THE DAILY BLADE: Schools For Scandal
Carissa Porcaro, 13, a student at King Middle School in Portland, ME, sports a hand-lettered sticker that says, "I’m against giving out birth control" to protest the Portland school board’s decision to let the independently operated clinic at her school provide girls with prescription contraceptives. Porcaro is not only expressing her disagreement with the new policy, but rebelling against her mother. "She thinks it’s really good. I think it’s stupid because what people are saying is that it’s O.K. to be sexually active," Porcaro tells The New York Times.
School officials nationwide apparently have less commonsense than a 13-year old, because Portland is not the only middle school providing prescription birth control to girls who are below the age of consent, reports The Times:
The Portland clinic is not the first in the country to offer such services. Four middle schools in Seattle offer reproductive health care through city-administered health centers, said James Apa, communications manager for Public Health-Seattle and King County. Clinics in six Baltimore middle schools offer access to oral contraceptives, said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the city’s health commissioner, who said the program had helped to decrease teenage pregnancy rates.
Students must get parental permission to use the clinic, and postpubescent girls will be given a physical exam and counseling before being put on The Pill by clinic personnel.
Malcolm Pollack*, the renaissance man who publishes the blog, waka waka waka - a self-confessed "reactionary killjoy, a superannuated mossback, a benighted atavism" who is "utterly out of step with the brisk accelerando of 21st-century social reform" - has this to say about providing prescription contraceptives to teenagers:
I am a father myself, with a son and a daughter, both of whom are now young adults. Had my daughter been sexually active at age 11, and taking contraceptive medication, I should have liked to have known; the notion that the Portland School Committee might have been privy to this information, and supplying her with drugs, without mentioning it to her parents seems such an egregious usurpation of all the civilized norms of child-rearing - not to mention the child’s best interests - that I am surprised that it doesn’t require a two-thirds majority of the Senate to sign off on every dose.
While some school districts are encouraging teenagers to become sexually active when the law says they shouldn’t be, other school districts are criminalizing the behavior of children who are not only virgins – but are too young even to know what sex is.
Yvonne Bynoe, a senior fellow at the Future Focus 2020 center at Wake Forest University, wonders whether her three-year old could be labeled a sex offender after she found out that "children nationwide, some of preschool age, have been suspended from school or taken to jail after being accused of sexual harassment" and examines the ramifications of "permanently label[ing] children who are barely out of diapers":
In their zeal to avoid lawsuits, educators seem to be ignoring important information, such as whether the accused child intended to commit a crime or even knows how to pronounce the word "harassment."
Sex education tends to be controversial, partly because parents have such varying and often strongly held beliefs about how, when and even if the topic should be introduced to their children. But if schools have the authority to brand a 3-year-old a sex offender, they also have the responsibility to provide parents with clear guidelines about appropriate physical conduct. …
Schools [are] holding even young children to adult standards of responsibility and liability. To me, some cases seem clear-cut. If an 11-year-old boy touches a 4-year-old girl's genitals and asks her to perform a sex act, his intent is apparent. But the motivations of two 4-year-olds caught "playing doctor" are less clear; it's probably natural curiosity, not abuse.
These twin idiocies make The Stiletto long for those halcyon days of school-based sex education when the dopiest thing that kids would be exposed to is sliding a condom onto a lubed-up cucumber.
*Disclosure: waka waka waka has posted items from The Stiletto Blog, and we often exchange friendly correspondence on topics of mutual interest.
The Armenian Genocide Resolution: The Other Side Gets Not So Equal Time
After running a string of editorials against the Armenian Genocide Resolution (fourth item) – plus an anti-Armenian diatribe written by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan – The Wall Street Journal belatedly lets the other side present its case when it’s too late to resuscitate the symbolic bill. On Friday’s edition of "The Journal Editorial Report" on FOX News, Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, interviewed (transcript) Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) who authored the resolution.In his introductory comments about the segment Gigot notes that Schiff has "more than 70,000 ethnic Armenians in his Los Angeles district." In the second of its three editorials torpedoing the resolution, The Journal noted:
California is home to the country's largest number of politically active Armenians. Speaker Pelosi has many in her own district. Mr. Lantos represents the San Francisco suburbs. The bill's leading sponsors include Representatives Adam Schiff, George Radanovich and Anna Eshoo, all from California.
Since when is it somehow sinister for a congressman to represent his constituents? Only when they’re Armenian, right Gigot?
In the beginning of the interview (video) Schiff makes the same point about the Bush Administration’s incomprehensible foreign policy inconsistency in appeasing the Turks but antagonizing the Chinese that The Stiletto argued last week:
GIGOT: This atrocity occurred 90 years ago. Why bring it up now at this delicate moment in the Middle East?
SCHIFF: We have tried to recognize the genocide really for years, even decade. We introduced this resolution before the Iraq war and the administration said now is not a good time. We introduce it before the war in Afghanistan and the administration said it wasn't a good time, before 9/11 and said it wasn't a good time.
I … watched the president bestow the Medal of Honor on the Dalai Lama and I was proud of him. I was proud of him doing that notwithstanding the fact China protested that it was deeply offensive to our strategic partner in China. Someone asked him, Mr. President, why do you risk antagonizing China? The president earlier said that preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon could be so important it might stop World War III. Paul, you know whose vote we need on the Security Council to pre-investment Iran from getting the bomb? We need China's vote. But, you know, the president said when America stands up for human rights and freedom, America is always serving its national interest. The president was right then.
Schiff also tackled the issue of free speech restrictions in the supposedly "democratic" Turkey:
GIGOT: Congressman, the current dispute in Tibet is ongoing and it is about human rights in Tibet now. This resolution is 100 years ago.
SCHIFF: … Just last week, Turkey brought up on charges the son of a murdered Armenian journalist in Turkey, who was killed this year, on charges of publishing his father words about the genocide. Is that freedom in Turkey to speak out about the genocide not important? Is the freedom of expression the freedom to talk about some of the darkest chapters in the history of the world not important? Why is freedom in China important but freedom in Turkey of so little value? …
The interview then took an ironic twist, with a Dem asking, "What would Reagan do?":
GIGOT: Congressman, there is a long list of people on the other side of this. General David Petraeus, head of American forces in Iraq, eight former secretaries of state, including Madeleine Albright. When this issue came up in 2000, President Clinton called the Republican speaker of the House, then Denny Hastert, and asked him to pull this so if wouldn't compromise our situation in the Middle East. He did. Why shouldn't the Democrats now, at the request of an American president, decide to pull something like this at a similar moment?
SCHIFF: Paul, these eight secretaries of state you mentioned, this was their policy. They are defending their policy during those - the administrations of those eight secretaries they were willing to deny the genocide and become complicit in Turkey's denial.
The last president, Paul, who had the courage to recognize the Armenian genocide, was President Reagan. What would you have said to President Reagan if you were his advisor? Mr. President, I know you talk about the United States being a moral beacon for the word but we are in the middle of the Cold War this was antagonize Turkey. Mr. President, you shouldn't do it. …
As for the canard that acknowledging this crime against humanity will hobble our efforts in Iraq and in the larger War on Terror, Schiff said:
I think the president needs to look to the greater war on terror and say what about our moral standing in the world. What role does it have when we espouse truth about history in terms of fighting this ideological struggle in the war on terror? That's not General Petraeus' responsibility. It is the responsibility of the president.
I think Ronald Reagan had it right and I think this president has it wrong.
Meanwhile, The Stiletto’s pal at The Oread Daily* reports on Armenian citizens of Israel protesting the government’s policy of Armenian genocide denial – as well as on Turkey’s thinly veiled threats against its "ally":
Armenians in Israel are calling on a state that should understand their anguish to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
Armenian-Israelis marched in Jerusalem's Justice Square singing and chanting Armenian songs and slogans. The protest was attended by two parliamentary officials, Yaeer Tsaban and Khayeem Oron, who both gave speeches castigating the denial of the genocide by the Israeli government.
Israel has acknowledged that massacres were perpetrated against the Armenians and expressed sympathy for their suffering. But the government has stopped short of calling it genocide.
So how can the Israeli government join the ranks of pragmatic deniers? Just like US leaders, they don't want to tick off the Turks.
But the Turks don't seem concerned with saying things that sure as hell ought to tick of the Israelis.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan on visit to Israel last week, told The Jerusalem Post,
"All of a sudden the perception in Turkey right now is that the Jewish people - or the Jewish organizations, let's say, and the Armenian diaspora, the Armenian lobbies, are now hand-in-hand trying to defame Turkey, and trying to condemn Turkey and the Turkish people. This is the unfortunate perception right now in Turkey. So if something goes wrong in Washington, DC, it inevitably will have some influence on relations between Turkey and the US, plus the relations between Turkey and Israel, as well."
The Turks have implied that this whole episode could put the Jewish community in Turkey at risk.
In other words, the Turks are threatening to counter charges of genocide against Armenians by committing genocide against Jews. The OD post also quotes a recent article in Haaretz pointing out that in characterizing the Armenian genocide as a lie, Turkish officials make their case using anti-Semitic invective. At least the US can take comfort in knowing that the Turks treat all their allies like turds.
*Disclosure: OD has posted items from The Stiletto Blog, and we often exchange friendly correspondence on topics of mutual interest.
Dear Stiletto:
I truly believe that what happened some 100 years ago was a horrific event in which Armenians not only were massacred, but lost their country as well. I share their pain because I too lost family members during that era, but on the other side.
I believe that the current resolution or any resolution, is not the answer. I believe in having a debate by historians, or litigation by Armenians against the Ottoman Empire, since Turkey was not even in existence during this time, 1915, since they overthrew the Empire. So how can they be made accountable for an entity they overthrew and no longer exists? Defies logic.
I know many Armenians that disagree with their own countrymen living all over the world. Take for example the manifesto which the 1st President of Armenia, after WWI said about the events, why they occurred and how. There is a unabridge one as well - at the bottom of the digital version. By the way, this is just one of thousands of documents located almost everywhere in the world, regarding as to what was documemted bu many sources.
But having a one sided view on life and events, is like living in a vacuum. Communication is a two way street. The Armenians of Diaspora unfortunately live in a vacuum.
I think Turks and Armenians need to come to the table and resolve their differences through debate, mediation or litigation. But using our congress, is totally wrong, they are not subject experts of the Ottoman Empire, nor of the Armenians. Documents exists throughout Europe that differ with the view that a Genocide did not occur. Yes, Armenians Perished, lost their land, it was a horrific time for them.
However, they choose to side with the Russians and lost everything. What can we do about this? Absolutely nothing. We need a time machine to really know what happened, which is impossible.
So I leave you with the link of the 1st President of Armenia and his Manifesto.
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/1923Manifesto-record.htm
Thank you for your time!
Reply to this
Ah yes. The infamous hate site Tall Armenian Tale. Taner Akcam, through historical research, has recently uncovered the author of this site - Turkish-American cartoonist Murad "Holdwater" Gumen: http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/turkishArmenian/
Reply to this
On the subject of "legally and historically substantiated": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOqnVl4_rWU
On the subject of the congress involvement, US congress has been, and continues being involved in the matter of world politics when and where it suits US interests. US was very much involved in carving of the boarders after the WWI, and hence have the shared responsibility for clearing up any problems that were created as a result.
On this subject I can also note that current events in Iraq and Afghanistan follow the exact same trend, and one day Americans will have to answer another set of questions.
My advice - US has to learn how to mind its own business going forward, and accept accountability for "democratic project" that has gone sour.
Reply to this