Thursday, May 05, 2005

Itty-Boo, Mr. Parker

The Lexington Minuteman has two keen reports on our favorite self-made victim, David Parker. Read about the arrest he forced here and the account by the school officials here. What a bozo.

For nearly two and one half hours after his meeting with the teacher, principal and superintendent of schools, Parker would not leave the building. He denied any affiliation with groups like the Article 8 folk, but he apparently spent a lot of time of the phone with them and had them come with a camera in case there was something gory or glorious in a victim-y way. Even at 6:24 p.m., he refused to leave and let them close the school unless they arrested him. He refused bail and would not call an attorney.

Perhaps worse are the points of contention. He is furious about same-sex marriage specifically and homosexuality in general, as though either of those was any of his business or under his control. He chose to pick a fight over a kiddy's picture book, which contains two drawings that show a two-mom family with kids and a two-dad family with a child. This, he said repeatedly, was teaching about sexuality, thus forbidden by state statute if he did not give his specific permission.

  1. There is no sex shown, implied, described or taught anywhere.
  2. He could have opted out of this take-home packet, but neither he nor his wife did.
  3. The packets were on display and available at the school any time before they came home, but neither Parker examined them
  4. He wants to claim that the school violated the law when he is the only lawbreaker in sight.
  5. While claiming homosexuals get all the special rights, he is the only one claiming special rights.
  6. Even though both school officials and police explained the legal issues of notification to him at length, he was too emotional or too thickheaded to get it.
Perhaps the best of all is that he asserts a right that he does not have. He wants to send his children to the taxpayer funded public school to be educated, to be exposed to ideas, abstracts and realities, and yet to have the school notify him of anything he might stipulate that may be discussed even in spontaneous conversation or questions from children in class. What a control freak and how ignorant of how education and life in general work.

Alas, David Parker. He has put himself in an untenable position. No good can come to him. We can hope for better experiences and more open minds for his children.


sco said...

Did you see John Carroll interview that doofus on Greater Boston? He came off very poorly, despite Carroll's softball interview style.

The best part was his claim that the only difference between lesbians and woman who love each other is that lesbians have sex. Therefore teaching about families with two mothers is teaching about sex.

massmarrier said...

Now, I'm going to have to hit up your blog when I can. That looks good.

No, I missed that one (perhaps fortunately for me).

I am fascinated by the neuroses that produce such inferences. I think I may have to trot up to Concord on June 1 to hear Parker. What are these folk thinking? I wonder if it is akin to those who flip when they see European men hold hands or kiss cheeks. What kind of families did they come from that different realities and different cultures elicit such viscerally negative responses. That must be a tough way to live.

I'll have to keep checking the Greater Boston page and see if they run the clip. First, I'd need a drink in hand though.

Anonymous said...

Most kids at five have a general knowledge of life and how it begins.

"A mommy and a daddy come together in love and the mommy begins to grow a little person in her body. After a while that person is born."

The reason the "traditional" family model is taught is because that is the model that creates the best chance for the survival of our population and is the most basic.

Five year olds are not of the mind to process more complex issues than the basic formations of life.

The next thing you know the class will be teaching -- a mommy and daddy get together in love and make a person. If the mommy or daddy decide that the person will be a problem then they kill it. But that's ok because it is better for the mommy or daddy that the person is dead -- we can always make another one.

You see that is absolutely absurd. Inevitably the children will ask how do those two mommy's make a baby. What will the teacher say -- you have to ask your parents?

I think that they are just too young to be exposed to philosphical issues regarding the making of a family.

This is exactly why people are running scared regarding the "homosexual indoctrination of children". If adults want to do whatever meets their fancy that is fine, but why bring the kids into the fray at five?

I am not anti-ssm (in fact my daughter has several school friends who are in a s-s family; we live in a gay neighborhood). However, questions of how those families become families should be left up to the parents, because it is a philosophical issue not reading, writing, arithmatic. Philosphy belongs in church or philosphy class, not elementary school. Are schools are failing miserably and we are spending time teaching about f*ng families? WTF!

massmarrier said...

Perhaps it would be nice, if boring, for these to be so neat. One wonders then, how the anti folk explain adoption and artificial insemination so commonly used by both straight and gay couples.

For the large percentage of infertile traditional couples, do we consider them inferior, do we have to shield our children from their family dynamics too?

I don't think less of the infertile. I do praise those gay or straight who adopt though. Family is certainly not defined by a given couple's ability to reproduce in the traditional way.

Where I disagree with boseman down in Maryland is that kids can't handle the obvious. There are many same-sex couples. Kids will run across them. Pretending that these couples don't exist is what kids' can't handle. Few are blind, stupid or unobservant.

I didn't pile on reproductive and sexual details on my boys when they were in kindergarten. Yet when they asked, I'd follow the rule of answering their questions fully without going beyond what they asked. That's a lesson that Mr. Parker seems to have missed.

Kids are learning to fit what they see, hear, read and sense into a framework. We can't expect them to suddenly think like an adult at 18 or 21 or any particular age. When we are so patronizing that we define what morsels we parcel to them, we can be assured that they will view us as stupid or unobservant.

End of rant.