The legislation in question, a bill in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, “written to protect young children from sexual predators” and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners....Among other things, the bill removed what York calls "value-laden language" that in the old law, such as:
The bill in question was Senate Bill 99, introduced in the Senate in February 2003. Its broad purpose was to change and update portions of Illinois’s existing laws concerning sex education....
When the bill was introduced, a coalition of groups including the Illinois Public Health Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Cook County Department of Public Health, the Chicago Department of Public Health, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council and others issued a press release headlined “Coalition of Legislators, Physicians and Organizations Bring Illinois Into the 21st Century with Omnibus Healthcare Package.” It was a three-part campaign; Senate Bill 99, covering “medically accurate sex education,” was the first part, with two other bills addressing “funding for family planning services for women in need” and “contraceptive equity in health insurance.”
According to the press release, Senate Bill 99 required that “if a public school teaches sex education, family life education, and comprehensive health education courses, all materials and instruction must be medically and factually accurate.” The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen, was quoted saying, “It teaches students about the advantages of abstinence, while also giving them the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” The release contained no mention of sexual predators or inappropriate touching....
"Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.In key language that Obama must now depend upon heavily, the bill provided that "all sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior…be age and developmentally appropriate."
"Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage…
"[Classes] shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy [and] sexually transmitted diseases…"
The bill does also have a provision about unwanted touching:
"Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961."York thinks that provision doesn't seem to be about teaching the youngest kids to avoid sexual predators:
The wording of that provision suggests lawmakers were at least as concerned with protecting children from each other as from adults, and it doesn’t seem directed toward the youngest children, as Obama maintained. But there is no doubt that the bill did address the question of inappropriate touching. On the other hand, there is also no doubt that, looking at the overall bill, the “touching” provision did not have the prominence that Team Obama has suggested it had, and it certainly wasn’t the bill’s main purpose.York describes his efforts to interview Illinois legislators who could give an account of what the legislation was intended to do.
“We know that young children, very, very young, have things happen to them that they don’t speak about,” [state senator Iris] Martinez told me. “It’s important that we teach our young kids very, very young to speak up.”York notes that "nearly all commentators" have accepted Obama's assertion that he voted for the bill because he was concerned about protecting young children from sexual predators, but:
When I asked Martinez the rationale for changing grade six to kindergarten, she said that groups like Planned Parenthood and the Cook County Department of Health — both major contributors to the bill — “were finding that there were children younger than the sixth grade that were being inappropriately touched or molested.” When I asked about the elimination of references to marriage and the contraception passages, Martinez said that the changes were “based on some of the information we got from Planned Parenthood.”
After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told Martinez that reading the bill, I just didn’t see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. “I didn’t see it that way, either,” Martinez said. “It’s just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.”
So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?
“Absolutely not.”
The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate sex education, especially concerning contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases, for children before the sixth grade and as early as kindergarten. Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.If you still think the McCain ad lies about Obama, please explain why, using the text of the ad.
It seems to me that all the McCain ad does is decline to accept Obama's self-serving characterization of the reason why he voted for the bill. But study the text and the legislative history of the bill, as York has, and try to explain how it can possibly be considered a lie to say that he voted for comprehensive sex education for kindergartners.
Posts
188 comments:
Your quoting facts. This will drive the netroots nuts.
And there shall be no innocence.
I don't understand why, in abstracto, a legislator could defend their voice using this reasoning: "Yes, I voted for law X. Law X does Y and Z; I voted for it because I strongly supported Y. You can't hold me responsible for supporting Z just because I voted for law X." How in the world is that credible? Legislation is atomic; a legislator votes for the bill in toto. There's no separate concurrences or "Senator A concurs in the judgment only" - a legislator is responsible for every chapter, section, clause, sentence, dot and comma in every bill that they vote for. They can't come in later and start withholding their support from discrete sections of the bill after the fact.
You know, "that bill was a compromise - I didn't like that it did Z, but some of us thought that Y was really important, and including Z too was the only way we could get Y." Yeah, but the upshot is still that Z was included and you voted for it!
So...
Bambi voted for Planned Parenthood 90% of the time...
It's not a lie, and never was. The actual phrase "comprehensive sex education" is contained within the legislation itself. All McCain did was lift the phrase to put it into the ad: there was no coloring, no shading, just a restatement of a fact.
This has been extensively hashed out in previous threads as Obama supporters repeat the campaign talking points. But they have never even bothered to respond to the fact that the phrase in the McCain ad is in the legislation itself - not a paraphrase, not a mischaracterization, and certainly nowhere near a lie.
It's too much to ask that Obama's supporters admit that the legislation is what it is: that would require admitting just how desperate his campaign has become that they have to try to keep people from examining the document in question in order to support their smears.
Hmm..."keep people from examining the document"...sounds an awful lot like Obama's full medical records, academic transcripts, application to the bar, Illinois senate legislative record, relationship with Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, attendance at Rev. Wright's sermons, ties to Tony Rezko, overseas fundraising by foreign nationals, and the list goes on...
Well, gosh, if I didn't know better, I might begin to think that there is a distinct pattern of Obama and his supporters trying to make up lies out of whole cloth and generally do anything and everything possible in order to keep the truth from coming out...
If not, then I'm sure they'll be happy to not just publicly support but actually lead the campaign for Obama to release all the records. After all, they have been the ones who have been screaming from the rooftops about the public's "a right to know" about every little detail of Sarah Palin's life. He's at the top of the ticket: she's at the bottom. So they will absolutely and without reservation demand the release of every single document requested by the inquiring public no matter how personal or trivial. Right, guys? Right? Guys? Where are you going?
But that might require far too much intellectual consistency and too little partisanship, so I'm not holding my breath.
I just find it amazing that state-level legislatures thought it a good idea to set curriculum standards for a non-academic subject at this level of specificity.
If you were a kindergarten teacher, what would you think when you got this fooferal in your in-box?
If you still think the McCain ad lies about Obama, please explain why, using the text of the ad.
This is clearly impossible. The "lies" meme is itself a complete and utter lie. At this point it doesn't matter. Every major news organization save for fox news is doing everything and anything they can to drill home the lie that McCain lies. And Fox News doesn't count because apparently they are the only biased news source. My fear is that if it's said longly and loudly enough, with no venue for McCain to defend himself, it will become a given. That is, of course, their goal. To me, it represents the death of this country.
Don't forget Obama's other major education accomplishment: the Chicago Annenberg Project. Ayers connection aside, Obama chaired a program that managed to blow $50 million dollars over a few years without achieving a single meaningful improvement in the Chicago Public Schools. That is the education point the McCain camp should be hammering on.
simon -
The problem for Obama is that he already crossed that bridge when he claimed that the bill was only about good touch/bad touch.
It might have been legitimate to say it was the realistic legislative option available in order to ensure those sorts of things were taught, but he doubled down on both stupidity and mendacity when he said what he said.
If he hadn't been so eager to smear McCain as a liar, there was a perfectly valid line of defense available to him that might even have bought him some sympathy from people who thought the ad was unfair.
But Obama's response has turned this into a black or white binary issue as to whether or not the bill was about good touch/bad touch or it was "comprehensive sex education" as the legislation says it is.
It plainly isn't what Obama and his people have said it is which then begets the question about his over the top hysterical response of smearing of his opponent in a pathetic attempt to obscure the essential truth of McCain's ad.
Like so much that has gone on with Obama campaign of late, this is yet another unforced error that an experienced politician/campaign staff would never have made. He made this into an issue which is now much larger than the question about the legislation itself: it now goes directly to the matter of his temperament, his character and his ability to deal with crisis.
His opponent called him out, and he panicked. His first response was to deny, deny, deny and then smear, slander and deceive. He could have made this all go away with a short one paragraph press release, but his choice to do otherwise has revealed much about his (in)ability to lead and how he would respond in a crisis if he were ever let near the White House (yikes!).
The public is watching, and what Obama is showing them doesn't reflect well on either himself or his supporters. As the old saying goes: it's not the crime, it's the cover-up...and Obama has made it plain that his baseless attacks on McCain were his attempt to do just that.
I think you're missing the story, Professor. You and York both get too technical.
Look at what did not appear in the new bill...
Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage…
[Classes] shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy [and] sexually transmitted diseases…
All that "values" stuff. Out the window. "Teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage"! Of course not.
McCain is going to vacillate on all of the above and leave it to Palin to ferociously defend the above positions. Former loathed -by-coworkers three-ring binder newsletter copyeditor Obama, er, former international business consultant Obama will opine pontifically.
Here's the problem with this excellent rebuttal by York and others (the McCain camp has a lengthy and detailed rebuttal as well): NOT MANY WILL READ IT!
I think Conservatives have it wrong when it comes to the influence of the MSM, where often you see it stated that the influence of the MSM is done and finished.
The problem is, those that frequent Althouse and other similar blogs, have a distorted view because they represent what you might call "hobbyist." Like anyone that has a hobby, they are far more informed than the general public would be, and so they (we), tend to think others, on either side of the R/D divide, think the same as the aforementioned "hobbyists." This is far from the case, in my opinion.
What I find from "non-hobbyists" in my corner of the world, is that they frequently cite the "talking points" that posters like AlpahLiberal do on a continual basis. For example, from Gibson's interview with Palin and her comment that "she can see Russia from here," you get Tina Fey's joke on SNL implying that Palin is some kind of idiot. Now "hobbyists" know that ABC cut out the full extent of Palin's remarks, but "non-hobbyists" don't know that because it's not covered in the MSM. The constant drumbeat of the leftist MSM, overtime, leads the “non-hobbyist” to believe whatever it is the media is saying.
I read yesterday that Europeans have such a negative response to Americans mainly due to the European MSM:
For one thing, Europe’s unaccountable left-wing media spoon-feeds the European masses with a daily diet of sensationalist anti-American propaganda, so much so that ordinary Europeans have developed a thoroughly skewed perception of American reality.
I think the same thing is at work in the USA, and in fact because of this, we are constantly moving in a left-ward direction.
I think we ignore this at our own peril.
We are pole vaulting over mouse turds here. We are focused on such huge issues as the bridge, and a five year old bill that as far as I know didnt pass. It would be great to hear the candidates focus on, say, the state of American financial markets.
Each side accuses the other of lying, and no one is listening to each other. The lie that the other side is lying is repeated over and over because it happens to serve Obama's agenda, and no matter how many times the Obama talking point is debunked, his cultist followers continue to repeat the talking points, and accuse anyone who deviates from them of... You guessed it... lying.
And the saddest part is that the left's reaction to Sarah Palin - a hysteria that I can't help but think must resemble that of the coastal elites when Old Hickory came to Washington to clean it up - shows that we're in four another four years of this kind of fever-pitch hostility from the left under President McCain.
I have been really struck by the lock-step "analysis" of the TV talking heads that this ad is a "lie". No room for discussion. Lie. It either says something about their world view or there has been a call to rally the troops; "McCain is to be stopped here."
`
What I want is for someone - anyone with guts - that shows up on the next episode of the View to B**ch Slap Joy Behar, and Barbara Walters for calling the McCain ads "lies" to McCain's face. To his credit, McCain simply and calmly said "they're not lies".
Caught in an embarrassing situation, Obama fudges the truth, and then LIES about John McCain's pointing it out.
This and Palin half-truths and gossip spread about by supposedly respectable Pundits and commentators.
Do the Democrats have no shame?
The ad both lies outright and obfuscates by omission of fact.
Bold Lie: State Bill 99 is Obama's only accomplishment in the realm of education.
Fact: Obama has contributed to bills in both the Illinois senate and the US senate directly related to education: co-sponsor of the Chicago Education Reform Act of 2003; The University of Illinois Act; and the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in
Technology, Education, and Science Act of 2007.
Total Obfuscation by Omission:
Obama supports "Comprehensive Sex-ed for Kindergartners"
Fact: The sole term "comprehensive," meant to imply a disturbing amount of frank sexual talk at an inappropriate age level, is clearly modified by language mandating it be "age-appropriate."
The law's definition of "comprehensive" states clearly:
(b) All comprehensive health education programs established under this Act shall satisfy the following criteria: All course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
Thus, to be honest, the ad should have stated Obama favored age-appropriate comprehensive sex-education for Kindergartners. Why wouldn't McCain state that truth? Because the whole persuasive power of saying "comprehensive sex-ed for Kindergartners" comes in the implication that Obama wants to teach the wee ones about the ol' in and out. If that weren't the implication that McCain was paying top-dollar for, he would have included the truthful "age-appropriate" modifier, a criteria required by the language in the law.
Of course, when you aim to willfully blind yourself to the perfidy of wise ol' POW Daddy McCain, this is all easy to overlook. Luckily, the American people seem to tire of blatant lies and obfuscation, and Obama will be rewarded for fighting back. The reign of concern trolls, who damn Democrats no matter what they do (fight back? too angry! too thin-skinned! ignore the lies? too spineless! too wimpy!), is coming to an end.
Althouse's "cruel neutrality?" EPIC, PATHETIC, and CONTINUING FAIL
Donn,
You make several great points. Your final premise, that the country is moving in a left-ward direction because of the left media bias, is only partially true.
I love how Vanity Fair bemoans that they and the rest of the MSM cannot seem to put Obama over the top so far:
Is the Media Powerless to Elect Obama?
Among it's points:
In the voting booth on November 4, it’s likely that most members of the media will pull the lever for Barack Obama. Whether or not they put aside their professional standards and actively try to get him elected is another matter. But because conspiracy theories are fun (see VF.com’s Trig Palin parentage timeline ), let’s assume for a moment that they do. Is there any way they could effectively accomplish it? Let’s review what they’ve tried so far:
1. Fawning coverage of Obama (the candidate with a halo-like glow around him on the covers of Newsweek, Time, and Rolling Stone; Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews gushing so embarrassingly that they had to be removed from MSNBC’s anchor desk)
2. Digging dirt on Obama’s opponents (The Times’s innuendo-laced piece about McCain’s ties to lobbyist Vicki Iseman; the poorly fact-checked stories about Palin’s supposed book-banning and secessionist proclivities)
3. Tough but fair investigations into McCain and Palin’s various lies, bad decisions, and questionable policies
Those are pretty much the only weapons in the media’s arsenal, and so far none of them have really worked.
Ann-
If it was merely about the text contained within the ad, then it probably would be much more difficult to launch into this ad as being a sleazy, misleading crapfest designed to fire up the masses ala Willie Horton. However, with any other sort of television, radio or internet ad, it's all about the presentation.
Since the sex education is supposed to be age appropriate, most reasonable people would understand that you're not going to be teaching the *cue creepy voice* comprehensive sex education to kindergartners. However, incorporating the voice, taking the bill out of context and putting it up on a screen next to Obama's smiling face, and you got yourself a chilling display of how to distort the actual facts and scare the public. The 'hundred years' comment McCain made that was jumped on by the left is also another sterling example of taking something way out of context just in case someone is going to call me some far-left Obamian.
Additionally, you don't have to study the bill to understand the distortion. The bill never mentions 'comprehensive sex education for minors' (does that phrase actually pop up at all?) and we can assume without going on the blitz that Obama's reason was to protect children without teaching them how to use condoms. There is no reason to think otherwise, unless you really want a reason to be there. Trust me, this ad is not to dismiss Obama's self-serving characterization, it's to take a hot button topic, ram it out of context, and shove it down the public's throat repeatedly until they believe it to be absolute fact.
o,
if you think tacking on "age-appropriate" wins the argument, you're wrong. I can't even say "good try."
Pointing out that your opponent wants "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners is either a smear or a fact.
Did Bambi, in fact, vote for this?
If he did, then he is in favor of comprehensive sex education for kindergartners.
Thank you very much.
The fact that the bill states that the material "should be age appropriate" is great. But that is a subjective statement, followed later by a series of objective statements about what a program must cover (HIV/AIDS prevention for instance). Those objective requirements trump the discretion provided by the "age appropriate" requirement. That is: if you think a particular topic mandated by the law is not age appropriate---tough.
Why on earth would the moderator waste time on asking Obama that insipid question when all he would have to do is point to the law's VERY FIRST PROVISION? "No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil."
Yet again, Althouse wisdom=EPIC FAIL
Bambi's team has again been taught the lesson "Be careful of what you wish for."
Last week it was an ad making fun of McCain's war injuries: "He can't type. Ho ho ho."
This week it's "He's lying about my vote for comprehensive sex education. Which I did vote for. But he makes it sound wrong when he quotes actual language from the bill."
Note to Bambi: You really should go after McCain's Keating 5 scandal. I mean, imagine the mileage: "McCain consorted with known bank fraudsters." McCain's team will never bring up Rezko or Ayers. You'll be safe on this one.
We are pole vaulting over mouse turds here.
Wonderful phrase! Filing it in my future rejoinders file.
Nice try, "o"
Your obfuscations won't work here.
"Age-appropriate" does not release the district from teaching the required items in the classes (in the law Obama agreed to:)
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education 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.
Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage…
[Classes] shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy [and] sexually transmitted diseases…
A district is not allowed to - if they are following the law -
abstain form teaching ANY of the above points - even to kindergartner's - if the district chooses top teach the sex ed to the lower grades, for whatever reason.
What do you expect from a socialist like Obama?
Top-down central governemnt control, intrusion into every possible aspect of your lives, even into matters once thought completely personal.
In England, they have nursery rhyme police, a 'parenting workforce' to "ensure parents who fail to do their duty with nursery rhymes are found and 'supported'."
Obama and the Illinois socialists heed the same call for state intervention in the minute details of family life.
Expect more of the same as President with a Democratic Congress.
Not a lie, just sleazy.
o:
I agree with you that the McCain ad would have been fairer if it had included the "age-appropriate" modifier. But then it would have been fairer still to go into mcg's point about what subjects were mandated.
Anyway, I think it's clear that McCain's description of the bill was not a lie, and was in fact much closer to accurate than Obama's claim that for the younger kids it was all about "good touch/bad touch."
Having said all that, it's possible for an ad to be truthful and still be sleazy.
donn -
I agree 100% with your observation about the difference between high-information and low-information voters.
Most low-information voters vote based on a "gut feel" more than "talking points." This is why Palin scares the bejeezus out of the Obama campaign and why they have devoted so much time and energy to trying to tear her down.
The average low-info voter has a gut positive reaction to Palin and her life story, but have no such reaction to Obama. To a lesser degree, this is now why they are also trying to go after McCain as a "liar" and question his honor.
It's not about a particular issue: it's about trying to disconnect those voters from their gut instinct about the candidates.
Neither Obama nor Axelrod nor their minions such as Alpha, et al, care a whit about the actual substance of the accusations that they know to be false before they even make them. This all about trying to create a different narrative by trying to smear McCain and Palin with as much dirt as possible and hope that at least some of it sticks.
It's the only version of "Hope" they have, and that's why you can bet that you're going to see a lot more of this from them before the campaign is over. It's a high-risk/high reward strategy. They risk driving up Obama's own negatives to the point that it becomes a McCain landslide, but the possible reward is a narrow Obama victory if they are succesful.
Their internal polling must be off the charts negative for them to have taken this tack so far from Election Day. Forget the spin coming from the campaign: that these are the tactics they have chosen shows how bad things have gotten within the Obama camp.
[Latest polling showing blue states like New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin polling within or just outside the margin of error? The loss of any one of these is electoral disaster for the Obama campaign. What was it they were saying about running a "50 State Strategy"? On defense maybe...because it sure wasn't on offense.]
They did everything they could over the summer to raise Obama up as some sort of mythical healer but McCain's "Celebrity" ad undid a whole summer's worth of campaigning with a single pinpoint strike.
So this is their Hail Mary: since they were unable to drive up Obama's favorables, they're left trying to close the "likability" gap by driving down McCain/Palin's favorables.
Just prepare yourself for a whole lot more dirt being slung by Obama and his surrogates before this all over: it's all they have left...
You can defy lying as narrowly or broadly as you like. One simple fact we should all acknowledge going in is that the bill did not propose teaching comprehensive sex education to kindergardners.
The program was comprehensive, not the education given the kindergardners. When those kindergarners turn 12 or whatever, (i.e., aren't kindergardners) they get the "you're changing" talk. At 14, you scare them about VD and pregnancy.
The education is not comprehensive until the subject has been broadly and entirely covered.
That is not what Obama believes should happen, and it's not what the bill proposes, and it isn't what's happening in schools. So let's please agree in good faith:
Kindergardners are not being taught comprehensive sex education.
If you don't agree with that, here's where we depart, but, per Althouse, lets take one more look at that McCain language.
"Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergardners."
That's not true.
Roger that Roger J. On CNBC (the lone, sane NBC voice) this morning I heard responsible adults comparing today's situation to that of 1934. Scary stuff....Well, the Democrats always relate the economy to the Great Depression unless it's boom times. In that case they talk about the unequal distribution of wealth. But there really does appear to be something scary going on right now.....Of all the problems facing us right now, the proper sex education of children ranks below the preservation of snail darters. The expertise on this subject that so many here demonstrate is proof of their profound desire to avoid having to understand leveraged debt instruments, collaterized CDO's, etc. Sex ed you don't have to go to Wharton to understand.
Obama and the Illinois socialists heed the same call for state intervention in the minute details of family life.
With the goal of ultimately making the government serve as Mommy and Daddy. Let them have their way and we'll all be pining for a mere "Nanny State."
I forgot this recent accomplishment of Bambi: He's trying to shut down a radio station.
Bambi threatens free speech again
o -
To rebut your points:
1) FALSE. Being a co-sponsor is not an "accomplishment." It's adding your name to someone else's bill. It's kind of like saying "Hey. Me too." The president doesn't have that chance: he has to lead, not follow.
2) FALSE. "Comprehensive" means "comprehensive." You don't get to redefine words to suit your political needs. Obama did what he did and needs to either defend it straight up or say that if he had it to do over he would have chosen otherwise and explain why.
The legislation uses the term "comprehensive sex education" as a stand-alone phrase, nowhere is the phrase "age appropriate comprehensive sex education" used. Your spin that McCain should have asked Obama how he wanted this vote spun before running his ad is completely ludicrous.
In addition, I defy you to point to the part of the legislation that specifically defines "age appropriate comprehensive sex education" as solely consisting of good touch/bad touch. You can't because it doesn't. We've been over and over this ground in previous thread, go educate yourself before you come here with your cut and paste Axelrod AstroTurfing Talking Points (hereafter referred to as AATP).
To use your own terminology, your comment was an EPIC FAIL...
As I pointed out yesterday, when challenged on the bill in 2007 by Romney, Obama's spokesman pointed to an existing age-graded sex curriculum from SIECUS. The topics for 5-8 year-olds include vaginal intercourse, sexual orientation, gender identity, same-sex partnerships, masturbation, unintended pregnancy, STDs, complications of HIV, transmission of HIV, sexual assault (good touch/bad touch).
We can debate whether your first-grader's teacher should be presenting those topics in the classroom, but the ad's assertion, according to the curriculum pointed out by Obama's own spokesman, is true.
Either Obama didn't know what was is in the SIECUS curriculum and is a fool and an idiot, or he did know and is shamefully portraying himself as the victim to drum up phony outrage at McCain.
That is not what Obama believes should happen, and it's not what the bill proposes, and it isn't what's happening in schools. So let's please agree in good faith:
Kindergardners are not being taught comprehensive sex education.
Except in the curriculum which Obama's spokesman gave as an example of "age appropriate" sex ed.
As far as the "only accomplishment" claim, that does seem to be spin and/or misrepresentation.
Now can we get back to issues that actually matter?
ryan martinez -
Since the legislation actually does use the phrase "comprehensive sex education", your entire comment amounts to absolutely nothing. McCain lifted the exact phrase from the bill: it is you who are uninformed.
