The New Media Militia

In true class warfare fashion the prominent democrat schemester Mike Brunelle saw his minimum wage bill go down in flames yesterday, which was exactly the point.  But put all the politicking and future sound biting aside, what is the real point?  Democrats either intentionally put politics above real job creation or they are just too daft to know any better.  but the results are the same either way.

The proof is in the blue pudding which is served across the counters of minimum wage employers all across the state.   It’s not actual pudding, it can be observed in the declining number of pimples on the faces of the people serving you at these places of business.  No it’s not Proactiv solution, it is the nature of markets and a common business sense which confounds left wing rhetoric.

Given the choice between someone in their thirties, forties or beyond and the average teenager, a manager interested in providing the most reliable and courteous staff to his customers will pick the grown-ups almost every time.  They tend to care more, are more reliable, more productive, more courteous, and responsive to direction and goals.

So raising the state minimum wage would only push teenage unemployment higher, reducing entry level access to the less skilled of all ages.  I know.  I was the less skilled. (Maybe I still am.) I started out at Mc Donald’s at $2.35 an hour, worked my way up to store manager–complete with corporate training that shows you how a business is run–carried that into decision making rolls with other food chains, and from there into the technology sector, Quality and materials management jobs, and beyond.

Low wage entry level jobs are not just important to employers and customers from a cost and competition perspective, they are important to employees who need to learn how to earn more through behavior and performance.  Denying low wage entry level jobs to people willing to work hard and learn on the job is one of the fastest ways to ensuring long term reliance on government handouts.

But democrats are the party of couch-potato handouts.   And increasing costs will kill jobs.  So is that Brunelle’s goal, or is he just another useful idiot of the left recycling wage rhetoric for political points.  And are the people of New Hampshire smart enough to know the difference?

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2011/03/gsftc_spins_and_spins.html

Here’s a suggestion Diane wont like.  Save tax dollars.  Cut sex ed in public school altogether. That’d fix your genderless wagon.

Because at what point did the role of public school teacher go from point and click anatomy to Dr. Ruth meets The Dark Bothers?  The last thing I want is a government bureaucrat using their judgment to explore sexual intimacy issues with my kids in a public school.  And in a high school? Are you providing private beds at discounted rates?  That’s like pouring gasoline on a fire.  Anatomy at least serves a public education purpose.

Diane is also a proud member of the NEA and committed to their goals for the genderless classroom.   She believes that parents should not be able to opt out of the “Love the one your with regardless of genitals” public school intimacy training she supports, and she blames our American religious heritage for keeping it out of the classroom.

So I guess if you don’t want some public sector, UN loving, union hack to teach your kid about free love you are some stuck up religious bigot.  (I’ve been called worse.)

What you actually are is a parent who feels a moral and fiscal (and very likley religious) obligation to educate your own children with your values.  Values that may not include the notion that sex is like the all you can eat salad bar.  You also understand that the village known as government run public education does not share those values with you.

That was why until recently we expected them to stick to math and science and grammar.  But unions and UN’s need to control things like children to build the next perfect failed state, so now they want to teach intimacy so that a small fraction of the community won’t feel left out when they discuss what the pluses and minuses are in anatomy.

And isn’t that what you pay tax-dollars for?  Transgenders-Psycho-sexual-intimacy-therapists.  It’s the class right after Environmental worship, and before “English is the language of tyrants.”

Diane’s speech follows.  We had an issue with the audio of her speech ,so that will be added later.

[Audio link of Diane Schneider’s Speech at the UN will be added here later today or in a separate post with a link here.  The transcript follows.]

Transcript of Diane Schneider’s UN CSW speech begins here.

…Education international represents 30 million teachers and education workers.  There are approximately 402 member organizations in 173 countries and territories, ranging from pre-school to university level. It is the world’s largest global (unintelligible) federation and the only one representing education workers in every corner of the globe.  They protect the rights of every teacher, education worker and student they educate.  They combat racism and discrimination in education and society fostering relations between education workers in all countries.

The other group I am honored to represent tonight is the National Education Association, which is a union for all educators in the United States.  It has 3.2 million members, who are all public education employees from across the United States.  It is the largest union n the country.   NEA is also a member of Education International.  NEA’s commitment is to quality public education for all and including a safe environment for employees and their students.

There are 3 separate factions within the National Education Association that work specifically with LGBT issues.

