacher.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:08 PM
You're sounding kinda creepy yourself there, John.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:19 PM
For any commenters here with teenaged daughters, I'm willing to personally initiate them into the mysteries, rather than creepy John Emerson.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:22 PM
Roll up! Roll up for the Mystery Tour!
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:24 PM
I finally clicked through the link (having a little resistence to visiting Redstate.org..)
I really don't like those questions.
I'm in no way opposed to sex-ed. Partially, perhaps, because contra Emerson's apparent experience, I never had any middle school teachers I would describe as "creepy." (I might not send my kids to schools with "creepy" teachers, if I had a choice.) Also, as a middle-schooler, I was much more comfortable with sex-ed class than when my mom occasionally broached the subject. (Dad never did, for which I was thankful.)
All that said, fifth-graders, let alone 1st or 3rd, should not be subject to saying whether they touch themselves "too much." How the fuck are they supposed to know what's too much? Nor should there be this inquisition into what they're thinking. Protecting kids from abuse is great, but this kind of intrustion is an abuse of its own.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:24 PM
"Instrustion" being intrusive instruction.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:33 PM
And this seems a little tricky to me: I see that parents can't tell the school what to teach and what not to teach. However, is there not a difference between imparting knowledge and extracting knowledge? This is a difficult line, I realize. Obviously, one wants teachers, who presumably care about their charges, to be able to ask children, "do your parents abuse you?" Still, I'm uncomfortable with the kids being asked, "Do you think about sex a lot?"
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:36 PM
25. I think I made the point more clearly in 26, but my icky feeling about is because it's not instruction, is it?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:37 PM
Right, you made your point. I was just pointing out your spelling error. Who do you think you are, Wehttam Saiselgy?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:39 PM
Still, I'm uncomfortable with the kids being asked, "Do you think about sex a lot?"
Why?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:40 PM
29. It would have totally freaked me out when I was that age.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:43 PM
Who do you think you are, Wehttam Saiselgy?
The question that keeps Mot Edlih awake of nights.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:43 PM
When I read the above few comments, I thought, "Don't they have to get consent to carry out any sort of survey?" And they did get consent, but it seems not to have mentioned sexual questions. That seems potentially troublesome--you want the consent forms to be accurate.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:44 PM
Plus, the correlation seems a little tenuous, doesn't it? Sexual abuse may inspure seuxal obsession, but, lots of non-abused kids are fairly obsessed with sexual thoughts. My kid-friends were collecting adult magazines at that age.
28. I am a worse speller the Wehttam, and, as well all know, there's an inverse relationship between spelling ability and intelligence.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:45 PM
the Wehttam
Oh that's just affected.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:48 PM
Well, maybe that's because we keep teaching kids that sex, their genitals, masturbation, etc., are horrible and shameful.
It's ludicrous that we think keeping all talk of sex away from kids is going to somehow protect them from it. I remember in the 2nd grade, my friend told me that her mom told her that you could get pregnant from blowjobs (not those words, obviously). Luckily, I was curious enough (and knew how to use the Dewey Decimal system) that I did some research (I think the following year), otherwise I may well have gone on thinking that until high school or some shit.
I see no reason why children have to be insulated against most straightforward talk about sex. It just doesn't make sense to me.
But I agree, generally, with MW's point in 32. Regardless, there is no fundamental right here, as it seems most of us agree.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:49 PM
But i'm not objecting to sex ed. I just don't like the intrusive personal questions; questions which are further bound to confuse the kids. More abstractly, I don't like that adults in positions of authority have the "right" to demand what a child is thinking.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:53 PM
Re 24: I agree with you. I do not like the questions either and do not think they are appropriate for first-graders. And as was pointed out in 32, the consent forms were vague and inaccurate at best and deceptive at worst. But that is not the legal claim that the parents based their lawsuit on. Instead, they asserted a fundamental right to be their children's exclusive source of information about sex. Such a right is nowhere described in our laws or Constitution, so their lawsuit got thrown out. Had they sued the school district on the issue of whether the consent forms were vague or deceptive, the outcome could have been much different.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 12:59 PM
Am I splitting some fine hairs, today! Obviously, tests are in some ways a demand for the child to think and to show their thought. I suppose the hair here has to be "school business" and "not school business." That's not so easy to determine, but I don't see anything else, so I guess I'm going to have to go with it.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 1:00 PM
Isn't there a difference between keeping all talk of sex away from kids and discussing at what age (recognizing that people mature at different rates) it is appropriate to discuss which aspect of sex?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 1:00 PM
I (and I believe Michael) agree with 37--the RedStater's growling about prayer and the pledge of allegiance is especially tooly. (There is a fundamental right not to have the state teach your kids religion. I don't see sex in the First Amendment.) My position pending more information is "Probably bad policy, probably no grounds for this lawsuit."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 1:02 PM
MAE: Good point. I think the concern I'm bringing up is different from the one resolved in court.
39. How did other people's sex ed classes work? Mine started out with pictures, then slide shows, then videos of birth and sex. The teachers presented information and statistics. We asked questions. But they never asked us questions.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 1:04 PM
But some questions would be fine! Here's the sample questions from Red State:
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
I actually have no problems with 26, 34, 40, or 54.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 1:07 PM
yeah, bad s/v agreement before anyong brings it up.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 1:08 PM
The difference between the questions, I think, is that the others risk making the child feel guilty for what I would think is perfectly normal behavior. The ones I point out seem to me to be much more clearly associated with negative sexual experiences. If one is going to try and decipher whether a child has been sexually abused, it seems prudent to stay away from questions which are too vague and which there are significant reasons for not asking.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 1:13 PM
It's Annyong, with two 'n's, s/he is a fictional character, and s/he doesn't comment here anyway.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 1:15 PM
41: Michael- did you jsut say you watched porn in your sex ed class? you went to a much cooler school than I...
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 1:43 PM
well, they always switched to infrared when the clothes came off.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:13 PM
is 45 apropos of something?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:13 PM
before anyong brings it up, in 43
I'm not violating my "no first strike" policy, because I'm only nitpicking the errors you make when correcting yourself. It's like I'm intervening because you gassed your own people.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:17 PM
47: Really?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:18 PM
Wouldn't that make the various nether bits show up all the more strongly?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:36 PM
I realize I'm having a really bad typing day. Also, I think my keyboard is possessed.
50. Yeah. I went to conservative schools in a conservative state, so it'd be kind of funny if my sex-ed classes were more explicit than normal. The infrared sex was 9th grade. (At least, I can't specifically remember any infrared sex before that, though I'm fairly certain I at least saw infrared naked people) We did watch a birth in 8th grade, though. Noninfrared.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:37 PM
51. Yep. Part of the scientific learning, watching the penis change infrared colors as it HHHaar-Dend!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:38 PM
We did watch a birth in 8th grade, though.
Trying to scare you into abstinence, eh?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:38 PM
Probably just trying to make us all impotent.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:39 PM
Michael, I think I saw that video (I remember an infrared growing erection, at least). It was very weird and everyone was too busy giggling about the inflatable penis to learn anything.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:40 PM
Whew, times sure have changed since they showed me the chalk board drawings.
Technology will do that, I suppose. I caught a smidgen of MRI-sex on TV the other night. Someday we'll be watching an ovarycam as the intruders try to storm the gates. In real time. Of ourselves.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:42 PM
It was an old video. But memorable because, as I've mentioned here before, the lady voiceover narrator stated that the average erect male penis was 12 inches long, and 6-9 flacid.
Apropos of nothing, this is funny.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:42 PM
Last I checked 6-9 = -3. Somebodies sucking it in big time before launcher 'er out.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:44 PM
Sex-ed classes should just use this book.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:47 PM
It could be a reality TV show. People could bet on which little swimmer takes the prize.
The sad thing is - it would be popular. Yeah. We'd have our favorites - Slinky and Wiggler and Stubby the runt.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:48 PM
I can hear the older siblings now -
(British accent)
Awww, Mummy, look at that little stumpy one, there, the runt. He's a good guy. Can't we help him, Mummy? Can't we let him jump the queue?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:51 PM
In my 9th grade biology class (1961-2), the facts of life were taught via crayfish, which apparently mate belly-to-belly like we do, but without the unnecessary foreplay. Really.
Oddly enough, my smalltown high school did end up with a sex scandal, ca. 1975. Oddly enough, the teacher and student involved got married and are still married to this day.
I actually have no interest in initiating my hypothetical daughter into the wonders of sex. I justr thought that some of the Red State commentators seemed too much into it. I think that this is actually something better done by a third party, or by scuttlebutt as far as that goes. My parents dutifully told me the facts of life, but didn't make it seem like much fun. But on the other hand, it would have creeped me out if my dad had enthusiastically explained to me how hot my mom was.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:53 PM
And when the match was over we'd all have a cheer for the winner, and a little tear for all the wee little losers. And then some hot chocolate. With a marshmallow.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:54 PM
And as our heads were on our pillows and we were dropping off to sleep we'd think that, hey, we were that winner once. We won the race. And we'd imagine we were the most beautiful, but not vain. And proud, but still humble. And not really the runt, who is cute, in a way, but not something you would really want to be, ever. No, not the runt.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 2:59 PM
This is so analogous to having troops quartered in your house in time of peace I could spit. There are also big time 20th amendment problems. the 9th circuit, impeach them now!
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 3:00 PM
I actually have no interest in initiating my hypothetical daughter into the wonders of sex.
However, my offer to initiate other people's teenage daughters into said wonders still stands. Call me.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 3:07 PM
This is so analogous to having troops quartered in your house in time of peace I could spit.
The penises tumescing in infrared or the sperm racing thing?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 3:09 PM
Speaking of uncomfortable humor, oh my.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 3:17 PM
Whew, times sure have changed since they showed me the chalk board drawings.
We didn't even have chalkboard drawings -- just Mr. Donohue palming a basketball in each hand to represent the ovaries, as Ms Gilmartin pointed at his arms, representing the fallopian tubes, his torso, representing the uterus... They married later.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 3:34 PM
LB, that's awesome.
Apostropher, holy fuck.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 3:41 PM
Now those guys don't flinch.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 4:09 PM
Oh my indeed.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 4:24 PM
I think that someone here should initiate apostropher into the wonders of sex before he does something unseemly.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 4:29 PM
Unseemly is my middle name.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 4:45 PM
Is the 9th Circuit in CA, or is CA in the 9th Circuit?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 7:59 PM
Where are the 9th Circuit's offices?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 8:01 PM
Portand, Seattle, and San Francisco.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 8:03 PM
And Pasadena.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 8:05 PM
Is apostropher the surname or the given name?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 8:18 PM
Neither.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 8:24 PM
Anyway, the offices and the Circuit are different.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 8:27 PM
The headquarters of the Ninth Circuit is in San Francisco, but the circuit covers Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and Montana. The judges are spread out over the circuit (for example, I think that the current Chief judge sits in Arizona), with the largest concentration of judges being in southern California, I believe.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 8:42 PM
I didn't know most of these things. So do cases argued before the Circuit have to go to the home court of whichever judge they draw? Do the judges all go to San Francisco for panels and en banc reviews? Do these questions even make sense?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 8:54 PM
83: This is true unless the bill to split it goes through, right?
84: Matt, you should be reading this blog.
And apostropher, apropos of nothing else, today was another airport day, which included a brief stop in apostropher country. I waved, but had no time to purchase pork products.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 9:01 PM
re: 84 Panels sit all over the circuit and judges, no matter where their home courthouse is, are called upon to hear cases all over the circuit. There is an effort to hear appeals near the state where the case originated, but this does not always happen. I am pretty sure that en banc panels sit places in addition to San Francisco, but I am not sure where.
re: 85. They have been talking about splitting the circuit for years. It will happen eventually, but who knows when.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 9:16 PM
more re: 84. The Court of Appeals judges only sit in three-judge panels or en banc. They do not hear cases individually.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 9:20 PM
84: Let's see if I can remember anything from first-year civil procedure (unlikely; it was an 8:45 AM class).
