« Palin's Mirror | Main | OMG Teh Cub Scouts!!! »

September 09, 2008

Comments

i used to just want Obama to win.

now i want McCain to LOSE.

cripes, I used to like the guy...

And this is the man that thought Bush had no sense of shame in 2000. Of course he was correct then, but he is obviously unable to see the hypocrisy.

The unbridled ambition of this man has destroyed any good will I may once have had for him. Of course, he has admitted that he wants to be president just for the sakeof being President, not to do anything for the country.

We have already had 8 years of a man who became President (IMHO) in order to one up his father. Methinks that may be the driving force for McCain as well.

I think McCain may well be able to see the hypocrisy: He just no longer cares. There are some on (what I think of as) "our side" who have called for us to get as dirty as the Rovians, because it's more important to win than to be honest.

I think John McCain has simply reached that point. It's his last shot to be president. In his eyes, it may be that being Mr. Nice Guy has made him come in last once too often. (Time for him to accuse Obama of having fathered not one, but *two*, black children.)

I don't agree with many points of his assessment, but it would be interesting and ironic if the press finally woke up to this kind of nonsense, with McCain losing once again, but this time as a direct result of him adopting the tactics that have beat him in the past. Now that could make a grown many cry: He finally sells his soul to the devil, and he doesn't even get the agreed-upon earthly reward.

that's a great assessment.

and it would be nice to see a mccain lose if for no other reason than to know that he threw his entire reputation into mud for nothing.

publius: Losing his reputation among whom exactly? The 40% of solid Democrats? I don't see him losing his reputation among anyone else.

You string this together with Palin's "pay for your rape kit" bullshit and you start wondering if NAMBLA has set up a PAC for McCain 2008.

I saw this ad somewhere else, and my instant reaction was "I wish I had some money to send Obama, but I don't get paid till Friday." And then I wanted to punch something. I drank a beer instead, so nothing was harmed other than the beer, but I think that's an acceptable casualty.

Here's where we could go with this for an ad:
What is it with John McCain and the facts?
Now he is criticizing Barack Obama for supporting a law designed to help children protect themselves from sexual predators. All because he didnt check out the facts before approving his message. Of course, its no surprise that John McCain doesnt check out the facts before making his decisions (picture of uh, maybe, Sarah Palin w/headlines calling out the Bridge to Nowhere falsehood).
And we sure cant afford 4 more years of a President who doesnt care about the facts. (picture of Bush and McCain together). Eight is enough.

Hilzoy:

The news report you link to has a video link where Obama is talking to planned parenthood. He describes himself as having "been in this fight" while referring to Alan Keyes' attacks and says he was chairman of the health care committee in Illinois and states he "helped to push through legislation." Was he referring to something else? I think it is fair to say it was an accomplishment if Obama touts his participation in legislation he helped "push through" though it didn't pass.

And I compared the text of the Illinois bill with the Prevention First Act. They do not compare. I didn't find a reference to teaching k-6 in the federal act (look at section 802). I may have missed it but it appears to say just "age appropriate."

In contrast, the Illinois bill says

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS . . .

All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV when transmitted sexually.

. . .Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all
forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually
transmitted infections, including HIV.

Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of the possible consequences of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including
HIV.

Seems like a poorly written bill. It's not clear that the "age appropriate" trumps the mandates that instruction even in K-6 "shall include." Probably why it was left off the federal bill. I can see why some were upset if I'm reading this right.

And I don't think you can simply pass this off with a "oh, I meant sexual abuse." The whole point of the bill was teenage pregnancy, wasn't it? I think the parental opt-out was a necessary component, but I don't see that the text supports Obama's explanation or that it frees him from, frankly, ridicule. But I'm open to an alternate explanation.

and it would be nice to see a mccain lose if for no other reason than to know that he threw his entire reputation into mud for nothing

I dunno, there's something sadder here. I think about the GOP race this year, with it's "Id double Gitmo" craziness one-upmanship.
We really need two non-insane political parties for this thing to work. Not just because it'll stop the discourse from being half-driven by lunatics, but because we need balance, I think. I *want* someone who'll intelligently critique President Obama's policies, other than our own.

