Monday, June 17, 2013

The data is in: more Green jobs means less real ones!

JoNova ^ | June 18th, 2013 | joanne

It’s not rocket science. If energy costs more, that means we have to make do with less of it, or make do with less of something else. Thus if the government forces everyone to pay more for electricity, companies have less spare cash to employ people. Their margins are tighter, they can’t make and sell as many products. So when we are told the clean energy revolution is creating jobs, is it virtually self-evident that’s a mythical fairy claim.
I say “virtually”, because it is theoretical possible it could work, but only if this green power provided some productivity or efficiency gain — that is, if it helped us build more widgets, bake more cakes or warm more toes. In the case of windturbines, the big hope is that they reduce emissions, lower CO2 globally, and in turn stop storms, tornados, floods and what-not and gave us perfect weather again (like the kind we never had).
Might as well bury bottles of money I say. More jobs. Less cost. No infrasound, and no dead bats.
Each green job in Britain costs £100,000 (and 3.7 other jobs):
The Telegraph points out how expensive it is to support a wind-industry job. My plan to bury bottles with £50,000 apiece in them could halve the cost and employ just as many people.
  •  A new analysis of government and industry figures shows that wind turbine owners received £1.2billion in the form of a consumer subsidy, paid by a supplement on electricity bills last year. They employed 12,000 people, to produce an effective £100,000 subsidy on each job.
  • “Among the examples of extremely high subsidies effectively for job creation is Greater Gabbard, a scheme of 140 turbines 12 miles off the Suffolk coast. It received £129 million in consumer subsidy in the 12 months to the end of February, double the £65million it received for the electricity it produced. It employs 100 people at its headquarters in Lowestoft, receiving, in effect, £1.3 million for every member of staff.” — Telegraph, 15 June 2013
  •  In Scotland the VERSO study showed for each Green Job created, 3.7 were lost. — BBC, Feb 2011
(What’s worse than one green job? 76,000 green jobs.)
  • Robert Norris, Renewable UK’s spokesman, said:“… by 2021, more than 76,000 people will be working in the British wind industry in full-time, well-paid green-collar jobs.  — Telegraph, 15 June 2013

In Spain for every green job created 2.2 jobs were lost:

“Calzada, an economist, studied Spain’s green technology program and found that each green job created in Spain cost Spanish taxpayers $770,000. Each Wind Industry job cost $1.3 million to create.  But Calzada’s study found that for every four jobs created by Spain’s expensive green technology program, nine jobs were lost. Electricity generated was so expensive that each “green” megawatt installed in the power grid destroyed five jobs elsewhere in the economy by raising business costs. — CBN News, Dec 26, 2011

In Italy, each green job cost 5 jobs from the rest of the economy:

“A study performed by Luciano Lavecchia and Carlo Stagnaro of Italy’s Bruno Leoni Institute found “the same amount of capital that creates one job in the green sector, would create 6.9 or 4.8 if invested in the industry or the economy in general, respectively”…
“The researchers also found that the vast majority of green jobs created were temporary… –  AEI
“The renewables industry was plagued with corruption. The mafia were caught laundering $1.7bn through renewables.

In Germany, the subsidies far exceed the wages of the jobs created:

“Germany’s subsidization regime has reached a level that by far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 euros (US$240,000).  — AEI
In Denmark wind power reduces the GDP
Denmark is the darling of wind power, it manages to get about 10% of its energy from wind, but only because all the countries around it absorb the intermittent surplus, and compensate for the low generation periods. Even with this ideal arrangement, it still costs millions:
Regarding green jobs, CEPOS 2009 found “that the effect of the government subsidy has been to shift employment from more productive employment in other sectors to less productive employment in the wind industry. As a consequence, Danish GDP is approximately 1.8 billion DKK ($270 million) lower than it would have been if the wind sector work force was employed elsewhere.” –  AEI
There were pages claiming to debunk some of these studies. They had the usual blanket vague conviction “it’s proven unsupportable”, but were backed mostly with ad homs — evidently if the study was “promoted” (meaning “quoted”) by people who were known skeptics, that showed it was wrong. What I could not find were any “debunkings” which could explain how a nation using less efficient and more costly energy could make itself richer, more productive, and more able to create useful employment.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote of the “broken-window” fallacy in 1850, and yet people still don’t get it.
Damaging productive things can not make us wealthier.
Nor can forcing us to use the dumber option.


Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, Raquel Merino Jara, Juan Ramon Rallo Julian, and Jose Ignacio Garcia Bielsa, “Study of the Effects of Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources” (draft, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, March 2009), (accessed January 27, 2011).
Luciano Lavecchia and Carlo Stagnaro, Are Green Jobs Real Jobs? The Case of Italy (Milan, Italy: Instituto Bruno Leoni, May 2010), /WP/WP-Green_Jobs-May2010.pdf (accessed January 27, 2011)
CEPOS 2009: Hugh Sharman, Henrik Meyer, and Martin Agerup, Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark (Copenhagen, Denmark: Center for Politiske Studier, September 2009), /fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_ case_of_Denmark.pdf (accessed January 28, 2011).
VERSO 2011:  Richard Marsh and Tom Miers, Worth the Candle? The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Policy in Scotland and the UK (Kirkcaldy, Scotland: Verso Economics, March 2011), (accessed March 17, 2011)

The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.

Gallup: Americans' Confidence in Newspapers Continues to Erode

Gallup ^ | 06/17/2013 | Elizabeth Mendes

Americans' confidence in newspapers fell slightly to 23% this year, from 25% in 2012 and 28% in 2011.
The percentage of Americans saying they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in newspapers has been generally trending downward since 1979, when it reached a high of 51%.
Newspapers rank near the bottom on a list of 16 societal institutions Gallup measured in a June 1-4 survey. Television news is tied with newspapers on the list, with 23% of Americans also expressing confidence in it. That is up slightly from the all-time low of 21% found last year. The only institutions television news and newspapers beat out this year are big business, organized labor, Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), and Congress.
Americans' confidence in television news was highest, at 46%, in 1993, when Gallup first asked about it. The question does not indicate the specific type of television news, meaning respondents could be thinking about anything ranging from cable news channels to local news when answering the survey.
Conservatives' Confidence in Newspapers, TV News Drops
Conservatives' confidence in newspapers, at 15%, is down from 21% in 2012 and 2011. Moderates' confidence has been trending downward for the past two years, and is now at 25%. Liberals remain the most confident in newspapers -- although not by much -- with 31% putting a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in them this year.
Confidence in newspapers by party mirrors the ideological findings. Democrats are most confident, at 33%, while independents are less so, at 19%, and Republicans, at 16%, are least confident.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Damn Genius

Is it Time for All Good Americans to go Low Tech Once Again?

Self | 06/17/13 | fwdude

Whether this latest scandal gets "resolved" or not, the cat is out of the bag - NONE of our private information is private. And with increasingly intricate and advanced technologies emerging, we can only expect the situation to get much, MUCH worse. They just won't tell us the next time, and simply "disappear" anyone who quits his classified government job.
I've always suspected that we would eventually have to again embrace low-tech methods of communication to combat government fascism such as we're now seeing. Notes in archaic or obscure languages, codes and other unsuspected methods are going to, out of necessity, come back into use by true, constitutional Americans. It will be inefficient, but will give us good practice for when the entire networked infrastructure completely collapses.

Is This the Future of J.C. Penney?


The apology from J.C. Penney's (NYSE: JCP) in the "We're Listening" campaign seems to be working, at least for now. Customers have been returning to stores in the wake of J.C. Penney re-opening celebrations. During the tenure of a rough year riddled with mistakes and hard-learned lessons, J.C. Penney found that the soul of their customer was driven by super low sale prices and an enthusiasm for home and back to school shopping. 

A Brief Glance Back 
Although changes in management are sometimes inevitable, CEO Ron Johnson was detrimental for the J.C. Penney brand. With a vast variety of mistakes, Ron Johnson led the company in a downward spiral, eventually resulting in his departure. Below is a timeline of this spiral:
June 14, 2011-Ron Johnson named CEO of J.C. Penney (stock at $35.40)
Feb 1, 2012- Eliminates coupons and develops new pricing model of "Everyday Low Prices" ($43.30)
June 18, 2012- CEO Micheal Francis leaves J.C. Penney ($24.30)
July 26, 2012- Johnson reintroduces the word "clearance" into their sales mix ($22.20)
Nov 9, 2012- Customer traffic falls 12% in Q3 ($20.70)
Feb 27, 2013- Same store sales fall 32% in Q4 ($21.20)
April 5- J.C. Penney backer said Johnson made "big mistakes" ($15.90)
April 8. J.C. Penney ousts CEO Ron Johnson
Back to Home 
J.C. Penney hosted a nationwide house warming event in celebration of a grand re-opening. With names like Michael Graves Design, MarthaHome, Happy Chic by Jonathan Adler, Design by Conra, BODUM, ORDNING&REDA, J.C. Penney hopes to re-attract the market that they lost during their pricing flop. One of the core brands that J.C. Penney showcased during the housewarming event is Martha Stewart Living (NYSE: MSO)
Martha Stewart has faced some tough battles in years past. With share prices declining 93.13% since the IPO, and EPS declining to -$0.83, it looks like the golden years are over for this home fashion mogul. Revenues declined 12.6 million for the quarter, partially due to restructuring costs and operational expenses. All properties held by Martha Stewart declined, with the largest decline in Broadcasting by 4.2 million. 
Unfortunately for Martha, the legal battle doesn't end. Competitor Macy's (NYSE:M) claims that they exclusively hold rights to the Martha name, with claims that J.C. Penney infringed on their property rights. 
Macy's profited from the downfall of J.C. Penney, with sales exceeding $6.387 billion, up 4% for the quarter. Expected comparable sales are estimated to grow approximately 3.5 percent in 2013. Both Bloomingdale's and Macy's exceeded expectations, leaving battered J.C. Penney in the dust. What was the reason for this? A pricing model that drove away core customers elsewhere for household goods. 
Originally, J.C. Penney had fought for the same customer that also shopped at Macy's, along with Target, Kohl's and Dillard's. This kind of customer was value driven and also appreciated quality products found at bargain prices. The psychology of coupon-cutting for bargain bin deals was at the heart of the customer that shopped at J.C. Penney. Confused by a new pricing strategy, these customers fled and bargain-shopped at other retail outlets instead, driving up profits at other stores. 
The Foolish Bottom Line 
Although J.C. Penney is keeping cool through the storm, they have a lot of ground to gain with bringing back their core customer base. With the return of CEO Myron “Mike” Ullman, the tables have turned around slightly for this battled retailer. Share price has been up 14% since the former CEO took over. With first quarter results at $2.635 billion, things might be more cheerful for this apparel and home furnishing retailer.
The retail space is in the midst of the biggest paradigm shift since mail order took off at the turn of last century. Only those most forward-looking and capable companies will survive, and they'll handsomely reward those investors who understand the landscape. You can read about the 3 Companies Ready to Rule Retail in The Motley Fool's special report. Uncovering these top picks is free today; just click here to read more.
Time to invest like it’s 2008? A handful of PROs think so...
When the market dropped 50% in 2008 and 2009, this group was never down more than 5%. And yet they've made over 11% a year since then (matching the market’s spectacular run -- and that’s with hedges and shorts in place!)

Their approach has even captured the attention of the financial media, calling it: "smart advice"... "a powerful tool"... and "modern diversification." That's why we’re proud to make every single one of these strategies available to YOU until midnight Thursday, June 27 -- 100% FREE! 

