Mickey

I don't want it half done either but I also don't want to hang on long after all that was realisitically doable has been done just becase it would be bad for the fortunes of either party. Can it be done? That is the question. If it can, why are we so far from getting it done 2+ years into it?

Bib, the war is going to be the major issue in the election next year because it is the major issue. The fighting, the dying, the critical importance it has to the present and future of the country makes it so, not the democrats. The house GOP is trying to force a quick vote on Iraq for political reasons so the idea that the war is enmeshed with politics is hardly one sided. As far as a party being desparate enough to get back the WH, well, the other party has been lying or simply BS'ing in their own quest to hang on to the WH. It would be nice to think we could separate war from politics but that isn't realistic. I think someone said once that war is simply an extension of politics. A stable "democratic" Iraq would be wonderful. Is it possible though? Tell me why the Iraqi's are going to be able to get a handle on an insurgency whose lethality we have not been able to reduce ourselves despite our superior firepower, training, technology and virtually unlimited resources? We have hammered away with all our power now for 2+ years and the insuregency rages on. Isn't it possible that our presence in Iraq, especially an endless one, could be more destabilizing to the region than the alternative? Maybe we have achieved all we can reasonably expect to achieve there. What has to be achieved before we can leave? How will we achieve those goals? Please tell me because if I hear "stay the course" or "we will leave when the Iraqi's can defend themselves" one more time, I'm going to scream.

What constitutes victory in the war in Iraq?

..and in the White House. Some lawyers try cases, those who can't apparently run for congress.

How is it determined that the Iraqi's have reached that milestone of being able to "effectively police themselves"? Would you consider what we are doing to be effective policing? If we can't effectively police them in 2 1/2 years, I am not sure what basis we have for believing that the Iraqi's will be able to themselves. The one good thing about an amorphous standard is that you can stretch it to mean anything you want. Politically, the administration can just up and declare victory marshaling what ever tid bits of progress they can and fashion it into an argument that we have achieved victory. This really shouldn't be a democrat/republican thing. I think all sides agree that we are going to leave Iraq, it is just a matter of time and I also think most would prefer, if possible, to get out sooner rather than later. The question is, what must be achieved for us to leave and all I hear in response is some version of "when the Iraqi's can protect themselves..." A laudable goal and it makes sense to me but that standard is impossible to measure and, given our own inability to provide acceptable security, ultimately unrealistic. The historical reference is a good one, thanks for the history lesson.

No, it was decided by two Judges from the Ninth and one from the Eighth so all together it was a decison by the 8.666666th Circuit.

Well, dismissal for failure to state a claim is pretty close to that. That was done by the trial court first and then the circuit court on appeal by the parents. I think they had recourse to an appeal as a matter of right. They didn't have the disecretion not to hear it. Maybe they could have just said "Affirmed" and left it at that but I don't know. In state court in NY the appellate courts often do that in run of the mill cases. I think they did say that this was not the proper forum for addressing whether they should have done the study, ie, the proper forum was the PTA or school board meetings and the like.

China

I understand the confusion over that part of the ruling but what it means is that a parent can't veto the schools choices on curriculum, it doesn't meant that they can't have their kid stay out of a particular class. "...determinations of public schools as to the information..." That means: curriculum. If you read the entire opinion you will see that they cited with approval a whole bunch of cases where parents in fact held their kids out of a class or activity. What they can't do is change the curriculum which, by definition, is what all the kids are being taught. For example, lets say that the state standards require that evolution be taught and tested in science classes. Clearly, in reponse local school districts are going to put evolution in the curriculum. If you object to that, you can hold you kid home that day from school or have them skip every science class during which evolution is taught. However, when your kid takes his science test, evolution will be on there and you can't ask that your kid be given a diffent test because he knows nothing abuot evolution because you found it offensive. Because parents have the freedom to just pull their kids from offensive educational programs, this line of cases has gone largely unnoticed and has been relatively free of controversey. This case involved sex and the Ninth Circuit and some conservatives saw an opportunity so a big deal is being made out of it. The language you are worried about is right of other, older cases. Its only news now because of the misinterpretation and outright misleading coverage from the right. Again, the fact that the whole article that started this thread omits one of the single most important facts of the whole case, that the parents involved signed a consent form, tells you all you need to know. This case is being used for propaganda and fortunately for those using it, the issue is just complicated enough and the opinion just long enough to allow them to get away with it. Do you think this thread would be as long as it is if the post that started it said: "Parents who signed consent form to study can't sue over their kids participation in the study"

I don't know how many more times it can be explained to you that in fact, a parent does have the right to control the education of their own child. What they don't have is the right to control the curriculum for all the kids. Thus, they can keep their kids out of health class the day they talk about sperm and eggs. What they can't do is force the school to drop the class for everyone else. Doesn't the consent form that told parents they could opt out of the study with not penalty or denial of elegibility for services show that to be the case? It was just a badly done consent form that's all. Do you really think there was a shool district conspiracy to "cloak" this study and dupe parents? What was the motivation? What interest did the school have in coming up with an elaborate scheme to get some kids to respond to 200 questions of which 10 had something to do with sex? Why was it so critically important for the district to get a few 7 year olds to answer those lousy ten questions? It makes so little sense that it borders on the ludicrous. I have also pointed out to you that this decision was by three judges, one of whom was not from the Ninth Circuit. Also, the precedent they relied upon and from where the language you most object to originated is out of the First Circuit. Lastly, there are precedents upholding the exact same principle from just about every other Circuit in the land. Do you dispute any of those facts at all? If not, why then do you keep blaming this on the Ninth Circuit as if they came out of left field with this ruling? They may do that waaaay too often on other issues but the clear undeniable fact is that on this one, their ruling was dead on mainstream.

Tom, don't hold back, say what's on your mind and stop beating your bush, I mean about your bush, I mean about Bush, er..um, nevermind. Maybe I could interst you in a sex survey for first graders?

If Iraqi's want a civil war, they will have one unless we are there to forcefully prevent one. That will delay but not prevent a civil war. What if it is all going to go to hell when we leave anyway whether that is this year, next year or 10 years from now? Should we still stay so that PJ can't blame Bush for the failure of the Iraqi invasion? Tell me what would have to happen, how many more months of an insurgency whose lethality continues despite our military efforts, before you would consider the possibility that we have already achieved all that can be achieved in this war and it is time to go? At the same time, being optimistic, what would we have to achieve there that we haven't so far that would be enough for us to leave?

This is a good point. How you measure "winning" and "losing" in this endeavor is a very difficult proposition. If roughly the same people are dying today as yesterday and the day before and the day before and the day before, etc, does that mean we are winning? By the same token, does that really mean we are "losing"? What I keep hearing as far as determining when we leave is that we will leave when the Iraqi's can handle their own security. What in the world does that mean? It seems to me to be an impossibly amorphous standard. I'm not sure it is realistic either. If we can't stop the insurgency or at least stop its ability to kill lots and lots of people, why on earth do we think that there will come a day when the Iraqi's can do it? Are they smarter, tougher, better equipped or better trained than our own troops? What is the basis for realistically thinking that the Iraqi's will achieve what we have not been able to achieve? My sense tells me that this standard for our departure is for the cameras. We will leave the split second it becomes politically tolerable to the President and the Republican party to do so. As soon as they can pull out and credibly make a case that it was a vicotry, we are outta there. I think the long term fortunes of the Republican Party are, for this administration, the most importan concern in Iraq right now than the future of Iraq as a democracy. We can't be seen as retreating from this "insurgency" but at the same time, we have been unable to defeat the insurgency if the death toll is any indication. This is the predicament behind the "quagmire" metaphor. We can't totally defeat them and yet, until we do, we can't leave lest it be viewed as a retreat or defeat. So we are stuck there indefinitely, forever on the edge of a victory that never comes. The only solution for the President, the Republican party and even the country is to develop some face saving pretense that lets us get out of there and credibly claim that we finished the job despite whatever hell breaks loose in the wake of our departure. This isn't science so I'm not dug in on this, I'm just thinking out loud.

You don't take the measure of a GM based on just one or two things even if they are major issues like a top pick. I think the fair way to assess their performance is looking at the big picture over the long haul. On that basis, Donohoe is rates somewhere between utter failure and mediocre. He has made some good decisions, no doubt, but he has made plenty of bad ones and in the final analysis, the team is simply not a very good team. This was his year to finally punch through the wall of averageness and it just isn't happening. The season is still very much in doubt so he still has a chance to improve his grade but at this point, you would have to rate him as a failure.

Having trouble reading today? I answered "No...", I'll save you the checking: No, but I also won't let my daughter play dodgeball, do I have a constitutional right to shut down dodgeball at the entire school? Court cases aren't about what is right and what is wrong, they are about what is so wrong its actionable. In the constitutional realm, that bar is as high as it can get." Do you want to talk about the Ninth Circuit's decision in this case or do you want to have a general discussion about what kids should and should not be exposed to? I am talking about the law, and you want to talk about something else. I'm sure you understand that not every wrong is constitutionally actionable nor should it be. Is the sex issue really the only issue that interests you here? Would the parent's case have been weaker if the questions they objected to had to do with violence, the holocaust, slavery, the origins of life, politics or any number of other issues potentially offensive to some parents? There isn't a special constitutional right here whose existence depends on whether sex is involved but evaporates if the item on the curriculum is offensive on some other basis to some other parents. If you disagree with Court's ruling, please suggest to me how they should have ruled so I can understand the constitutional right that you would have created here. I won't even ask you to justify their overruling a line of precedents from every circuit court and the Supreme court long enough to choke a lawyer's horse.

That is exactly what it came down to, the poorly drafted consent letter which could have included more information than it did. That is what led to the original problem, parents who, once they knew the details and too late, objected to their kids being in the study. There are political, administrative and even legal remedies to that problem (an action for fraud perhaps?). The remedy they chose and I have to beleive it was upon the political/legal advice of whoever it was who funded this litigation (I doubt the parents paid out of their own pocket), was to use this as a test case to try and get the Ninth to rewrite the law on this issue and create a right for each parent to have exclusive control over the curriculum available to all kids, not just their own. The court didn't bite. There were other arguments they could have made the might have been more successful if the goal was to win this case but that wasn't the goal. They wanted not only to win but to win on a particular ground. It really is a conflict as old as the hills. Anytime people come together in groups they have to figure out how to make rules and get along. Hence legislators and lawmaking, hence school boards. In those bodies the collective will is expressed and laws agreed to or policies or curriculums, etc. Its all hunky dory but problems arise for individuals who disagree with the majority. To the extent possible, it is nice to accomodate those mavericks and malcontents whether they are fundamentalist Christians or Darwinian Lesbians for Christ or whatever. That consent form was a way to accomodate those who might object, a laudable effort that was botched. Fundamentally though, the collective "we" have to decide on a curriculum and once decided, no one person or minority group can cancel that, they can just be conscientous objectors and sit out the lecture on the "Do's and Don'ts of clitoral stimulation".

Do you think there was a conspiracy on the part of the school district to indut first graders into a porn ring or do you think it more likely that they trusted the researcher involved and never read the 200 or so questions on the three separate tests which were part of the study, all of which were originally drafted by well known firms? Given the purpose of the study, the kinds of questions they asked had to be asked. You can't have a test on emotional and psychiatric issues without asking about sex the same way you can't have a math test without asking about math. Really the only problem at all involved here is that the consent forms lacked information that 5 or 6 parents at the school would have considered critical in terms of their consent. Note that this wasn't a class action suit involving hundreds of parents and students. Even after all was known, only a handful felt that the best option was a constitutional law case in federal court. I would bank on their litigation costs being covered by some political group having their own reasons to bring a case any lawyer would have said, from the start, was a total loser. If it was their own dime, those parents wouldn't have sued. I don't know what group fronted the costs or even if there was one, I am just speculating. What do you think about the article that was linked at the start of this thread that just happened to leave out the fact that the parents signed consent forms for their kids to participate in the study? That is like writing an article on the destruction of the Hindenburg without mentioning that there was a fire.

Sure, it was a lousy info sheet though it did give all the info they needed to make further inquiry. The only true way to present it would be to include all the questions, all 200 or so of them, including the 10 involving sex. What you are describing is more a case for fraud, not a constitutional issue. Plenty of remedy for that. I'm pretty sure this district will never make that mistake again and that others will learn from it and avoid the same error. No need for a federal case. The alternative is just too difficult to even consider. 1,000 kids with 2,000 parents all with their own sensibilities and demanding a "right" to their own tailored not to offend curriculums. Impossible. The district here tried to do the right thing with the consent form, they just did a bad job.

Sure sounds ike a goofy study that should have been cut at the knees at a school board meeting. Don't need a constitutional crisis to fix this pretty easily.

Great, you agree with the Ninth Circuit then. As to your question, I already answered that with regard to my kids. I wouldn't have signed the consent form. At the very least, I would have asked questions just as the info sheet from the district provided. I would have had the right to pull my kid from that class that day. Just as these parents did. What I couldn't do is to stop other kids whose parents were okay with the study from participating. Simple.

She was wrong, I agree, the consent should have had more information. She should be disciplined for that and everyone should agree not to make that mistake again. No need for a new constitutional right. Check the opinion again, the court repeatedly says you can keep your kid away from that stuff. You don't have to send them to school but once you decide to do that, you can't control the curriculum. The partial solution and this is what is often done, is kids are sent to school but held out of the activity the parent objects to, they go to study hall or something. What they can't do is change the whole lesson plan for one kid or two or three. The flow of info for everyone else has to be there while those other kids are in study hall waiting for the "bad" class to end. Really, we seem to agree here. "Exclusive" was not only in the opinion, it was central to it: "The question before us is simply whether the parents have a constitutional right to exclusive control over the introduction and flow of sexual information to their children." and: "Thus, whether the parents have a constitutional right to exclusive control over the introduction and flow of sexual information to their children depends entirely upon whether the asserted right is encompassed within some broader constitutional right." In their holding, they put the word in italics to emphasize its importance, the italics were omitted in most the article cited to start this thread. "We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it." The court even mentioned the activism angle the plaintiffs were expressly inviting, so its not just me: "The parents cite no case recognizing such a curriculum exception. They simply urge that we create one..." Don't get me wrong, the school district was a pack of morons on this one, no question. We just don't need a whole new right breeding tons of cases over parental objections to curriculum. We have too many cases and not enough judges as it is.