It's not a bad thing for a man to want to be President, to think he can offer leadership to his country. It is sad to watch McCain commit one Faustian bargain after another trying to inch his way closer to the prize. Sad not just because of the wreck of the system, or because it's destroying a man before our eyes, but because this is apparently the *only* way that it is now permissible to run a base-friendly Republican campaign- to double-down on mendacious craziness.

I once changed party affiliation just to vote for McCain, because I believed he was an honorable man. No more. Somewhere along the line he made a Faustian pact with Bush, Cheney, willingly climbed aboard Rove's smear machine, and thereby lost me. Totally. Absolutely. Beyond any hope of recovery. I don't care what kind of tripe the Republican party throws up to smear Obama or Hillary with--I've been so burned by McCain I no longer trust a thing that comes out of his camp. How does it go? ...fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice--

muldoon: How does it go...?

Ask W.

he was chairman of the health care committee in Illinois and states he "helped to push through legislation." Was he referring to something else?

So if he doesn't specify which legislation he helped push through, you'll just assume it was what you want it to have been until proven otherwise? I think you should find the evidence on this & present it, not present half an allegation and basically ask others to do your digging for you.

Seems like a poorly written bill. It's not clear that the "age appropriate" trumps the mandates that instruction even in K-6 "shall include." Probably why it was left off the federal bill. I can see why some were upset if I'm reading this right.

Did you do this clip job yourself? The second two paragraphs are preceeded by "All sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or
behavior shall satisfy the following criteria:"
I don't think they apply to 1st-grade classes *unless* those classes were already teaching about 'sexual activity or behavior'.
Likewise, the limitation you explicitly quote in the first two paragraphs limits the teaching of abstinence to those classes in "comprehensive sex education".
Presumably we're talking about 6th graders here, not 7-year-olds. And if you think that 12-year-olds don't need sex ed, I have unkind thoughts for you.

But if you want to attack the guy for trying to keep kids from getting AIDs, have a blast. They've got a spot in hell all warm for you.

You get the sense that McCain road tested a strategy of lying his posterior off (see: bridge to nowhere, ebay plane, Obama tax plan, etc), found out that there's no price, and embraced it? This is about the sleaziest, most transparent barefaced non-fact I've ever seen. And he'll no doubt get away with it; just look at the mealymouthed, determinedly "evenhanded" feature story on campaign dishonesty currently at the top of the Washington Post to see him getting away with it. But hey, either he gets to be President or he gets to impress the pundits with all his "contrition" after he loses - just as in 2000, when he used the Confederate flag with the worst of them, and after he lost McCain said he shouldn't have, and collected all the pundits' adulation.

So if he doesn't specify which legislation he helped push through, you'll just assume it was what you want it to have been until proven otherwise?

No, he referenced Alan Keyes giving him guff over teaching sex ed to kindergartners, so that was a clear reference to the bill. I'm just making sure I have it right.

But if you want to attack the guy for trying to keep kids from getting AIDs, have a blast. They've got a spot in hell all warm for you.

Which obviously is not my point. I'm not attacking the guy.

I don't think they apply to 1st-grade classes *unless* those classes were already teaching about 'sexual activity or behavior'.

I didn't see "sexual behavior" defined in the bill, which means it could be read to include what Obama reads into the bill, i.e. inappropriate touching (sexual abuse). So under that interpretation the other mandates appplies. I'm not sure why sexual behavior shouldn't be read this way when Obama's own explanation is that he meant sexual abuse.

I mean the paragraphs regarding unwanted sexual advances are preceded by:

"All sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior shall satisfy the following criteria:"

See what I mean?

Likewise, the limitation you explicitly quote in the first two paragraphs limits the teaching of abstinence to those classes in "comprehensive sex education".
Presumably we're talking about 6th graders here, not 7-year-olds.

But the bill implies kindergartners will be taught a course in "comprehensive sex education':

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include . . ."

Carleton, my point is that it was a poorly written bill for the reasons we're discussing here. I'm not opposed to sex education starting before puberty with a parental opt-out per se. I'm just not. I realize there are parents out there that wont' teach a thing and that leads to pregnancy.

Compare the Illinois bill to the fed bill. It obviously got cleaned up in congress.

Shorter Muldoon: McCain used to be a maverick until Dubya broke him to the saddle. Dubya being a cowboy and all:-)

--TP

This may be one below the belt a la Krauthammer, but it keeps to the theme of videotape

Looking at McCain's tics during the announcement after reading this firedoglake post really makes me wonder. McCain's piss poor ability as a public speaker has been iirc a relative constant, but the stutters and obvious inability to speak without a sheatsheet to help him remember seems to be deeper. When I first saw it, I thought I saw a man who saw himself caving on the principles and knowing it, but now, I'm thinking that there is a point there.

I had the same feeling watching Robert Novak after he hit the pedestrian that something was not quite right, and when he was diagnosed with a brain tumor, the pieces fell into place. It really raises the question of whether McCain knows what he is doing.

And speaking of videotape, Stewart's take on Palin's apparent use of Wikipedia (at 5:57) really illustrates how video is going to be deployed in a way that we only got a glimpse of in Allen's Macaca moment.

This is just absolutely ridiculous. Is our country really so stupid and gullible to believe that anyone, let alone a candidate for president, would propose teaching explicit sex education to kindergartners? Has McCain really gotten so brazen with his lies that he thinks "lets run with this!"

Seriously, how would any adult see this and not think "hey, that sounds really far-fetched and hard to believe"?

bc, you are simply incorrect. "Each course offered in grades K through 12 shall include" pretty clearly means that existing courses must be modified to include the new material, not that each grade must include a sex-ed course. That's not even some obscure legalism, that's simple English comprehension. Why, I'd almost begin to doubt your sincerity.

bc,
What Warren said. If I said that each person who has a car must keep it in a garage, that doesn't mean everyone has a car. It's a strained reading, as were your other points.
If your intent is to be confused, you will usually manage to be.

Liberal Japonicus, describing your own impressions of McCain's acuity is fine, but your linked piece is the worst sort of pseudoscientific remote diagnosis. Please don't encourage it. The last thing we need is to spread thinly sourced rumors for the R's to get outraged! about, especially when there are so many real issues to be distracted from.

Why, I'd almost begin to doubt your sincerity.

Agreed. Better trolls, please.

bc isn't a troll. He's wrong, but we're all wrong from time to time.

Liberal Japonicus, describing your own impressions of McCain's acuity is fine, but your linked piece is the worst sort of pseudoscientific remote diagnosis. Please don't encourage it.

Having already put a dry drunk and an Alzheimer's sufferer into the WH, it seems like a legit concern. I agree that the optics on it suck & it shouldn't get off of the blogs though. At least, not without some pretty solid evidence.
Anyone remember Senator Bunning of Kentucky in 2004- he was so not there that he almost lost his re-election race. In Kentucky. To an unknown Dem.

Agreed, bc is not a troll.

So if he doesn't specify which legislation he helped push through, you'll just assume it was what you want it to have been until proven otherwise?

No, he referenced Alan Keyes giving him guff over teaching sex ed to kindergartners, so that was a clear reference to the bill. I'm just making sure I have it right.

But if you want to attack the guy for trying to keep kids from getting AIDs, have a blast. They've got a spot in hell all warm for you.

Which obviously is not my point. I'm not attacking the guy.

I don't think they apply to 1st-grade classes *unless* those classes were already teaching about 'sexual activity or behavior'.