The NSA's New Ball of Wax ^ | 6/17/2013 | William Russell

In The Art of War, Chinese strategist Sun Tsu tells the story of how one ancient warlord toppled his most dangerous rival by offering a condemned prisoner a reprieve if he successfully delivered a secret message to the rival’s most capable and loyal general. The prisoner swallowed a wax ball containing the message and was sent into the enemy’s territory. When he was caught, he told the enemy warlord of the message for his general. The wax ball contained the promise of payment to the general for his proposed betrayal of his warlord. Believing his general was plotting against him, the enemy warlord had him killed. The ruse effectively destroyed the trust between the enemy warlord and those who protected him, leaving him alone and vulnerable to whoever wished to attack him.
The scandal over the National Security Agency and the PRISM program disclosed by “whistle blower” Edward Snowden is similar. Whoever is responsible for Snowden's ball of wax being passed to the American people, has timed it perfectly. This story has broken at a time when Americans of all political views are already most distrustful of our government and has cemented in the minds of millions that our most capable spy agency is the enemy of our freedoms. Our enemies may have just achieved a fait accompli in the destruction of our intelligence communities.
This ploy would not have been possible without the actions of President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano who have undermined our trust. They consistently refuse to name people who are actively at war with the United States as enemies. Deliberate Islamic terrorist acts are labeled as “work place violence.” People who enter the United States illegally are given special status while people who speak out for the protection of our Constitution and founding principles are labeled as potential terrorists. The Prism scandal follows the revelation of the use of the IRS in targeting the TEA Party. The picture that has developed is one of a government using the apparatuses designed to ensure the political, economic, and territorial sovereignty of the United States to target the very groups of citizens who most often rise to protect our nation.
In the complicated mix of foreign and domestic defense of our nation, the NSA plays a crucial role in intercepting enemy communications. The NSA’s focus is on foreign intelligence gathering. It can only assist the Justice Department (FBI) and Homeland Security domestically when requested by those agencies and approved by the President or his designee, the Secretary of Defense. A special court provides oversight to this process.When tracking foreign sponsored terrorists and spies operating within the United States, there has to be an interface to allow the foreign intercepts to be tracked down to operations networks operating within the US. We paid the price for the Clinton Administration’s overzealous interpretation of the requirements for separation between these systems when Jamie Gorelick’s wall did not allow for the identification of Mohammed Atta to be passed to the FBI until after he flew a plane into one of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.[1]
The fall out is not just domestic. Snowden has severely damaged the intelligence relationship with our closest ally, Great Britain. The revelation of Britain’s most secret and diplomatically sensitive surveillance of the G20 Summit by a junior US contract analyst has shattered their trust in our organization. For the Brits, the revelations can be likened to an intoxicated, loud-mouthed betrayal by an alcoholic brother whom you still love. You know he will stand beside you in fist fight, but you cannot trust his judgment to help you protect your family’s most intimate secrets and help keep you out of fist fights.
It will take decades to rebuild the trust of our allies. In the shorter term, this incident has the potential to lead to the dismantling of the NATO defense alliance and the destruction of US efforts to enhance our Pacific-centric coalition in the face of rising Russian and Chinese economic, diplomatic, and military aggression.
Right now, Congressman Alan Grayson leading the charge to change the laws in order to “reign-in” the NSA. This plays directly into the hands of our enemies and will destroy the single greatest asset we have to roll up the networks of Islamic terrorists and Chinese, Russian, and other foreign spies operating in the United States.
The end result of this incident could well be America alone and vulnerable.

HEY Numbnuts!


Sesame Street


Please, Grandma!






He Knows!


...just poor customer service!


Big Brother is...


The Purge 11-04-2014


Happiness is...


...we take this very seriously...




If you don't build it...


Flat Tax


I Liked "Hope" Better!


The Three Monkeys


Never come in contact!


YouTube made me do it!


Together forever!


Can you hear me NOW?


Tax Exempt




Live or DIE?


Obama's Dealer








Line Dancing at the IRS


Concrete Steps












Caesar has spoken!


The Eyes!


We want!


Concerned Tennessean


You're Grounded!