As this completely refutes the rest of your comment about how using the phrase amounts to some sort of scare tactic, I'm assuming that you'll be issuing a retraction once you've actually taken the time to learn something about the subject.
As a legislative bill drafter for a state general assembly, I can tell you from experience that the McCain ad is not a lie.
Bills need to read as a whole, unless specifically stated otherwise. Its obvious that the individual to made the change by striking "6" and substituting "K" didn't quite understand the major effect this would have on the bill.
Obama is arguing that his intent was not comprehensive sex ed for kindergartners. But that isn't legally controlling.
He, like the majority of state legislators that I work with on a regular basis, aren't generally allowed to make changes or even draft legislation for *exactly* this purpose. The legislator has a certain purpose or intent in mind but has not idea how to implement that effect through legislation. Law is all about precision and details.
Wait wait Pastor Jeff,
Are kindergardners being taught everything? Is their education comprehensive?
Because if they aren't, then they are not "being taught comprehensive sex education."
The bill says "comprehensive."
What's a lie about that?
Is it a lie to say "you know, you should read the laws you vote for"?
o -
Once again, take them to read what has already been discussed on this blog before making a fool of yourself.
The fact that the bill actually states that students should not be suspended or expelled if the parents opt out is an explicit recognition that both the school officials and classmates will subject those who opt out to at least some measure of retribution/ostracization.
Any bill that, even within its own language, explicitly recognizes that it will subject students to any sort of social or systemic backlash for refusal to participate should never have come up for serious consideration. Period.
Roost, here is the actual text of the bill...
Each class or course in comprehensive sexb
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 AIDS.
roost -
You have put your own definitions on what children are to put taught and when? Do you know for a fact that this exactly how it was going to be implemented?
Despite your claims to the contrary, you don't. Once again, I will for the hundredth time advise people to go back and read through previous threads on this subject to understand how the theory actually gets put into practice and why legislation like this is a clear and present danger to parents who think that they - rather than statists like Obama - ought to be in charge of raising their own children.
I guess it all depends on the meaning of the word comprehensive. Maybe McCain means it in whatever way it is meant in the legislation. Or maybe he means it in a different way. We should fault McCain because his ad. says "comprehensive" in a scary way? That is pretty thin criticism.
roost -
You're trying to twist the plain meaning of the words in the legislation to suit your purpose.
The legislation says "comprehensive sex education" for grades K-12 (which includes kindergartners since you seem to having trouble interpreting plain English today). Unless you have specific information that the legislation doesn't mean exactly what it says or that it was some kind of typo, then you need to accept that what the McCain ad said was 100% accurate.
You may not like it, but that doesn't change the facts no matter how much personal spin you want to add.
"o" opinined:
Fact: The sole term "comprehensive," meant to imply a disturbing amount of frank sexual talk at an inappropriate age level, is clearly modified by language mandating it be "age-appropriate."
haw the heck is it ever "age-appropriate" to spend education time and resources on kindergartners learning about how people seek to touch their private parts, how private parts spread AIDs in both what they taught are "perfectly normal" gay and straight ways by "peepees, mouths, and buttholes"?
The Macro picture is that Obama and state Democrats wanted sex ed to go from 6th grade down to kindergarten level because "The State" had to do what parents, who might be molesters.......couldn;t be trusted to do. Using the Dem concept of teachers being more trustworthy and better educated than what parents decide....
In the transition, they bucked parents who have a very different concept of what notions of "pee-pee touching, homosexual buttholes, AIDs spread by dirty fluids, and criminal parents and relatives are if they 'inappropriately" wipe the butts" of some incontinent kid...
Parents and school boards should determine what is "age-appropriate" not States or the Fed.
Same goes with other difficult matters that parents prefer kids have a higher level of maturity before they graple with them. Certainly not age 5 and 6 children learning "bad AIDs can be stopped" by rolling a condom on a banana.
Certainly not taught in simplistic fashion other Leftist agenda items why war is always bad, killing someone is always wrong.
Kindergartners do not grasp "nuance". They are too young. They think in absolutes.
They do not mature at the same rate as some of their cohorts. Molestation by parents or parents being "deficient" in teaching their kids of dangers and "age appropriate sex ed" that the parents can best decide on - exist in too few numbers to justify the state taking over such education.
Especially in comparison to the large numbers of confused youngsters coming home telling their parents that they are to tell their teachers if Daddy puts his semen in their buttholes as many parents do their teacher says - or Mommy walks in and sees them naked..because cops might need to arrest them...
Josh said... Obama chaired a program that managed to blow $50 million dollars over a few years without achieving a single meaningful improvement in the Chicago Public Schools
I understood it as 50 million from a grant and 100 million of city matching funds.
150 million pissed away
Thanks for your comments Jim. In my face! I'd like to hear from some other people now.
We should fault McCain because his ad. says "comprehensive" in a scary way? That is pretty thin criticism.