I didn't see "sexual behavior" defined in the bill, which means it could be read to include what Obama reads into the bill, i.e. inappropriate touching (sexual abuse). So under that interpretation the other mandates appplies. I'm not sure why sexual behavior shouldn't be read this way when Obama's own explanation is that he meant sexual abuse.

I mean the paragraphs regarding unwanted sexual advances are preceded by:

"All sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior shall satisfy the following criteria:"

See what I mean?

Likewise, the limitation you explicitly quote in the first two paragraphs limits the teaching of abstinence to those classes in "comprehensive sex education".
Presumably we're talking about 6th graders here, not 7-year-olds.

But the bill implies kindergartners will be taught a course in "comprehensive sex education':

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include . . ."

Carleton, my point is that it was a poorly written bill for the reasons we're discussing here. I'm not opposed to sex education starting before puberty with a parental opt-out per se. I'm just not. I realize there are parents out there that wont' teach a thing and that leads to pregnancy.

Compare the Illinois bill to the fed bill. It obviously got cleaned up in congress.

great. It just ate my response and instead posted my last post. Sorry for the repeat.

I just remember being mortified when, in the early days of Air America Radio, I rather liked Garaofolo and Seder's blog-centric show ... until they started continuously insisting and obsessing that Bush had some specific obscure degenerative cognitive defect that can result from extended severe alcoholism - as if his actual proven failures of judgement and character, not to mention his trogdolytic policy positions, weren't enough. That sort of nonsense can destroy your credibility and distract from the undisputed issues.

Shorter me now that it ate my response:

I'm sure that Obama doesn't want explicit sex ed in kindergarten. I never meant to imply anything of the sort. My main point is the Illinois bill appears to me to be poorly worded and opens him up to attack. I do have to say that in reading the bill I am not completely reassured that he only meant to provide for sex abuse ed. as he seems to be saying now.

What Warren said. If I said that each person who has a car must keep it in a garage, that doesn't mean everyone has a car. It's a strained reading, as were your other points.

I didn't read it that way. You are right. the bill does not mandate ANY program in kindergarten. Only applies if you want one or already have one.

But Obama, in the article linked by Hilzoy appears to concede that he wants at least abuse ed taught in kindergarten. My point is that under his bill-if sex ed is to be taught in any way- it necessarily HAS to include some topics that I frankly cannot be taught in an age appropriate way. Should be left out.

Now Obama may never have intended to have that mandate in there, but it is. He may have thought it meant something else. Fine. But I stand by my observation that it's a poorly worded bill that lends would cause a neutral observer (not me certainly) to question whether the education proposed would go beyond mere sexual abuse ed. And before you call me a troll, (thanks lj and warren for defending me on that) pleae read both bills first.

Hi Warren,
There is some related discussion on this over at TiO, so if you'd like to talk about this without giving it the imprimatur of this place, feel free.

As far as my own impressions, the point I wanted to make is that my first impression was of being uncomfortable at not being able to pick Lieberman, but the video does seem to point to those problems.

The bill requires that "comprehensive" sex ed classes must include the specified materials. Which means that talking about strangers and bad touch to kindergartners doesn't trigger a requirement that all the listed topics be covered as well. The bill really isn't badly drafted unless you're reading it very carelessly, at which point there's no way to fix that through better drafting.

bc: My point is that under his bill-if sex ed is to be taught in any way- it necessarily HAS to include some topics that I frankly cannot be taught in an age appropriate way.

Well, no. The confusion, I think, comes from the term "sex education", which many people promptly think means "Teaching kids how to have sex!"

Supposing that the curriculum for six-year-olds includes sexuality and HIV awareness. A parent who thinks "OMG! Gay sex and condoms!" is getting the wrong message.

What that properly includes for six-year-olds is messages about never picking up needles and what being HIV+ means for children (you don't want everyone shunning Tom on the playground because mixed-up information has convinced the kids that if they touch him they'll get a horrid disease): it means explaining that "families come in all shapes and sizes" - Susie has two moms, Peter has a mom and Doug and a dad and Rose, June has a mom and no dad, and no one's family is any better than anyone else's. That's HIV-awareness and sexuality education for six-year-olds, which I suspect is all being lumped under "sex education" - and I don't see how it isn't "age appropriate".