Liberal Logic


Like your card?


Queering education

Mercator ^ | 6/10/2013 | Robert R. Reilly

The logic works like this: If homosexual acts are moral, as so many now insist, then they should be normative. If they are normative, they should be taught in our schools as a standard. If they are a standard, they should be enforced. And so it has come, and is coming, to be. Education is an essential part of the drive to universalize the rationalization for homosexual behavior; so it must become a mandatory part of the curriculum. What began as a plea for diversity ends with a demand for conformity.
The infiltration of higher education by LGBT studies is well known. However, less attention seems to have been paid to the effort to spread LGBT propaganda in elementary schools and high schools. Because of the young ages of students K through 12, the introduction of pro-homosexual materials has required a special sensitivity from those who are trying to get away with it. They must avoid the explicit nature of the LGBT courses offered at the college level and disguise the effort in terms of something other than what it really is. Therefore, they use a stealth approach under the cover of issues such as school safety, diversity, and bullying.
One of the primary organizations involved in spreading the rationalization for homosexual behavior in elementary and high schools is the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), begun in 1990 in Massachusetts. According to its mission statement, GLSEN “strives to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. We believe that such an atmosphere engenders a positive sense of self, which is the basis of educational achievement and personal growth. Since homophobia and heterosexism undermine a healthy school climate, we work to educate teachers, students and the public at large about the damaging effects these forces have on youth and adults alike”.
The statement sounds fairly anodyne, though its clear purpose is to make homosexuality acceptable, and for good reason. GLSEN’s founder, homosexual activist Kevin Jennings, spoke at a homosexual conference on March 5, 1995, titled "Winning the Culture War", in which he laid out the rhetorical strategy for success. It is worth quoting at length for what it reveals about the agenda. Jennings said:
"If the Radical Right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language – 'promoting homosexuality' is one example – is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are 'after their kids.' We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term 'pro-life' allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner before the debate even begins. In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth.
"We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card – safety – and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students' safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report 'Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,' we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one. ". 
So successful was Mr Jennings in his framing operation that he was appointed in the first Obama administration to the position of Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, in the Department of Education. The irony was not lost on 52 members of Congress, who wrote to President Obama requesting that he rescind the appointment because Mr. Jennings had, as the letter stated, “for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda”. Mr. Obama did not do so, and Mr. Jennings served in the position for two years.
GLSEN’s mission of promoting a safe and supportive environment for students of all sexual orientations means providing the approval of those orientations. In the Safe Space Kit: Guide to Being an Ally to LGBT Students, GSLEN provides an examination of conscience for those wanting to be allies to LGBT students. Here are some of the searching questions: “If someone were to come out to you as LGBT, what would your first thought be? Have you ever been to in LGBT social event, march or worship service? Why or why not? Have you ever laughed at or made a joke at the expense of LGBT people?”
With an Orwellian touch, the Safe Space Kit advises that, during casual conversations and classroom time, one should “make sure the language you are using is inclusive of all people. When referring to people in general, try using words like ‘partner’ instead of ‘boyfriend/girlfriend’ or ‘husband/wife’, and avoid gendered pronouns, using ‘they’ instead of ‘he/she’. What’s wrong with referring to a man as “he” and to a woman as “she”? Well, the glossary helps us to understand the definition of gender as “a social construct based on a group of emotional, behavioral and cultural characteristics attached to a person’s assigned biological sex”.
The whole point of GSLEN is that, if you don’t like the “gender construct” society has assigned you, you can construct another for yourself, and have every right to expect that everyone should go along with you.