No no no, this is not a nitpicky point at all.
The bill provides for comprehensive sex education. You will have a complete sex education by the time you graduate high school.
You will not be taught comprehensive sex education while you are in kindergarten. This is not nitpicking. This is the crucial point.
The ad takes a word the bill uses to characterize the K-12 education as a whole, and it applies it to just the kindergarten class. The claim that it makes, that the bill proposes teaching comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners, is false.
The ad works as an attack for precisely this reason, too. It's not as if I'm picking on something that's kind of tangential.
It's scary exactly because it sounds like Obama wants to tell kindergartners everything.
And that's exactly the false part.
HEY TEACHER, LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE!
I have six kids who all went through the public school system. Three have graduated from college, two are in college, and one is a senior in high school.
Because of this I have had a fair amount of exposure to "comprehensive sex education," and was even interviewed for a book on the subject by a UC Berkeley professor.
In all cases we opted our children out of lower age sex ed, (though they took it in high school), because we thought the material was inappropriate (and this is when it started in Jr. High)
I have read the SEICUS material for grades K-5th, and would no doubt opt my kids out if they were in those grades today.
In one case, with our oldest daughter, they wanted her to be dismissed in front of the whole class, and we said no, that wasn't acceptable. The school ended up making other arrangements, but I can say from experience it is not easy bucking the sex ed establishment.
Pastor Jeff, I just finished reading that curriculum you linked to.
It didn't say the stuff you said it did!
The stuff for ages 5-8 is very harmless, mostly the kind of stuff you'd tell them without a curriculum. Nothing about intercourse, that's for sure!
Rest in peace, Richard Wright 9/15/08.
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!
TY,
I caught you ref from The Wall!
Rick Wright was the best, and his accomplishments will live on forever.
Stand still will ya!!!
I never knew that sex education could get so... messy.
roost -
Then tell me exactly where in the bill it is spelled out which subjects will not be taught to kindergartners?
As other commenters have pointed, HIV transmission is a required topic for all grades including kindergarten.
Can you explain how HIV transmission is appropriately taught to kindergartners in the context of sex education without talking about actually having sex - oral, vaginal or otherwise?
The problem comes down to this: Obama said this bill was only about good touch/bad touch. The legislation specifically mentions requirements to teach kindergartners subjects which will require teaching them far more than that and in any case goes far beyond the "good touch/bad touch only" spin that the campaign put on it. That makes Obama and his campaign out to be the outright liars in this situation.
And you still want to criticize the McCain campaign without so much as a word about the outright lies that Obama and his people have told on the subject? Yeah...you're absolutely right: using words that exact quotes from the legislation is wrong and despicable, but lying about your legislative record and smearing your opponent with false accusations to cover it up is completely OK in your book.
Yep, that sounds like a good idea. Keep running with that line of reasoning: I'm sure you'll convince people to come around to your way of thinking in no time.
That's a good article by York. And Obama should be happy people are talking so much about this bill, rather than this one: Born Alive Bill
Of course, with liberal moderators, Obama will get a get out of jail free card.
Since this bill passed has there actually been any kind of backlash? Are teachers actually teaching kindergarteners about sex, HIV, etc.? If they were, I'm sure parents would have complained and something would have been done about it.
The bill simply calls for comprehensive sex ed in K-12, specifically saying it should be age-appropriate. It seems that comprehensive sex ed for a kindergartener is probably nothing more than good touch/bad touch, and I'm sure this is the way school boards, schools, and individual teachers have interpreted it.
We're arguing semantics here. Is it a lie that Obama supported a bill calling for comprehensive sex ed for kindergarteners? No. Is it a distortion to imply the absolute purpose of the bill, and the only reason it was created, was to teach 5 year olds about icky icky sex? Yes, and that is what the McCain ad does.
Erik,
When you see the word "comprehensive," you can substitute the word "explicit." I know this two ways. From my own experience with my own kids (mentioned above) and from following the link that Pastor Jeff (also above) has made available for the past two days (i.e. regarding SEICUS material).
I read through the guidelines for 5-8 year olds and remember learning almost all of that by about fourth grade. I turned out normal.
When you see the word "comprehensive," you can substitute the word "explicit."
Mentally substituting words that aren't there doesn't seem like a recipe for clear thinking.
Pastor Jeff!
Jim!
Donn!
Here is the dreaded SEICUS curriculum re: AIDS/STDs for children 4th grade and younger:
Level 1
• Sexually transmitted diseases are caused by germs such as bacteria and viruses.
• There are many types of sexually transmitted diseases.
• People who do not engage in certain behaviors do not get STDs.
• A small number of children are born with STDs that they get from their mothers during pregnancy
or birth.
• The most common ways for a person to get an STD is to participate in sexual behavior or share a
needle with another person who is already infected with an STD.
• Children who find needles on the ground should not touch them and should tell an adult.