Before the rumors get out of control, here is a copy of the consent form and information sent to the parents in the Palmdale case and a quote from the opinion demonstrating that the parents who sued all signed the consent. Plaintiffs James and Tammany Fields, Stuart and Kathleen Haberman, Robert and Kathie Hoaglin, and Vanessa Shetler are parents of minor children who were enrolled at Mesquite Elementary School. All of them had children who participated in the survey. The parent-plaintiffs learned of the sexual nature of some of the questions on the survey when their children informed them of the questions after they had completed the questionnaires. The parents allege that if they had known the true nature of the survey, they would not have consented to their children’s involvement. So they consented, please stop saying they did not. You can certainly argue that the consent was not a very well informed one and should have included more info but don't state that they did not consent, they did. It is a fact. Parental Consent Dear Parent or Caregiver: The Palmdale School District is asking your support in participating in a district-wide study of our first, third and fifth grade children. The study will be a part of a collaborative effort with The California School of Professional Psychology — CSPP/ Alliant International University, Children’s Bureau of Southern California and the Palmdale School District. The goal of this assessment is to establish a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence). We will identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse. As a result, we will be designing a district wide intervention program to help children reduce these barriers to learning, which students can participate in. Please read this consent letter and if you agree, please sign and send it back to your school’s principal no later than December 20, 2001. The assessment will consist of three, twenty-minute self-report measures, which will be given to your child on one day during the last week of January. This study is 100% confidential and at no time will the information gathered be used to identify your child. Your child will not be photographed or videotaped. You may refuse to have your child participate or withdraw from this study at any time without any penalty or loss of services to which your child is entitled. I am aware that the research study coordinator, Kristi Seymour, one research assistant, the Palmdale School District, Director of Psychology, Michael Geisser, and a professor from CSPP, will be the only people who have access to the study’s information. After the study is completed, all information will be locked in storage and then destroyed after a period of five years. I understand answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable. If this occurs, then, Kristi Seymour, the research study coordinator, will assist us in locating a therapist for further psychological help if necessary. If I have further questions, I may contact Kristi Seymour at 1529 E. Palmdale Blvd., Suite 210, Palmdale, CA 93550 at 661.272.9997 x128. I understand that I will not be able to get my child’s individual results due to anonymity of the children, but I may get a summary report of the study results. I have read this form and understand what it says. I her[e]by agree to allow my child to participate in this district-wide study.” (emphasis in original). Additionally, two lines were made available on the “Parental Consent” form for the “Parent/Caregiver” to sign and date it. So, the radio report Ken heard which he cautioned was unconfirmed is in fact, wrong. They didn't dupe the parents with a partial list of questions that omitted the "bad" ones. If they did, they should have sued for fraud, I would have applauded that case.

Do you think parents should have the right to exclusive (ie, no involvement of anyone else at all, no one) control over every lesson, every book, every activity, every everything they are exposed to, taught, shown, etc. in public schools? Yes or no.

That was not their ruling. The parents claimed in this suit, and they fully admitted this so it wasn't even in dispute, that hey had an exclusive right to determine the curriculum, that this right was held by each individual parent and that their own consent, which they gave in this case, was not enough for the school to go ahead with the tests. The parents themselves admitted in this case that there was no precedent whatsoever supporting their position, they invited the court to invent the right. They declined. They did not hold that schools could overrule parents. These parents could have declined to give consent, they could have held their kids out of school that day, how is that overruling parents? Of course the parents have a right to control what their child is exposed to, however, that right is not EXCLUSIVE. If it were, the school would not be allowed to make any determinations whatsoever as to lesson plans, contents, research, book purchases and on and on. If they do, then they would be intruding on the exclusive right you seem to want to be invented so badly here. Parental notification in the context of abortion is just a bit different. For starters, the right to privacy includes abortion and that is the law of the land. Maybe someday it won't but for now it absolutely is. The Parents here admit there is not precedent supporting them, that is not at all the case with notification issues and abortion. You might not like the precedent but there is precedent.

did they wear condoms while taking filling out a 300 question psych questionaire, with their parents consent? Seriously, if you want to give to parents an actionable fundamental right to exclusive control over the content of every activity, every lesson, great, I'll make a fortune but we will need lots and lots and lots more courthouses. Oh, and schools will need more insurance. Hmmm, I'll also need to learn how to sail my new yacht. If, as part of that you want to throw out having obtained parental consent, as was done here, as a complete defense for the districts, I'll need to figure out which Lear Jet suits my tastses.