As far as students “coming out” are concerned, one should realize that “it can be a difficult and emotional process for an LGBT student to go through, which is why it is so important for a student to have support”. In other words, encourage them by providing approval and support. Whatever you do, however, don’t advise the student not to tell anyone. Why not? Because, the booklet answers, “This implies that there is something wrong and that being LGBT must be kept hidden”.
Gay-Straight Alliances
To help carry out this work there are “Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs), student clubs that work to improve school climate for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. 4,000 GSAs are registered with GLSEN.” The number of GSAs should give some idea of the scope of this organization’s influence. Among the activities sponsored by GLSEN and its affiliates are: the Day of Silence, National Coming Out Day, and GSA Day. On January 24, 2012, Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, gave official government approval of the first GSA Day through a GSA PSA on YouTube commemorating the event and endorsing GSA clubs in schools.  So this is an officially endorsed event.
GLSEN is also hard at work providing role models for LGBT students. NBA player Jason Collins, who plays center for the Washington Wizards basketball team, announced he was a homosexual in an article for the Sports Illustrated website on April 29, 2013. Hardly a week passed before, on May 8, 2013, GLSEN, announced it would honor Collins with the Courage Award at the GLSEN Respect Awards in New York on Monday, May 20. "We are incredibly proud to honor Jason Collins with our Courage Award," said Dr Byard. "His decision to come out is a game-changer for sports”.
In the classroom
What does this kind of thing actually translate into in the classroom? The film, It’s Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues In School, is the first item recommended on the Book Link page on GLSEN’s website. It’s Elementary is, according to its makers, “the groundbreaking film that addresses anti-gay prejudice by providing adults with practical lessons on how to talk with children about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people”. The filmmakers visited six elementary and middle schools to film teachers and students discussing “gay and lesbian issues” in their classrooms. The purpose was to explore "what happens when experienced teachers talk about lesbians and gay men with their students". It aired on more than 100 public television stations in 1999 and continues to be widely used.
This film is worth some detailed attention not only because of its wide circulation, but because it seems to incorporate what GLSEN advocates. In fact, GLSEN’s founder Kevin Jennings said, “It’s Elementary is the most important film dealing with LGBT issues and safe schools ever made. It took a topic that was mystifying to many people and made it real, inspiring an entire generation of educators to see how they could make a difference…. No other film has had a bigger impact on LGBT issues in the schools.”
Through means of a transcript, let us examine what the film presents. It should be noted that the film is a documentary. Though it obviously has its own strong pro-homosexual point of view, it is simply recording what is already taking place in the schools from first to eighth grade classrooms in the way of inculcating the acceptance of homosexuality as a norm.
At a filmed meeting of the faculty at Cambridge Friends School, a Quaker school in Cambridge, MA, a teacher declares, "What we're trying to have people do is to understand that people are. And we have to respect the right of all of us to just be, and be who we are, and we do that in the classroom when we teach so that everyone can learn. ‘There isn't a right way, there isn't a wrong way, there isn't a good way, there isn't a bad way’”. So much for Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. This teaching, however, comports perfectly with the Space Safe Kit’s advice to “Show students that you understand there is no one way a person ‘should’ be”.
This sophistical message obviously works. A 3rd grader summed it up by saying, “I don't get it. Who cares if you're gay? Do you care? It's like, duh, you're gay”.  Who cares? The entire homosexual lobby, which has been pushing its rationalization to reach this exact point, cares.
In another filmed venue, a first grader at Public School 87 in New York City, Emily, reads to the class from her Mother’s Day essay:
"My mothers mean so, so, so, so, so much to me. I have two mothers. Two moms is pretty nice. Well, it's more than pretty nice, it's really nice. You can't imagine. Although having two mothers is a problem to others, I respect that that's the way they think, and I can't do anything about it. I still think that those people think stupidly. This once happened with a boy in my class who couldn't come to my house because my parents were lesbians. One night I called their house and their mother told me their version of the Bible. I stood up for my mothers and knew that many kids in my class were supporting me and calling me to see how I was. I am proud of my moms and enjoy marching in the gay pride march every single year with my moms."
Teacher: "Wasn't that a nice essay? Shouldn't we give Emily a round of applause?" (Applause ) 
Evidently, no one has told poor Emily that one of her parents is a dad.