So, each of the federal circuits have a number of districts. Usually, each state has at least one district, for example, the 7th circuit courts in Illinois are the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of Illinois. Once it is determined that a particular circuit has jurisdiction over a case (which is a somewhat more complicated question), a judge must decide where "venue" is proper (see the official federal rules concerning venue http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001391----000-.html" Venue determines in which district of the circuit the case will be tried.
If that's even your question. The 9th circuit court of appeals is different from the 9th circuit. The court of appeals is what 87 is talking about. And, I believe, there is only one court of appeals for the 9th circuit, but has four offices (which are the ones apostropher references). However, the list of all the district courts in the 9th circuit can be found here.
And I am pretty sure each district court has several offices, or at least some of them do. But ben is right 82, offices and court are different.
Does that clear it up at all?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 9:34 PM
sorry for ugly link.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 9:35 PM
Well, it's as clear as it's likely to get without my spending more time than I ought to on it (if I'm going to take up a new field of study at this time of my life, looks like it ought to be accounting). I couldn't understand most of the blog slol linked though the top post AOTW was an amusing echo of the 85/86 exchange. (There may be some administrative merit to the proposal, but the utter abuse of power that they seem to be engaged in--non-budget matters on reconciliation bills, yay--makes me think that the people who are pushing it really care about a chance for conservative court-packing.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 9:50 PM
I'm bored and trying to procrastinate; you people are failing me...
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:06 PM
I was going to comment, but now I won't, just to be mean.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:10 PM
I probably deserve it.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:21 PM
Have you checked out our latest musings on Ms. Dowd on the "Drudge" thread?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:24 PM
Me too, if our roles were reversed.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:25 PM
That Dowd article has been entertaining me all week long; every time I want a good laugh I just go and look at her ridiculous picture. Works like a charm.
But I was going to suggest BEFAFILF. Bitter, or possibly Bad, excuse for a feminist. It has notes of beef, with an aftertaste of FIFA, and I approve of both.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:32 PM
Newly revealed blog?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:36 PM
I realized that I don't actually care, even though - gasp! - livejournal (collective shudder).
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:37 PM
Nothing wrong with that. It's like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fans looking down on Trekkies, or something.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:41 PM
A very good point.
It is, however, the land of teenage drivel, replete with usernames such as xxxxemogirlxxxxx. So there's that.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:45 PM
Well, you've also got iocaste and Sisyphus Shrugged. And Movable Typers have Insty and Powerwhatsis and like that. Eh, blogz is blogz, and I still seem to be on my drive to ensure that only one thread has exactly 100 comments.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 10:56 PM
Just peck my spleen, Maureen
I won't read your column's weightless prose
The paragraphs that last but one slack sentence each
Cause whales to beach
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:01 PM
I'm in the market for a better closing line.
Also: "Those paragraphs" etc.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:05 PM
Standpipeself, your spleen
a heart-piercing torpedo
lo, at the mineshaft
Posted by Maureen Dowd | Link to this comment | 11- 3-05 11:07 PM
Shall I dye my hair deep red? Or should I rather bleach?
I shall wear high scarlet sling-backs, and practice hip-kid speech.
I have heard the bloggers snarking, each to each.
I never thought that they would snark at me.
Posted by No, I'm Maureen Dowd | Link to this comment | 11- 4-05 6:41 AM
Excellent.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11- 4-05 7:14 AM
"peck my" s/b "vent your"
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11- 4-05 7:15 AM
Thank you, cher maître / chère maîtresse.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 11- 4-05 7:29 AM
R. Unseemly Barnes?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 4-05 10:45 AM
He has RUB monogrammed on his shirts.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11- 4-05 10:51 AM
Instruction ≠ monogram.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 11- 4-05 2:41 PM
He has RUB monogrammed on his shirts.
You spelled shorts wrong.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 4-05 3:01 PM