The LGBT Cadre…and you have a flier if you haven’t taken one, on your way out there are plenty there.  I am so proud to be a member of the NEA and of the work they do in this cadre.  We offer training to staff members throughout the world. Cadre members have been trained to deliver 4 modules that deal with safe schools.  I have provided a flier as I said; I hope you all take one.

SOGI, S-O-G-I, is NEA’s standing committee on sexual orientation and gender identification. It serves as an advisory role on policy development and program direction. The committee develops recommendations for government in response to specific charges. Presently, the committee continues to work on charges related to rights, benefits and protections for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Trans-gender members,(unintelligible) factors that GLBT schools truancy and dropout rates and testimonies from the committee hearings.

Finally the GLBT caucus, the National Education Associations Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered caucus was founded in the 1980s by a handful of NEA members thinking to provide a means of professional support for gays and lesbians colleagues. The NEA GLBT caucus works to provide GLBT teachers, education support professionals and students with safe schools free of anti GLBT bias and intolerance, and to provide sound education programs for all students.

The NEA GLBT caucus, in order to eliminate institutional discrimination and homophobia, monitors and participates in the development of NEA policies and activities, provides resources and forces better communication among educators, students and communities.

And now, I am going to talk with my sex educator’s hat on… since the topic is sexuality.

The term sex education in my opinion is a somewhat of an oxymoron. Education connotes a need to deliver comprehensive information and (tools) to our students and to stay abreast of the latest information and trends. I do not know of any other subject that is so maltreated when it comes to freedom of topic, style and format. 

Many schools throughout the world cover sex education in the realm of reproduction as part of a biology class which provides a subtle message to LGBT youth that their intimacy does not count. There are schools that are vehement about offering abstinence only based sex education classes. Many schools offer parents the opportunity to have their child opt out of sex education and still receive full health credit for their class.

The United States was founded by a very religious faction who stronghold is still felt by those sex education programs that are founded on the guidelines of sex for the sake of reproducing.

How can we teach sex education without including terms such as orgasm, oral sex and masturbation?   We are here today because the chasm that exists when it comes to addressing issues of sexual orientation and gender identity within the educational forum.

I have asked many health educators when topics such as sexual orientation arise. They have said that homosexuality is only mentioned during their lesson on HIV AIDS.

With this in mind, how can we expect to obliterate homophobia in this country? The question comes to mind; how we as educators conserve to eradicate homo and trans-phobia through education? This is an awesome task.

The key to the answer lies in the realization that both gender identity expression as well as sexual orientation is a spectrum and not a box that houses our demons. We must teach our children at a very young age that the male, female and intersex comes with the presence of genitalia and no further expectation. That one needs to grow up and be their authentic self, free of society’s gender expectations…that one needs to grow up and be their authentic self, free of societies–I just said that–gender expectations, sorry.

The same could be true of our sexual orientation.  Homophobia exists when those stocked in the binary box of strictly hetero, find themselves slipping out of that role that religion and family promote.

When we as a society, encourage (unintelligible) that it is normal to be attracted to a variety of people and situations, we will then begin to conquer homophobia.

Once again, to be true and authentic about romantic relations without fear or sin of wrongdoing could mark the beginning of the end of homophobia.

As a co-chair of GLSEN , the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, it is important to know that there are support groups in schools called gay straight alliances which serve to keep the education concerning sexual orientation, gender-identity expression alive.

Being an openly gay teacher in my school for me, it was safe and created an even safer environment for my students. As educators, we must create the need for LGTB history inclusion.

When I ask my students to raise their hand if they have ever heard of Martin Luther King Junior, every single child in that classroom raise their hand. I would ask them to keep their hand up and ask if they have ever heard of Bayard Rustin, not a hand remained in the air.  Bayard Rustin as some of you know was material in organizing the 1963 march on Washington, where Martin Luther King Junior gave his famous speech. (Unintelligible) uh, there were no hands up so…when all students realized that there are gay heroes in history, the homophobia will lessen.

Another important education piece that would tend to lessen the phobias we are addressing is taking the time to dedicate lessons that deal with discrimination, prejudice and stereotypes. Hate and violence are preceded first by ignorance, ignorance, which result in fear and then a sense of anger.  Education is the only way to combat the so called phobias that bring us here today.

The question that needs to be addressed through education is how to combat heterosexism and gender conformity in our societies. Once we put all our concerted efforts into more comprehensive  education and make topics such as ”isms”, gender identity and sexual orientation,  a part of every middle school and high school student agendas, will we then begin to see a shift from misunderstanding to a peaceful understanding and acceptance of differences.