As the responses of the children throughout this film demonstrate, propaganda works. All you have to do is repeat it often enough before their minds are formed. Children can be easily exploited, as the film demonstrates.
Whose children are they?
The background song with the closing credits has these lyrics (taken from Khalil Gibran): “Your children are not your children; They come through you, but they are not from you; And though they are with you, they belong not to you; You can house their bodies but not their souls…”
Well, then, if not their parents’, whose children are they? One may be sure that wherever same-sex “marriage” has been legally enshrined, it will be taught in schools with or without the permission of parents. In this respect, the children will belong to the state and its schools. Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2003, is exhibit A.
In 2005, kindergartners in Lexington, Massachusetts, were given a "Diversity Book Bag" to take home, which is what the 5-year-old son of David and Tonia Parker did. To the parents’ shock, it contained a picture book, titled Who’s in a Family? In it, are approvingly displayed same-sex “parents” such as: "Robin's family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad's partner, Henry, and Robin's cat, Sassy”. The author Who’s in a Family?, Robert Skutch, explained in a National Public Radio interview, "Here and Now", May 3, 2005, “The whole purpose of the book was to get the subject [of same-sex parent households] out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced that there's another way of looking at life”.
The Parkers wrote a letter to the principal stating, “There is a book included entitled, Who's in a Family (with pictures) that include lesbian and homosexual couples with children – implicitly equating this family structure as a morally equal alternative to other family constructs. We stand firmly against this book or any other subject matter pertaining to homosexuality ever being indoctrinated to our child, discussed in school, or sent home. We don't believe gay parents constitute a spiritually healthy family and should not be celebrated”. The Parkers requested advance notification of any such material in the future and indicated that they wished to opt out their son from any future exposure “to any sexual orientation/homosexual material/same sex unions between parents”.
The principal responded: “I have confirmed with our Assistant Superintendent and our Director of Health Education that discussion of differing families, including gay-headed families, is not included in the parental notification policy”. On April 27, David Parker, went to the school for a scheduled meeting and insisted that he would not leave until the issue was resolved. As a consequence he was arrested by the Lexington police and charged with "trespassing". He spent the night in jail.
The next year, at the same school, a second grade teacher read the book, King & King, to the students as part of an educational unit on weddings. In the book, the Queen is frustrated that she cannot interest her son in any of the princesses she presents to him as prospective brides. Then, one day he sees the brother of one of the princesses. “At last, the prince felt a stir in his heart... It was love at first sight”, the book exclaims. The pictorial depiction of the subsequent wedding shows the two “Kings” holding hands. The last picture is of the two of them kissing.
Parents Robb and Robin Wirthlin complained that they had not been notified about the reading or its contents, to which they objected. Robin Wirthlin appeared on CNN, saying, “We felt like seven years old is not appropriate to introduce homosexual themes… My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my seven-year-old as wonderful, and good and the way things should be… Let us know and let us excuse our child from the discussion”.  They were told that the school was under no obligation to notify them or to allow their child to opt out.
In 2006, the Wirthlins and the Parkers filed a federal lawsuit against the school district of Estabrook Elementary School, claiming that the school was engaging in sex education without parental notification, in violation of their civil rights and state law. Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf, of the U.S. District Court dismissed the lawsuit, saying “Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation… [The Department of Education] also encourages instruction concerning different types of families… Some families are headed by same-sex couples”.
The ramifications of his judgment became abundantly clear in 2008, when Dr. Paul B. Ash, the superintendent of Lexington Public Schools, announced the “new, formalized diversity curriculum in preparation for the next year, when we plan to pilot 4 to 5 short units in each elementary grade. Some units will focus on families, including families with single parents, foster parents, and gay and lesbian parents”.  A parent, Shawn Landon, protested, demanding “prior notification to any discussion, education, training, reading or anything at all related (even remotely) to homosexuality”.
Here is part of Dr Ash’s response to the father:
