X, two state employees were fired.
It doesn't matter that this event went on at Tufts or was a privately funded seminar. After all, why was the event announced as being co-sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Governor’s Commission, and GLSEN co-sponsored a statewide conference at Tufts University called "Teach-Out"? It seems pretty clear that this was, at least partially funded, by the state.
All you have to explain to me is why TWO STATE EMPLOYEES WERE FIRED AS A RESULT OF THEIR PARTICIPATION. Now why would 3 State employees be participating unless they were being paid their salaries?
The three people in question GAVE PRESENTATIONS at this conference:
o Margot E. Abels, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education
o Julie Netherland, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education
O Michael Gaucher, Consultant, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health
The Department of Public Health employee, Michael Gaucher, had the following exchange with one student, who appeared to be about 16 years old:
Michael Gaucher: "What orifices are we talking about?"
Student: [hesitation]
Michael Gaucher: "Don’t be shy, honey; you can do it."
Student: "Your mouth."
Michael Gaucher: "Okay."
Student: "Your ass."
Michael Gaucher: "There you go."
Student: "Your pussy. That kind of place."
**********
AND THEN the other Dept of Education employee, Julie Netherland had THIS exchange:
"A lesson in fisting?"
There was a five minute pause so that all of the teenagers could write down questions for the homosexual presenters. The first question was read by Julie Netherland, "What’s fisting?"
A student answered this question by informing the class that "fisting" is when you put your "whole hand into the ass or pussy" of another. When a few of the students winced, the Department of Public Health employee offered, "A little known fact about fisting: you don’t make a fist like this. It’s like this." He formed his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier.
And then Margaret Abels of the Mass Dept of Health had this exchange:
Margot Abels told the students that "fisting" is not about forcing your hand into somebody’s "hole, opening or orifice" if they don’t want it there. She said that "usually" the person was very relaxed and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it is a very emotional and intense experience.
At this point, a youngster of about 16 asked why someone would want to do that. He stated that if the hand were pulled out quickly, the whole thing didn’t sound very appealing to him. Margot Abels was quick to point out that although fisting "often gets a really bad rap," it usually isn’t about the pain, "not that we’re putting that down." Margot Abels informed him and the class that "fisting" was "an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with." When a child asked the question, "Why would someone do this?" Margot Abels provided a comfortable response to the children, in order to "put them into an exploratory mode."
Now just what the hell state employees think they are doing by twisting their anti-STD program into a discussion of sexual techniques absolutely defies logic.
And I never said that 1.5 million went to just that seminar. It is what they were budgeting to homosexual teen anti-suicide and AIDS prevention programs for the year.
Now compare that to how much is likely being spent on heterosexual education programs and I could see quite a bias. Considering that gays make up 10% (MAX) of the population, then heterosexual sex ed classes should be receiving $13 million in funding equivalent.
And maybe a better question is, WHY WOULD EITHER PROGRAM JUSTIFY BEING FUNDED?
And even if it were as you state, how can you justify permitting teenagers to be exposed to that kind of material (sexual techniques and activities) without forewarning the parents or demanding that parents accompany their children. In fact, I've seen "R" rated movies that were less graphic than the discussion the transcript reveals.
In my view, schools should NOT be in the business of teaching sexual positions. It is one thing to teach anti-STD/AIDS awareness and pass out free condoms, and quite another to be answering questions that even Penthouse and Playboy barely touch upon.
Now if you can't understand that X, then that's YOUR PROBLEM and your own moral burden. But the more that public education fails to protect and respect the wishes of parents, the more kids who will be dragged out of these schools and home taught, or put into private school.
If you have information that you'd care to share, then that would be fine.
But it still won't explain why 3 Massachusetts State Education/Health employees were intimately involved in discussing graphic sexual practices with minors.
Explain that one with your "data and research".
And while you're at it, why not order the tape of the entire exchange that was recorded. Btw, the recorder of this event was later charged with illegal wire-tapping (although this was a public event) and the judge put a gag order on all parties involved.
Now just what the hell is up with that? What did they have to hide? |