And finally, quality public education means that educators are well trained with the appropriate material in support to effectively teach all children in a safe, nurturing environment.

This includes our service to students who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or perceived gay.

Thank you very much for your time.

Transcript Ends

Related Links

C-FAM

Hot Air (Green Room)

ACEI.org

UN Women

First and foremost, by advocating for the remedy of social ills by statutory action Bishop Robinson immediately contradicts his own moral objection.  The only way for the state to attempt care for any class of persons under any set of circumstances–moral or otherwise–is to use the force of law, under threat of punishment, to extract the necessary income from whomever it chooses.  (A sacrifice perpetrated on the weak by the strong–under force of temporal law–is not also social abuse?)

Even God does not demand as much.  God gives us free will.  Bishop Robinson appears to prefer statutory taxation.  Not terribly trusting of him is it?  You’d think his priority would be to shift that kind of caring away from the state into the hands of more qualified institutions.  And he would have more than one good reason if he was not acting like a christian socialist.

It is a historical fact that social distress expands to meet the supply of publicly funded services available to reduce it, making the funds available forever inadequate to the task. 

It is also a documented fact that governments–lead by sinners, as Bishop Robinson must understand we all are–will define the “vulnerable,” and therefore the assistance required, based almost entirely on their own personal agendas and the human desire for power and influence–which must also include the warm feeling social justice advocates get by “doing good deeds” with the fruits of other peoples labors.  They just can’t help themselves.

We end up with good deeds like helping vulnerable banks (domestic and international), auto makers, unions, ensuring young women can abort babies (in foreign countries no less), even helping states full of public sector workers, who are all worthy of our property on some notion of morality, because failing to act could make them vulnerable.  

So what is it that this kind of government cannot or should not do? There are no limits.  The government does not have to define any act as moral, it simply needs to act to prevent immorality.  And since any act must ensure equal treatment (or mistreatment),as defined by the nature of those doing the deciding, by using these rules there is nothing that cannot be considered a morally statutory obligation (to avoid creating immoral ones) and therefore no limit to the amount of property the state could confiscate to pay for these obligations.  The state simply needs to decide the obligation exists and then proceed to write laws to extract the “necessary funds.” 

This is the trap of the statist fiscal morality.

But no nation that has ever advanced a political agenda based on this kind of  “morality” has ever managed to do more than increase the number of those defined as vulnerable, while simultaneously reducing the resources available with which to administer to their increasing needs.  

And how moral is it to reduce one mans property against his will to address another mans perceived ‘needs’ when all that does is increase those in need who must then scrounge amidst a resource in spiraling decline as a result of statutory force?

History is unkind to those who pretend this process has any other logical conclusion.  And it is a path you will find increasingly difficult to stray from because of people like Gene Robinson who use mankind’s declining moral authority as an excuse for the faux-morality of state mandated secular socialism–an irony that should not be lost on a cleric like Bishop Gene Robinson.

And what of free will?  God gave it to us to test us. Have we failed so miserably that even a Bishop cannot see how we might come to the defense of the vulnerable, even in the context of minimizing some state services? 

Whatever happened to a church whose role was the building and defending of the institutions that traditionally cared for the blind, the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, the uninsured, the impoverished elderly, or kept children out of poverty?  Are we so weak in our faith in mankind and the family to suggest that without the state to intervene the “vulnerable” would be cut loose to wander helplessly among us?  Have we abandoned that task to fast talking  politicians and career bureaucrats?  And if so at what cost to morality?

At some point the reality of the debt accumulated to sustain a system that values the costs of a state run morality over a private one becomes immoral on its own.  We institute the condition of generational debt at every level of government, passed down to our children.  To paraphrase something Dennis Miller said the other day, we just owe it forward.  There is nothing moral about this.  We should be teaching generations to give of themselves freely to help those in need, not under threat of fine or punishment by the government.  Cutting unsustainable costs and retuning that money to the people is not immoral.  It is an opportunity for them to learn to give of themselves to pick up the slack, and care for their own family members and their fellow man–which if I am not being to direct, it suitable work for an Episcopalian Shepherd and his flock.

So instead of preaching to the state of its moral obligation to confiscate the property of others to administer to the people, perhaps the Church and Bishop Robinson might look inward at how they might prevent an immoral state from robbing them of the role for which they are acutely qualified–the caring of bodies and souls–even of those who do not believe.  It would be the christian thing to do.

Note to those who might take issue with my post on the grounds that Gene Robinson is a Bishop: My Uncle was an Episcopalian Bishop (may his soul rest in peace.)