“… perhaps you are not aware of the lawsuit decided by the United States Court of Appeals (Parker vs. Hurley). This case established Lexington's right to teach diversity units, including stories that show same gender parents. The court decided we are not required to inform parents in advance of teaching units that include same gender parents or required to release students when such topics are discussed. The Appeals Court dismissed the claim that parents have a right to require the school provide advance notice or the right to remove their children. In addition, the School Committee has decided that teachers must be able to teach topics they feel are appropriate without the requirement parents be notified in advance”.
Recall Jean Jacques Rousseau’s prescription for the replacement of the family by the state: “The public authority, in assuming the place of father and charging itself with this important function (should) acquire his (the father’s) rights in the discharge of his duties”. This prescription was filled in Massachusetts. One can expect its spread wherever same-sex “marriage” is mandated by the state.
Back to the classroom, we have another GLSEN publication, Elementary School Toolkit, subtitled Ready, Set, Respect!, to assist the state in its usurpation of parental duties. This booklet advises on how to deal with certain children being perceived as “not behaving ‘enough’ like a boy or ‘enough’ like a girl”. It states: “As educators we have the opportunity to create environments that not only support students as they develop an awareness of gender but that also challenge the stereotypes that may impair healthy development”.
As if on cue, in May 2013, the Tippecanoe School for the Arts and Humanities, a Milwaukee elementary school, sponsored a “Gender Bender Day” for which the students were asked to dress as a member of the opposite sex. “I think it’s just teaching them the wrong lesson about gender”, one parent told local Fox affiliate WITI. “If you’re a boy, stay a boy. You shouldn’t have something like that at school”. Another parent said she was ‘speechless’ about the school’s decision day. She, like some other parents, ended up keeping her son home from school that day. A school-board member dismissed parents’ concerns, saying they were ‘using the kids for political purposes.’ In an effort to appease upset parents, the school changed the name to ‘Switch It Up Day.’ In fact, WITI couldn’t find many students participating in the themed day when it finally came last Friday; it appears to be mostly teachers and other staffers”.  On Fox-6 News TV, one mother protested: “I don’t want to send my son to school dressed as girl. He’s only 7 years old.”
However, this is clearly the age at which some homosexual ideologues and their allies would like to reach children with their propaganda. The extent to which this can go becomes, on occasion, unintentionally hilarious. In the Ready, Set, Respect! booklet, for instance, teachers are advised to “write math problems with contexts that include a variety of family structures and gender-expressions”. For example, “Rosa and her dads were at the store and wanted to buy three boxes of pasta. If each costs $.75, how much will all three boxes cost?” This reads as if some now unemployed Soviet or Sandinista propagandist wrote it. If it were written during the Cold War, they would be buying Kalashnikovs, not pasta but, of course, then there would have been only one dad, not two.
What happened to innocence?
It is a measure of the depravity of the homosexual movement that it will not spare the innocence of children in the spread of its rationalization, which must embrace everyone at every age, regardless of price. Innocence cannot be left to stand in its way. As shocking as some of the classroom and reading material may be, it is all part of the inexorable logic of the situation playing itself out.
Classroom presentations by homosexuals or on the subject of homosexuality are invitations to obscenity and inevitably lead to the question asked by one boy during It’s Elementary: “How do you guys do it?” The response was, “We are not allowed to talk about our personal sex lives – we can't do that”. Nevertheless, with the question implanted, curious young minds will ineluctably be drawn to the subject of sodomy. “So that’s what those nice guys who talked with us do? There must not be anything wrong with it”. Mission accomplished – to make the abnormative normative before the children have developed their critical faculties of thought.
Everyone who has an affliction deserves respect and consideration. But respect does not require calling the affliction something other than what it is – much less its opposite. One cannot teach about sickness and at the same time call it health. It is much worse to promote moral sickness as moral well-being – especially to children.
To teach children that one’s orientation, sexual or otherwise, gives one license to perform acts that are inherently immoral is an evil teaching. It scandalizes the children. It also degrades the dignity of human free will and responsibility to teach that these acts are inevitable outcomes of “who we are”, rather than as freely chosen deeds with consequences in terms of both moral and physical health.