I find this outrageous.  The students were given a class without parental consent and then encourage via contract to conceal the class from their parents after the fact.

The schools are way too eager to violate the parental rights of their students parents.   Note that I may not totally agree with all the conclusions from the WND article below, but I do agree that the schools and the courts have grossly overstepped their authority in dictating to the parents what values their children are being taught in school.

Ignore the gay agenda accusations and substitute any other form of controversial teaching, and the answer is still the same. 

We are the parents and we have the right to determine the values our kids are taught.  It is that simple.

Question:  Why the confidentiality?  Why conceal this?  Why keep parents away?  Why not share the materials taught and make them available for review?

What are they hiding?  If this is just harmless awareness discussions, then concealment is unnecessary, isn't it?  Assuming for sake of discussion that they have no dire progressive gay agenda, their own furtive actions create the appearance of an agenda.

If your motives are pure, your actions should reflect that.

Just my 2 cents.

‘Confidentiality’ promise requires students ‘not to tell their parents’

Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a “gay” indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

“This is unbelievable,” said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America. “It’s not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they’ve essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it.”

It should be pointed out that minors can’t enter into a binding contract. Therefore, “confidentiality agreements” are illegal, worthless and total BS.

Did you celebrate?  I did, but admittedly I can only make that claim after the fact, as I only found out about this day long after I had already had wolfed down a Wendy's Hamburger and Chicken Sandwich.

Here is the info, the what and why about it (via Michelle Malkin):

http://www.yourish.com/2007/03/12/2850

Don't forget, this Thursday, March 15th, is the fifth annual International Eat a Tasty Animal for PETA (IEATAPETA) Day, the day on which we annoy vegans the world over, and PETA, which is right here in my state of Virginia.

From the original IEAFPD pos

PETA has started yet another offensive ad campaign. This one really reaches bottom-they are using Holocaust terminology, quotes, and pictures to liken the "slaughter" of animals to the slaughter of the Jews by the Nazis.

I've already received a letter from a child of Holocaust survivors who is, of course, extraordinarily offended. But here's the thing: PETA is known for this kind of outrageous publicity stunt-and that's what it is, an outrageous publicity stunt-and while I am also offended and outraged, there is absolutely nothing we can do that will make PETA change their ad campaign. I'm sure they knew exactly what they were doing, have a plan in mind, and, if they withdraw the campaign, will do it according to their deadlines and their decisions.

So let's make up our own outrageous publicity stunt. Let's designate Saturday, March 15th, as International Eat an Animal for PETA Day. Everybody set the date on your calendar, and either go out and enjoy a great steak, or cook one at home. Or cook up some chicken or fish or anything else that PETA wouldn't want you to eat.

Read the rest at the link above.

Exit question:  Are things like this disrespectful, funny or other?  Would you deliberately observe this?

The NY Times is normally happy to lead the liberal charge in it's editorial  content, but an OP Ed piece this week takes Al Gore to task for falsities and alarmism on Global Warming.

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype

Hollywood hass a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Finally, someone noticed.  Prof Easterbrook appeared on the Bryan Suits show today and he was very compelling.

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want.

Every time I hear a politician use the word nuance I want to scream.  Science has facts, theories and proofs.  It does not have nuance.  Politics has nuance, except we usually call it lies or rationalization.

“The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Translation:  "People are too dumb for science, so I just scare them."

I am reposting this from Opinion Journal as it continues to address the firings in the Clinton administration and Hillary's connection.  Note again more information on John McKay, the fired prosecutor from Seattle:

The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

I won't comment on CAIR beyond the commentary I like to below, but I will on the Flying Imams.

They are linked to this CAIR fest because CAIR wholeheartedly supports them in their endeavors and is planning the suit for them.

The Flying Imams, ah I remember the story well.   First of all, they started, if we recall (and I blogged) with an attempt for an out of court extortion settlement which the airline rejected. I noted this at the time:

 Cha-Ching!!  I have said all along I thought the whole situation stunk, and I feel more justified every day.  I am more and more convinced this was planned and now it is moving to it's lucrative completion.

Indeed.  Here comes the lawsuit (via Hot Air):

CAIR says flying imams set to sue U.S. Airways for discrimination

I wrote about this three months ago, not believing CAIR could be so foolish as to try to politicize airline security where the facts appear to cut against them. If, as has been suggested, their goal is getting that anti-profiling bill passed, why wake the public up with a high-profile stunt that’ll probably backfire?

Six Islamic leaders who were removed from a U.S. Airways flight in November said they will sue the airline for discrimination.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations announced the planned lawsuit on Monday and said it would provide details on Tuesday. It declined to say which court the group would sue in, or provide the name of the attorney handling the case…

Here is the Money Quote:  The men said they had done nothing that should have been suspicious.

They are apparently the only ones that think so.

Probes dismiss imams' racism claim

Three parallel investigations into the removal of six imams from a US Airways flight last month have so far concluded that the airline acted properly, that the imams' claims they were merely praying and their eviction was racially inspired are without foundation.