I don't know if that's what's being taught in Illinois. I'm describing the kind of curriculum being taught to six-year-olds in the UK, which received the same kind of condemnation from worried parents who had been told by tabloids "They'll teach your kids about GAY SEX" and who had never looked up what the schools would actually be teaching their kids.

I think I agree with bc here about clumsy wording in that bill.
On the other hand, his/her wording in the 1:49 am post could be interpreted in a way that sex abuse could/should be taught in kindergarten ;-)
At least that claim ("Obama wants to teach sexual abuse"*) is still unlikely to fly even with most wingnuts.

*I thought "teach the controversy" was the perversion du jour ;-)

bc, despite your kind comment I was not one of the people defending you from the label Troll; if anything, I insinuated you might be one, for which I apologize. Also, I'd endorse LizardBreath's rejoinder to your suggestion that because of poor drafting the bill might add unwanted information to classes for youngsters that address sexual predators. LJ, I'm not famliar with TiO. I'm not going to continue this now (I'm going to bed) but maybe I'll check it out sometime tomorrow.

could be interpreted in a way that sex abuse could/should be taught in kindergarten

And thus I am not volunteering to re-write the bill! "Abuse ed" is not one of my finer English language products.

You like children?
Yes.
Pedophile!
If a demagogue is a seducer of the people, what is a pedagogue?
So much for the high temperature canine bill ;-)

Is our country really so stupid and gullible to believe that anyone, let alone a candidate for president, would propose teaching explicit sex education to kindergartners?

clearly, yes.

the GOP is currently running with the idea that Obama is pro-infanticide. and the idea has gained traction.

pro-infanticide. people believe that.

I's question one of the principal assumptions of this post: what evidence is there that John McCain ever had a sense of honor, at least since his return from Vietnam?

From his treatment of his first wife through the Keating Five scandal, there's not much evidence of "honor" in McCain's personal or political behavior.

Occam's razor suggests that the "honorable" John McCain of Y2K was just a dishonorable politician choosing the wrong lie. Silly Sen. McCain! "Moderate" and "honest" doesn't win you a Republican presidential nomination!

This is awesome.

You win, Obama has no accomplishments. The pig has no lipstick. The fish has no wrapper. Besides, women don't belong in politics - they should stay home and take care of the kids.

Besides, women don't belong in politics - they should stay home and take care of the kids.

Speaking of bbm's assertion, some support for ya.

what evidence is there that John McCain ever had a sense of honor, at least since his return from Vietnam?

there isn't any. the press just can't think outside the narrative Mark Salter created for them.

By the way lp, you continue to be one of the best (and quickest) internet researchers in the business. A reason I enjoy lurking here. One of the joys of our messy form of politics is to see evangelicals twist in the wind in the face of a savvy interviewer. This guy is really pretty good at it. Thanks for dredging this one up. Religion and politics, talk about lipstick on a pig. At least it fits.
The fact remains however, that The One, the junior senator from Chicago, must trample two strong women to get his weak ass into the drivers seat. And one of them isn’t even his opponent. Maybe the Mrs. can help, although I doubt it.

lp? Oh well, lj, that's why I'm so loveable.

Thanks for the compliment, but I didn't actually find that clip after you commented, I had just watched it (via Shakesville) and when you gave that last line, I would have been amiss not to link it, but I probably should have given the link to the post rather than the video. I have to wonder what is going to happen to Dr. Voddie Baucham and his ministry after the election. I think he's going to have trouble keeping in new suits, if you ask me.

And bc, yours is the type of argument we use to get from the old hilzoy, not the dread pirate hilzoy. In summary, your argument supports that the McCain ad was accurate and again does not support the tired 'lie meme' promoted here.

Warren Buffett once, referring to some financial gimmick, said: 'lots of things work....until they don't work.'

Karl Rove slime works, and has worked more or less since Poppy brought in Lee Atwater to be the family garbageman. But its sell by date has been passed.

I wouldn't lend my car to Lipstick or Disco Duck, let alone trust them with my retirement savings, or the Presidency, and the majority of voters aren't going to be suckered again. Maybe.

In summary, your argument supports that the McCain ad was accurate and again does not support the tired 'lie meme' promoted here.

Which is why Joe Klein called the ad "one of the sleaziest ads I've ever seen in presidential politics, so sleazy that I won't abet its spread by linking to it, but here's the McClatchy fact check. " Of course, since he links to Hilzoy in his update, you might dismiss him, but you may also want to take a look at the McClatchy link that says

Why that's wrong: This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain's votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.

...

Republican Alan Keyes tried to use Obama's vote against him in the 2004 U.S. Senate race. At the time, Obama spoke about wanting to protect young children from abuse. He made clear then that he was not supporting teaching kindergartners about explicit details of sex.

...

Penalty: 15 yards for the McCain campaign's deliberate low blow.

Maybe you are right and McClatchy and Joe Klein are taking their cues from Hilzoy. But if that is the case, you probably don't want Hilzoy to be mad at you...

McCain has no honor left.

McCain is a scumbag, simple as that. This ad. Confederate flag in South Carolina. Chelsea Clinton. Dumping his first wife for a beer/mob money heiress. Calling his current wife a c-word. Keating 5. Against torture until he was for it.

Where is any shred of anything decent with this guy?

McCain has no honor left.

i'm at the point where i don't think he had any to start with. no honor, just ambition.

i'm at the point where i don't think he had any to start with. no honor, just ambition.

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner.

If you can label little kids sex offenders and suspend them, you should make them aware of what they can and cannot do first I'd say.

Shakesville has a post up about the ad, with screenshots that show how low the ad actually is.

Hey, Obama did head the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where he oversaw the spending of $150 million to improve the public schools of Chicago, but had little impact.

Given that this is his only executive experience, it's easy to see why Obama perfers to take a pummeling for not having any executive experience, rather than admit he headed a failure.

John McCain has no honor?!?
John McCain is a scumbag?!?!?

That is so much of a stretch that I almost threw my back out reading the post and some of the comments.

That is so much of a stretch that I almost threw my back out reading the post and some of the comments.

Examples of John McCain's honor are welcome.

That is so much of a stretch that I almost threw my back out reading the post and some of the comments.

I'm not sure what your home computing set up is DaveC, but I think you need to make some major changes.

Chris Matthews has an unbelievably bad case of "if only the tsar knew". Is it agist to claim that McCain doesn't have control over his ads and surrogates?

Neo: Hey, Obama did head the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where he oversaw the spending of $150 million to improve the public schools of Chicago, but had little impact.

From the source you linked to: "In the two decades since Mr. Obama arrived in Chicago, its public schools have undergone a sweeping turnaround, from an education wasteland to a district that, while still facing major challenges, is among the most improved in the nation. The city has closed many failing schools and reopened them with new staffs, making it an important laboratory for one of the country’s most vexing problems."

Examples of John McCain's honor are welcome.

Ugh -
Well, I think I heard that he was a POW somewhere once. Is that true? And, except for his taped confession (subsequently used for NV propaganda purposes?), I heard that he mostly was honorable when he was a prisoner.

Of course, his political whorishness since he lost the 2000 primary is not honorable on the surface. However, upon closer inspection, it appears he's been really good at being a political whore, and I believe that doing a job well is tied up (no, not that way, even if it might be part of Hanoi Joh -- uh, I mean a prostitute's -- repertoire) with one's sense of honor.

And dumping Wife #1 for a young, rich, trophy wife shows a certain amount of honor. I believe he was trying to emulate the honorable behavior immortalized in the following:


She offered her honor,
He honored her offer,
And the rest of the night
He was on 'er and off 'er

Of course, I could be wrong, because, after all, Michael Moore is FAT!!!1!

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB0099lv.pdf

13 ... Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K -6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV.

Neo: Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K -6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV.

Is there some reason you think little kids in kindergarten should not be told that if they see needles in the gutter, they must not pick them up? Or any reason why little kids should not be told that you can't "catch AIDS" by hugging or playing with classmates who are HIV+?

I'm really not seeing your problem with this, Neo, unless you're monstrous enough to think that it's better for little kids to get sick from contaminated needles or shunned by their fellows for being HIV+.

13 ... Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered
in any of grades K -6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV.

that's an important little qualifier...

and, of course, you left off the parts about the requirements that the teaching be "age appropriate" - that's understandable, since it would highlight that McCain and his supporters are being completely, shamefully, disingenuous about this.

Whoops, looks like Neo took the wrong pill...

OK. Here is what the bill actually deleted and added.

1. The bill changes sex-ed instruction from 6-12 to now include K-5.

2. removes teaching the requirement that abstinence is "100% effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy" and replaces it with "abstinence is an effective method." (Only effective. . . more liberal "education." Short of sterilization, abstinence is the only 100% effective method to prevent teenage pregnancy - why be dishonest to kids?)

3. It deletes the requirement to teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.

4. It deletes the requirement to teach that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage. (Recall, it's K thru 12 we're talking about here.)

5. It deletes the requirement to discuss the possible emotional and psychological consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual intercourse outside of marriage and the consequences of unwanted adolescent pregnancy.

6. It deletes the requirement to present the alternatives to abortion (so much for full education and Obama touting of his plan to reduce abortions - please)


Now you know why this supposedly wonderful bill to protect our children, never became law. Even the liberal Illinois Senate thought it hurt children.

Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of SB0099

What no one seems to mention is that the bill would pave the way for a change in the curriculum that was being taught. The Obama campaign itself referred to SIECUS which does spell out in detail what is considered "age-appropriate", even for children as young as 5. No matter how you vote or how much you despise the other side of the political coin, please check out the rest of the story at the SIECUS link below and read it in its entirety. Is this curriculum only about protecting young children from inappropriate touching? Is some of this information really appropriate for the age group indicated? If it were YOUR child in the Illinois school system, how would you want your Senator to vote?

http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf

What no one seems to mention is that the bill would pave the way for a change in the curriculum that was being taught. The Obama campaign itself referred to SIECUS which does spell out in detail what is considered "age-appropriate", even for children as young as 5. No matter how you vote or how much you despise the other side of the political coin, please check out the rest of the story at the SIECUS link below and read it in its entirety. Is this curriculum only about protecting young children from inappropriate touching? Is some of this information really appropriate for the age group indicated? If it were YOUR child in the Illinois school system, how would you want your Senator to vote?

http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf

Is this curriculum only about protecting young children from inappropriate touching?

No, and I'm glad to see it is much more comprehensive.

Level 1 in the guidelines you linked to is for "middle childhood, ages 5 through 8; early elementary school". I read through all of the Level 1 options, and the only caveat I had was that the guidelines under marriage elided over the fact that in the US today, two men or two women can marry. (Didn't deny it: just didn't include it.)

Those look like excellent, age-appropriate guidelines for kids that age, and while I'm somehow unsurprised that McCain focussed on only on the part about teaching young kids how to protect themselves from "inappropriate touching" (surprised that he's so openly against it) I can't see why any caring, responsible parent would want her kids kept ignorant* of any of the information outlined in the guidelines.

*I accept that a parent might feel it was better for them to tell their kids all that themselves, personally; but not if that's just an excuse for cutting their kids off from any of that information.

If it were YOUR child in the Illinois school system, how would you want your Senator to vote?

I would want my senator to vote for passage of these guidelines. I just read through much of them, and they look solid, comprehensive, and useful. They're pretty much what I'm trying to teach my child in general.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad