Desantis

[Chuck Naill]

I've given human rights more consideration as it relates to this discussion. Of course, any decent person would want all people to have the same rights. Hopefully we all agree on some level. How we individually apportion those rights to others is what I think we might not all agree.

For a parent, since we not only have a moral obligation to protect our children, but we also have a legal obligation. For example, it your child is sexually molested, you cannot legally remain silent. It must be reported.

Since I have witnessed a person transition to another gender, I can tell you that it takes courage. As I said earlier, it is not playing "dress up". Their physicality publicly is changed, and they must face it everyone day. They must deal with those that do not approve, understand that it is not playing dress up, or that hate them. For me, drag is a parody of both women and trans people. So, when in apportion my respect and dignity, the trans person comes first, women come first.

Children come first for me above all others. What political voices, teachers, systems of LGBQ, authors, or performers, my child and those children within my sphere of concern, take priority. I will listen to you and read your books, but ultimately, I will choose what to restrict. I am concerned that too many choose children's wellbeing to be subordinated to vocal groups.

[TSherbs]

This is a graphic of the recent surge in removal/restrict requests, from the American Library Association:

[TSherbs]

... I am concerned that too many choose children's wellbeing to be subordinated to vocal groups.

I don't think that anyone disputes this, Chuck. The question is, which books are actually injurious to a minor's physical or mental health? And let's not forget, these laws cover up through age 17). Many of these books are being targeted more because people simply don't like them (politically or socially), not because they cause any actual threat to a young person's health. "Hey, I didn't know my kid was reading a book about a penguin with two dads. That's indoctrination." That kind of thing. Meanwhile, the child is in a classroom with a girl with a donor-dad, a boy with two moms, and three biracial kids all of who are greatful, even just occasionally, to see in a book a family like their own.

To give parents the right to remove from a school (the example in the Post article above) all books referring to hormone treatment for adolescent gender transitioning (supported by the pediatric association and the pyschology association) is just ignorant. There are actually teenagers in many schools alreading partaking in this, managing it well with family and professional support, and trying not to succumb to the at times overwhelming disphoria of their being expected to live as a gender that they do not feel that they are in their identity (and soul). This knowledge is wide-spread and already in the young adult community. It's not evil, it's not indoctrination, it's not anything except threatening to those who want to resist the social changes around multiple gender acceptance. Well, multiple gender identities exist, and have always existed. This isn't evil or even an abberation. It just IS.

We teachers are also committed to the prevention of suicide. I have had students kill themselves. The first priority for us that that we keep trans students alive. Period. They turn to suicide at something like three times the rate of other young persons. One way we try to do this is to acknowledge their existence and to acknowledge the existence of others like them and to accept them, unconditionally. Give them bathroom options, give them pronouns of their own choice, let them dress how they want. They are full, complete human beings in their souls. They exist, they always have existed, and they have always suffered. Some of these books try to suggest to them that they are legitimate, they are welcome, they are not alone, that there are pharmacological proceedures to help them feel fulfilled as a person (reduce the anguish of the dysphoria). And to keep them alive. That's not indoctrination (as the proponents of the new law say). That's actually caring about the wellbeing of the children's lives.

[Chuck Naill]

... I am concerned that too many choose children's wellbeing to be subordinated to vocal groups.

I don't think that anyone disputes this, Chuck. The question is, which books are actually injurious to a minor's physical or mental health? And let's not forget, these laws cover up through age 17). Many of these books are being targeted more because people simply don't like them (politically or socially), not because they cause any actual threat to a young person's health. "Hey, I didn't know my kid was reading a book about a penguin with two dads. That's indoctrination." That kind of thing. Meanwhile, the child is in a classroom with a girl with a donor-dad, a boy with two moms, and three biracial kids all of who are greatful, even just occasionally, to see in a book a family like their own.

To give parents the right to remove from a school (the example in the Post article above) all books referring to hormone treatment for adolescent gender transitioning (supported by the pediatric association and the pyschology association) is just ignorant. There are actually teenagers in many schools alreading partaking in this, managing it well with family and professional support, and trying not to succumb to the at times overwhelming disphoria of their being expected to live as a gender that they do not feel that they are in their identity (and soul). This knowledge is wide-spread and already in the young adult community. It's not evil, it's not indoctrination, it's not anything except threatening to those who want to resist the social changes around multiple gender acceptance. Well, multiple gender identities exist, and have always existed. This isn't evil or even an abberation. It just IS.

We teachers are also committed to the prevention of suicide. I have had students kill themselves. The first priority for us that that we keep trans students alive. Period. They turn to suicide at something like three times the rate of other young persons. One way we try to do this is to acknowledge their existence and to acknowledge the existence of others like them and to accept them, unconditionally. Give them bathroom options, give them pronouns of their own choice, let them dress how they want. They are full, complete human beings in their souls. They exist, they always have existed, and they have always suffered. Some of these books try to suggest to them that they are legitimate, they are welcome, they are not alone, that there are pharmacological proceedures to help them feel fulfilled as a person (reduce the anguish of the dysphoria). And to keep them alive. That's not indoctrination (as the proponents of the new law say). That's actually caring about the wellbeing of the children's lives.

I know from personal experience those children with "a girl with a donor-dad, a boy with two moms, and three biracial kids" want love which means active listening, eye contact, and unconditional love. How many books are written by authors with children or personal experiences, not with children in a classroom, but the day-to-day challenges of multiple children with different needs, especially those from mothers who used prescription pain meds or illegal drugs.

Would you consider a book written by an MD or PhD if they were Christian? https://www.christianbook.com/really...ntent=s-family


Parents can be ignorant by choosing to either be uninformed or influenced by what they consider to be right. This is just as true for a schoolteacher. Hormone treatment for growth or other uses is definitely a benefit/risk endeavor. I am not against it at all. That said, it is a parental right to remove their child.


All suicide is serious and your commitment to keep them alive is commendable. It is good you use all the tools you have access to prevent suicide and help those vulnerable students. I am sure you do not allow bullying of these children by others.

You and I read broadly it seems and we stay informed so we can make evidence-based decisions. For example, I recently read a book about the beneficial effects of anxiety, https://www.walmart.com/ip/Good-Anxi...6e40a73b61902c, which has had a very beneficial effect affect on my life.

I see you as a positive resource as a teacher. By staying up to date you are able to benefit those around you. My only caution is that you might tend to vilify those who you feel that do not agree. This is a danger we all must try to avoid. Many times, those angry parents are suffering in silence themselves.

[dneal]

... I am concerned that too many choose children's wellbeing to be subordinated to vocal groups.

I don't think that anyone disputes this, Chuck. The question is, which books are actually injurious to a minor's physical or mental health? And let's not forget, these laws cover up through age 17). Many of these books are being targeted more because people simply don't like them (politically or socially), not because they cause any actual threat to a young person's health. "Hey, I didn't know my kid was reading a book about a penguin with two dads. That's indoctrination." That kind of thing. Meanwhile, the child is in a classroom with a girl with a donor-dad, a boy with two moms, and three biracial kids all of who are greatful, even just occasionally, to see in a book a family like their own.

To give parents the right to remove from a school (the example in the Post article above) all books referring to hormone treatment for adolescent gender transitioning (supported by the pediatric association and the pyschology association) is just ignorant. There are actually teenagers in many schools alreading partaking in this, managing it well with family and professional support, and trying not to succumb to the at times overwhelming disphoria of their being expected to live as a gender that they do not feel that they are in their identity (and soul). This knowledge is wide-spread and already in the young adult community. It's not evil, it's not indoctrination, it's not anything except threatening to those who want to resist the social changes around multiple gender acceptance. Well, multiple gender identities exist, and have always existed. This isn't evil or even an abberation. It just IS.

We teachers are also committed to the prevention of suicide. I have had students kill themselves. The first priority for us that that we keep trans students alive. Period. They turn to suicide at something like three times the rate of other young persons. One way we try to do this is to acknowledge their existence and to acknowledge the existence of others like them and to accept them, unconditionally. Give them bathroom options, give them pronouns of their own choice, let them dress how they want. They are full, complete human beings in their souls. They exist, they always have existed, and they have always suffered. Some of these books try to suggest to them that they are legitimate, they are welcome, they are not alone, that there are pharmacological proceedures to help them feel fulfilled as a person (reduce the anguish of the dysphoria). And to keep them alive. That's not indoctrination (as the proponents of the new law say). That's actually caring about the wellbeing of the children's lives.

The word-salad of the woke.

“Hormone therapy” = puberty blockers = sterilization, but TSherbs pontificates about what is “injurious”. Hey, it’s endorsed by psychiatrists! Right?

Psychiatrists also advocated for electroshock “therapy” and inserting a steel rod through the orbital socket to poke around at the frontal lobe. Wanna talk hysteria and hysterectomies?

I don’t think you prevent suicide by chemically castrating minors, or by cutting off tits.

You threw off organized religion and replaced it with an even more bizarre cult.

[TSherbs]

I know from personal experience those children with "a girl with a donor-dad, a boy with two moms, and three biracial kids" want love which means active listening, eye contact, and unconditional love. How many books are written by authors with children or personal experiences, not with children in a classroom, but the day-to-day challenges of multiple children with different needs, especially those from mothers who used prescription pain meds or illegal drugs.

Would you consider a book written by an MD or PhD if they were Christian?

I read books by Christians all the time, and I taught them, too. But if the books are prosyletizing for Christianity (or any faith), then, no. And they are not allowed in public school classrooms. I quickly loose interest in a book that relies on faith in Jesus (or any claim to supernatural divinity). For example, the weakest part of Buddhism, for me, is the idea of re-incarnation, which some Buddhists take seriously. I repel such ideas, and stop reading when the material goes there.

That said, it is a parental right to remove their child.

Not sure how you mean this. At a public school, a parent cannot simply pick which classes and/or books their kids participate in. Parents do not have a "right" to remove their children, other than to take them out of school entirely. They do not even have a "right" to not educate them at all. The "right" of their children to learn and grow in a healthy way supercedes any and all rights that a parent has over them. Parents can lose their children if they do a bad enough job (sadly, so).

I see you as a positive resource as a teacher. By staying up to date you are able to benefit those around you. My only caution is that you might tend to vilify those who you feel that do not agree. This is a danger we all must try to avoid. Many times, those angry parents are suffering in silence themselves.

Of course some parents are suffering. Many are. We all do. The question is, what does one DO with one's suffering? And does that which one does negatively impact the students? It is not appropriate for suffering parents, for example, to manage their suffering by denying to access to all the other students in a class or a grade to knowledge that is not harmful or denigrating. Indeed, I think that many of these parents (and other adults) behind these new bills are suffering greatly. I have written about this already. The culture war is a product (and promulgator) of this suffering, for everyone. But what does one DO with this suffering? Does one work on one's own anxieties and pain about the world (often caused from our inability to control events and avert more anguish), or does one, say "I want to prevent all 10-year-old students, even black Muslim students, from ever seeing a short biography about Malcolm-X in her school library"? Their are beneficial responses to one's own suffering, and there are inappropriate ones that have negative learning consequences on others.

Teachers are simply trying to expand the understanding that students have about the world around them and help them with learning skills and help them to see themselves in the world and a potential for the future for them. If "indoctrination" includes trying to expand the understanding of children about the peers in their room and their families and about the world around them, then, yes. We are guilty of "indoctrination." If that is being "woke," then I wear the label proudly.

edited to add: And let me also add that the best learning environments occur where there is a working and mutually respectful relationship between parents and teachers. At the end of every basketball season, my first thank you at the team gathering was always to thank the parents for entrusting me with the privilege of working with their children. The same was true in the classroom, and this is what I tell parents at graduation: that I recognize that they give their kids to schools and trust that we will have the student's best interests at heart all the time. More broadly, that "trust" seems to be eroding in the culture, particularly along political lines. And unfortunately, there are people who seek to make political gains from amplifying this trust challenge. It's quite saddening to me, actually.

[dneal]

At a public school, a parent cannot simply pick which classes and/or books their kids participate in. Parents do not have a "right" to remove their children, other than to take them out of school entirely. They do not even have a "right" to not educate them at all. The "right" of their children to learn and grow in a healthy way supercedes any and all rights that a parent has over them. Parents can lose their children if they do a bad enough job (sadly, so).

Maybe they should form unions. It keeps the teachers from losing their jobs when they do it badly.

[Chuck Naill]

I read books by Christians all the time, and I taught them, too. But if the books are prosyletizing for Christianity (or any faith), then, no. And they are not allowed in public school classrooms. I quickly loose interest in a book that relies on faith in Jesus (or any claim to supernatural divinity). For example, the weakest part of Buddhism, for me, is the idea of re-incarnation, which some Buddhists take seriously. I repel such ideas, and stop reading when the material goes there.

That said, it is a parental right to remove their child.

Not sure how you mean this. At a public school, a parent cannot simply pick which classes and/or books their kids participate in. Parents do not have a "right" to remove their children, other than to take them out of school entirely. They do not even have a "right" to not educate them at all. The "right" of their children to learn and grow in a healthy way supercedes any and all rights that a parent has over them. Parents can lose their children if they do a bad enough job (sadly, so).

I see you as a positive resource as a teacher. By staying up to date you are able to benefit those around you. My only caution is that you might tend to vilify those who you feel that do not agree. This is a danger we all must try to avoid. Many times, those angry parents are suffering in silence themselves.

Of course some parents are suffering. Many are. We all do. The question is, what does one DO with one's suffering? And does that which one does negatively impact the students? It is not appropriate for suffering parents, for example, to manage their suffering by denying to access to all the other students in a class or a grade to knowledge that is not harmful or denigrating. Indeed, I think that many of these parents (and other adults) behind these new bills are suffering greatly. I have written about this already. The culture war is a product (and promulgator) of this suffering, for everyone. But what does one DO with this suffering? Does one work on one's own anxieties and pain about the world (often caused from our inability to control events and avert more anguish), or does one, say "I want to prevent all 10-year-old students, even black Muslim students, from ever seeing a short biography about Malcolm-X in her school library"? Their are beneficial responses to one's own suffering, and there are inappropriate ones that have negative learning consequences on others.

Teachers are simply trying to expand the understanding that students have about the world around them and help them with learning skills and help them to see themselves in the world and a potential for the future for them. If "indoctrination" includes trying to expand the understanding of children about the peers in their room and their families and about the world around them, then, yes. We are guilty of "indoctrination." If that is being "woke," then I wear the label proudly.

edited to add: And let me also add that the best learning environments occur where there is a working and mutually respectful relationship between parents and teachers. At the end of every basketball season, my first thank you at the team gathering was always to thank the parents for entrusting me with the privilege of working with their children. The same was true in the classroom, and this is what I tell parents at graduation: that I recognize that they give their kids to schools and trust that we will have the student's best interests at heart all the time. More broadly, that "trust" seems to be eroding in the culture, particularly along political lines. And unfortunately, there are people who seek to make political gains from amplifying this trust challenge. It's quite saddening to me, actually.

You have, it seems, a good balanced attitude as an educator, Ted. You and I are the same age with older children. My concerns today are different than when my children were either in private, public, or homeschooling. Our reasons were never to control the content, but to provide the best possible education for the children's individual needs.

Young parents today must be shown a measure of grace for their concerns either well founded or unfounded. I won't judge them at all.

The reason I stay engaged with you regarding education is because you were an educator. The reason that I am an advocate for children is because I have skin in the game. While it is important, I could care less what DeSantis thinks since tomorrow he may change his mind if it became politically expedient.

[TSherbs]

Yeah, DeSantis may waffle, but actual law changes have already been made, and something like 120 more bills around this topic have been introduced around the country. Changing actual law requires changing a state legislature, which is much more challenging.

[Chuck Naill]

Yeah, DeSantis may waffle, but actual law changes have already been made, and something like 120 more bills around this topic have been introduced around the country. Changing actual law requires changing a state legislature, which is much more challenging.

Maybe make sure you have copies of those books you value in your personal library to loan as needed.

[TSherbs]

Here's another editorial column criticizing a proposed educational law in Ohio. All this is coming from the same general source: an attempt through Republican-led legislatures to prevent acceptance (via discussions, books, courses) of the changes that they are fighting against.

Ohio: https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/...s/70035024007/

[dneal]

Here's another editorial column criticizing a proposed educational law in Ohio. All this is coming from the same general source: an attempt through Republican-led legislatures to prevent acceptance (via discussions, books, courses) of the changes that they are fighting against.

Ohio: https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/...s/70035024007/

From the piece:

I directed Ohio State University’s Introductory Biology Program for five years. Our General Education (“non-majors”) courses were, well, boring. My colleagues and I addressed this by finding ways to show how biological insights that students had already learned helped them understand issues of social concern: Controversial issues by definition.

The educator complaining that the course is boring, should resign in shame. All you could think to do to add interest (other than polish your lectures, ya know) was to help understand issues of social concern? In the Biology program?

"You had one job...!!!"

The jokes write themselves.

[Chip]

Poor Trump has been struggling to come up with a nasty epithet for Desantis.

Maybe he should start a pool, with a grand prize of one day of the take from his grifting: six or seven figures no doubt.

Here are my entries:

Desphinctis

Descantis

Deslantis

Descamus

Descumbag

Descrotus

Desanitary

Dinsanity

[Chuck Naill]

Better Deshi.

[TSherbs]

Something with Disney? (That, too me, was the silliest thing he has done, and is open to easy ridicule). I'm just not feeling witty right now.

[TSherbs]

This seems pretty thin reporting, but it's in the news: the cancellation of a college class on "civil rights" in Florida.

I thank the stars that I went to college in the '70s, when many courses were deliberately trying to unsettle student thinking and assumptions. I had some professors who wrote for magazines and newspapers and were paid and promoted for their intelligence, and opinion, and research (and writing ability).

https://news.yahoo.com/florida-stude...031245719.html

[TSherbs]

And now Gov Beshear in Kentucky has voted that legislature's anti-trans care bill. Good job, Gov. For some reason, that GOP legislature thinks that they know better than the doctors, parents, and young persons combined! They must be medical and gender development experts!

[Chip]

Something with Disney? (That, too me, was the silliest thing he has done, and is open to easy ridicule). I'm just not feeling witty right now.

I was trying ro come up with something Trump could remember. And pronounce.

[Chip]

Something with Disney? (That, too me, was the silliest thing he has done, and is open to easy ridicule). I'm just not feeling witty right now.

Disney landed a punch on the "sheriff."



Disney’s Feud With DeSantis Adds Another Wrinkle

The Florida governor’s new Disney World oversight board belatedly realized that the company had quietly sidestepped its control.

Brooks Barnes
March 30, 2023

Over the past two months, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has repeatedly declared victory in his yearlong effort to restrict the autonomy of Disney World, the state’s largest employer. “There’s a new sheriff in town,” he said numerous times, including at a news conference last month on Disney property, hours before appointing a new, handpicked oversight board.

Nobody seemed to have paid attention, however, to an important detail: Disney had been simultaneously maneuvering to restrict the governor’s effort. In early February — at a public meeting held by the previous, Disney-controlled oversight board — the company pushed through a development agreement that would limit the new board’s power for decades to come. And now, the governor’s appointees, having belatedly discovered the action, are none too pleased. “It completely circumvents the authority of the board to govern,” Brian Aungst Jr., a member of the new council, said on Wednesday at the group’s second meeting. “We’re going to have to deal with it and correct it.”

Mr. DeSantis has not weighed in personally, but a spokeswoman, Taryn Fenske, said in a statement that the new board had retained multiple legal firms “to conduct audits and investigate Disney’s past behavior.” Ms. Fenske added that the administration expected that the “last-ditch effort” by Disney would be found “void as a matter of law.”

Disney disagreed. “All agreements signed between Disney and the district were appropriate and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine law,” Disney said in a statement.

The upshot: The fight between Disney and Florida Republicans seems far from over.

The sparring started a year ago, when Mr. DeSantis asked Florida lawmakers to terminate self-governing privileges that Disney World had held since 1967. The privileges, formally called a special tax district, effectively allowing the company to self-govern its 25,000-acre theme park complex as a de facto county, controlling fire protection, policing, road maintenance — and, crucially, development planning.

The move was widely seen as retaliation for Disney’s opposition to a new state education law that the bill’s opponents call “Don’t Say Gay.” Among many things, the law prohibits discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity through the third grade in Florida classrooms and limits it for older students. Disney paused political donations in Florida as a result of the law.

The Legislature went along with Mr. DeSantis until it realized there was a problem. The abolishment of the district — set for June 1 — would require taxpayers in Orange and Osceola Counties to pick up the tab for some Disney World services. Under the old setup, Disney paid for fire protection, policing and road maintenance. The district also carried roughly $1 billion in debt. If the district had been abolished, that debt would have been transferred to the counties.

So the Legislature tried again, taking up a new Disney World measure in a special session that started on Feb. 6 and passing it on Feb. 10. This time, Disney was allowed to keep the special tax district — which never went away — and almost all its perks, including the ability to issue tax-exempt bonds. But Disney was no longer able to appoint the five members of the tax district’s board. Florida’s governor would now do that.

In the middle of that week, on Feb. 8, the tax district’s board — the Disney-controlled one — passed restrictive covenants and a development agreement giving the company vast control over future construction in the district; the new board doesn’t have any say. Notice of a hearing on the action was made in The Orlando Sentinel on Jan. 18, according to tax district disclosures. The matter was discussed at a short public meeting on Jan. 25 and approved at a second public meeting on Feb. 8. There was some local news coverage of the matter along the way, but they were primarily focused on Disney giving itself the option to build a fifth theme park on the property if it wants.

The agreement is effective for perpetuity. It uses contractual language known as a “royal lives” clause: “Shall continue in effect until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England living as of the date of this declaration.” (The royal language quickly spawned numerous internet memes, striking people as odd in a matter involving a theme park that is home to Cinderella’s castle.) The agreement also prohibits the tax district, now called the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, from using Disney’s name, Mickey Mouse and other characters without the company’s approval. Disney can sue for damages for violations.

“The board loses, for practical purposes, the majority of its ability to do anything beyond maintain the roads and maintain basic infrastructure,” Ron Peri, a member of the new board, said at the meeting. The new appointees approved the hiring of four law firms to scrutinize the matter and, potentially, take Disney to court. One of them, Cooper & Kirk, will bill $795 an hour, according to The Orlando Sentinel.

Based on their public comments, some incoming members of the board seemed to think they would be able to play a role in deciding the kind of entertainment that Disney provides. At last month’s news conference on Disney property, Mr. DeSantis said that his appointees “would very much like to see the type of entertainment that families can appreciate” and that they would prefer to “see Disney be what Walt envisioned.” The remarks were seen as thinly veiled references to Disney’s willingness to include L.G.B.T.Q. characters in films and television shows.

“When you lose your way, you’ve got to have people that are going to tell you the truth,” Mr. DeSantis said at the event.

The appointees never had direct power to dictate the content that Disney offered to its customers. But they could have sought to influence Disney by using the power they thought they were going to have over development at the resort. Mr. DeSantis named five people to the board, including Mr. Aungst, a lawyer, and Mr. Peri, a former pastor and the chief executive of a Christian ministry in Orlando. (Mr. Peri has made national news for spreading a baseless theory that tap water could turn people gay.)

Another board member is Bridget Ziegler, a co-founder of Moms for Liberty, a group that backed Florida’s law restricting the discussion of sexuality and gender identity in classrooms. (Her husband is chairman of the Republican Party of Florida.)

Ms. Ziegler attacked Disney on Twitter on Wednesday for pushing through the development agreement and restrictive covenants. m“From ignoring parents and allowing radicals to sexualize our children, to now ignoring Florida taxpayers by sneaking in a last minute sweetheart development agreement, Disney has once again overplayed their hand in Florida,” she wrote. “We won’t stand for this and we won’t back down. If unlawful actions were taken, this development agreement will be nullified.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/30/b...e=articleShare

[TSherbs]

sweeeeeeet!