Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: excludethis

Ok - here's my question, based on the following:

On 5/12/1999, it was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce

On 6/4/1999, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.

On 7/12/1999 at 2:17PM, it was moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.

At 2:25, the chair announced further proceedings would be postponed

At 6:33, it was "considered as unfinished business"

At 6:40, the vote occurred.


1) Was Strickland on either the committee or subcommittee?

2) If not, is it possible that he may not have received a copy of the bill or the study prior to 7/12/1999 to read? If not, he could be right - many would not have a clue what they were really voting on, and it certainly flew through in record time. Lord knows congress votes on things they don't read far too often...


26 posted on 10/11/2006 10:56:40 AM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: eraser2005
Who with a straight face could claim two months notice was not sufficient to educate yourself on the a bill denouncing this study?

In this study, the authors conclusion were that child sexual abuse “does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population” (Rind et al., 1998, p. 46). The authors even reported that some children (including preadolescents) experienced positive reactions in “willing” sexual encounters with adults.

These conclusions and the research methodology were vehemently denounced by many in the media, politics, and grassroots organizations as “junk science” and a serious assault on societal values. Demands were made for corrective action on the part of the APA, the publisher of the prestigious scholarly journal in which the article appeared.

http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Garrison%20&%20Kobor-2002.htm
27 posted on 10/11/2006 11:35:59 AM PDT by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: eraser2005
Even more unbelievable is that Strickland was a professor of psychology. The study at issue was published in in Psychological Bulletin which is a publication of the American Psychological Association.

Was two months advance notice engough time for Strikland, a licensed psychologist, to decide if this study should have been denounced?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strickland

"Strickland received a doctorate degree in psychology from the University of Kentucky in 1980. Ted is married to Frances Strickland, an educational psychologist and author of a widely-used screening test for kindergarten-age children. Strickland worked as a clinical psychologist at the maximum security prison at Lucasville, Ohio . . . and was a professor of psychology at Shawnee State University (Portsmouth, Ohio)."

28 posted on 10/11/2006 11:48:52 AM PDT by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson