Posted on 03/07/2003 7:35:36 AM PST by scripter
For heaven sakes, madg, learn to read more thoroughly.
"The entire purpose of that isolated grant is (was) for some schools to assist other schools."
Under the "Prioities" section of the DOE/GLSEN grant is a list of requirements that "each grant recipient will" perform. One of those requirements is to "conduct a workshop on the GSA Mentoring Program at one regional conference of the Department of Education and the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
"None of that money was given to GLSEN, it went directly to the schools."
The grant specifically provides taxpayer funding for this required workshop. GLSEN does not have to fund the workshop, the state funds it through the grant. GLSEN was a paid consultant to the Mass DOE. GLSEN was paid with taxpayer money to develop homosexual oriented programs, such as the one that funds the creation of GSA's in public schools. GLSEN, as a paid consultant, gets the DOE to fund grants that will be used, in part, to conduct workshops at the DOE/GLSEN conference. GLSEN gets a free ride on this one - at taxpayer expense.
(Back later...)
No, that's not what it says. You need to read it again - it says: "Each grant recipient will:..."
After the high school receives the grant, they are required to conduct a workshop at the DOE/GLSEN conference.
You can continue to carp about the DOE/GLSEN label being placed on the conference - it was the Massachusetts Department of Education who stated on their grant that a DOE/GLSEN conference partnership exists, not me.
I will return later...
No. The qualification for the grant is having a "model gay/straight alliance." ONLY those schools with "model" gay/straight alliances will be selected to receive grants. Once the grant has been received, the school is then required to conduct a workshop for the DOE/GLSEN conference.
Yes, it's nitpicky. But with you, it's necessary.
"Ed, what the heck are you doing?"
"Besides, what on earth has this obscure grant got to do with anything?"
You continue to claim that it is a fact that absolutely NO taxpayer funding was used at all, for ANY portion of GLSEN's conferences. I am stating that this grant (along with other documentation) shows that there is a precedent for GLSEN obtaing taxpayer funding for it's conferences and other agendas, even if that funding is indirect and covert. What's coming to light is that some of the money may have been cleverly hidden. How GLSEN's conference was financed is unclear. Do I beleive that the entire conference was paid for with state and federal money? No. I believe that it's possible that a signifcant portion was funded by the state. Actually, ANY funding provided by the state for this conference would be inappropriate.
The suit against Camenker and Whiteman has NEVER really been about "privacy." GLAD summarizes the goal of the homosexual community best, when they state on their web page:
"GLAD is putting the right-wing on notice that they cannot use intimidation tactics to try to stop vitally important sex education information from getting to young people."
That's the heart of the matter and what the homosexual community is so upset about.
You still haven't replied my questions in reply numbers 193, 194, 195 and 197 above. Don't carp at me about topics I need to address when you are so reluctant to answer the questions I've asked. (BTW, I will get back to address those issues).
(Sorry, but my schedule today won't permit me to stay long - back later)
Well don't blame me if the Mass DOE implies that it's joint conference. They're the ones that said:
"conduct a workshop on the GSA Mentoring Program at one regional conference of the Department of Education and the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)"
"Using made-up terms like “GLSEN/DOE conference” is just blather."
Ok, from now on I'll use "conference of the Department of Education and the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)," exactly as they do on the Mass DOE grant. I thought I'd save myself some time typing by shortening it to "GLSEN/DOE conference." But since that seems to upset you so, I'll just use the long form next time.
(Don't have time to reply to the rest - back later)
(more on this thread later...)
(more on this thread soon...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.