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?
You have an errant apostrophe somewhere in that post, but I'm not saying where.
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?
But how do we know you and Kotsko are not the same person?
Not only the same person, but that person is... ogged!
"My name is ogged, for we are many."
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.
Ogged is legion. Welcome to the HiveMind.
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all ogged.
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.)
if one is not consistent with a theory, then one is a tool (at least in this case)
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.
That said, "to education their children" does rise to the level of "Is our children learning?"
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.
You're sounding kinda creepy yourself there, John.
For any commenters here with teenaged daughters, I'm willing to personally initiate them into the mysteries, rather than creepy John Emerson.
Roll up! Roll up for the Mystery Tour!
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.
"Instrustion" being intrusive instruction.
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?"
25. I think I made the point more clearly in 26, but my icky feeling about is because it's not instruction, is it?
Right, you made your point. I was just pointing out your spelling error. Who do you think you are, Wehttam Saiselgy?
Still, I'm uncomfortable with the kids being asked, "Do you think about sex a lot?"
Why?
29. It would have totally freaked me out when I was that age.
Who do you think you are, Wehttam Saiselgy?
The question that keeps Mot Edlih awake of nights.
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.
the Wehttam
Oh that's just affected.
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.
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.
yeah, bad s/v agreement before anyong brings it up.
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.
It's Annyong, with two 'n's, s/he is a fictional character, and s/he doesn't comment here anyway.
41: Michael- did you jsut say you watched porn in your sex ed class? you went to a much cooler school than I...
well, they always switched to infrared when the clothes came off.
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.
Wouldn't that make the various nether bits show up all the more strongly?
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.
51. Yep. Part of the scientific learning, watching the penis change infrared colors as it HHHaar-Dend!
We did watch a birth in 8th grade, though.
Trying to scare you into abstinence, eh?
Probably just trying to make us all impotent.
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.
Apropos of nothing, this is funny.
Last I checked 6-9 = -3. Somebodies sucking it in big time before launcher 'er out.
Sex-ed classes should just use this book.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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?
Speaking of uncomfortable humor, oh my.
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.
LB, that's awesome.
Apostropher, holy fuck.
I think that someone here should initiate apostropher into the wonders of sex before he does something unseemly.
Is the 9th Circuit in CA, or is CA in the 9th Circuit?
Where are the 9th Circuit's offices?
Portand, Seattle, and San Francisco.
Is apostropher the surname or the given name?
Anyway, the offices and the Circuit are different.
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?
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.
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.
more re: 84. The Court of Appeals judges only sit in three-judge panels or en banc. They do not hear cases individually.
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?
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.)
I'm bored and trying to procrastinate; you people are failing me...
I was going to comment, but now I won't, just to be mean.
Have you checked out our latest musings on Ms. Dowd on the "Drudge" thread?
Me too, if our roles were reversed.
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.
I realized that I don't actually care, even though - gasp! - livejournal (collective shudder).
Nothing wrong with that. It's like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fans looking down on Trekkies, or something.
A very good point.
It is, however, the land of teenage drivel, replete with usernames such as xxxxemogirlxxxxx. So there's that.
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.
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
I'm in the market for a better closing line.
Also: "Those paragraphs" etc.
Standpipeself, your spleen
a heart-piercing torpedo
lo, at the mineshaft
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.
"peck my" s/b "vent your"
Thank you, cher maître / chère maîtresse.
He has RUB monogrammed on his shirts.
He has RUB monogrammed on his shirts.
You spelled shorts wrong.