____
That's cut and pasted directly, so any typos are theirs. That's it. That's all. I didn't leave anything out. That's the full extent of it for 5-8 year olds.
Ah, distraction! But seriously: try to evaluate the claim separately from your feelings about Obama and McCain.
The bill does not seek to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners.
It just doesn't. The word comprehensive is in there, but it's an adjective describing the curriculum as a whole. Am I wrong?
erik -
The bill never actually passed. Obama voted for it, but it ultimately died.
If the bill specified "good touch/bad touch" for kindergartners this might be a different discussion. I, and many parents, would still have a problem with the government intrustion into private matters. But again, that would be a different discussion and probably wouldn't have merited a campaign ad on the subject.
The problem with this bill is that it doesn't do that. In fact, it specifies a number of other subjects which must be taught to kindergartners which are neither: a) related to touch, or b) in any way age appropriate.
That sex education would be taught to older students is relatively uncontroversial (note that I said "relatively"). The controversial part is the expansion of sex education to grades K-5. It's not out of line only to mention only the controversial part of the bill: it's been part and parcel of every political campaign since time immemorial.
But truly the controversy erupted when Obama and his campaign tried to spin his vote on the bill by claiming that it said something which it specifically does not - namely that it was only about touch. If he had left it alone or just issued a one paragraph press release in rebuttal, it probably would still not have been a big deal.
What made it a big deal was that Obama's campaign has: a) claimed that McCain lied, and b) launched response ads calling McCain sleazy and dishonorable for calling attention to a vote that Obama is quite evidently not at all proud of.
As a result, now people are reading the bill for themselves and finding out that even if you find McCain's original ad incomplete because they didn't ask Obama's camp how they would like to characterize his vote, there's no doubt that Obama and his people have behaved despicably in their response.
"The problem with this bill is that it doesn't do that. In fact, it specifies a number of other subjects which must be taught to kindergartners which are neither: a) related to touch, or b) in any way age appropriate."
Roost just outlined some of the guidelines above, which are perfectly age appropriate (in my opinion).
Now we're just devolving into a morality argument and I don't think that's what it should be about. Even if they had come out explaining the whole purpose of the bill, and there was no ad calling McCain a liar, would you be happy with Obama's explanation, or would you still think he wanted to teach 5 year olds all about sex?
roost -
You ducked my question and then doubled down with your cut and paste:
The most common ways for a person to get an STD is to participate in sexual behavior or share a
needle with another person who is already infected with an STD.
1) So tell me, how in God's name do you tell a kindergartner about getting an STD by participating in sexual behavior without ever discussing sex?
Are you really this dense? You can't and unless you're lacking in sex education yourself, you know that full well. That I should have to point this out to you shows that you're not even trying to understand the issue: you're here to defend Obama no matter what. Fine. We've got that. Do you actually have anything to add beyond that?
2) Tell me again how talking to kindergartners about sharing needles is age appropriate? What's next, classroom demonstrations?
I mean, c'mon...do you even have children? Do you have a clue how grossly offensive it is to tell a parent that you need to teach their innocent 5-year-old about sex and shooting up drugs with the world's lamest excuse that it's all about preventing them from getting AIDS? Is there some sort of AIDS epidemic in elementary schools that demands this sort of government intrusion?
If you can't grasp these basic concepts then I really don't know what to say to you. It's just common sense, and if you don't have it then no amount of instruction or argument is going to supply it.
We all see what we want to see, it seems. Why are most here ignoring the half dozen or so times the phrase “age appropriate” is used in the bill. The ad may not be a “lie” but is clearly misleading and is intended to be so.
The bill is for K-12, as a whole. The ad implies kindergarten, only. All topics itemized in the bill will be covered in an “age and developmentally appropriate” manner throughout the students K-12 experience, hence the label comprehensive. Age appropriateness allows for topics to be introduced via the time and teaching method appropriate.
Also, how does the provision about unwanted touching not include the possibility of sexual predators? As a parent, it seems to me, this (unwanted touching) would be about the extend of the discussion for kindergarteners – from family, friends or strangers. (and actually, by definition, wouldn’t all three categories be labeled as sexual predators?).
Jim,
The guidelines are for 5-8 year olds, meaning some things are taught at 5 and some things are taught at 8. My guess is an 8 year old will be taught this, and considering the crap on TV, my guess is an 8 year old knows what drugs are.
"legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners"
I have to agree with Obama that the ad was “shameful and downright perverse.” Not because of trivial matters like sex, but because of the atrocious grammar. You can teach or you can provide education, but you cannot "teach education."
Never mind sex education--how can our kids even learn to read and write when our presidential candidates display such illiteracy?
1) FALSE. Being a co-sponsor is not an "accomplishment."
But voting to pass a bill out of out of your committee, which didn't pass the legislature over all, is?
Since this bill passed
It didn't pass.
In fact, it specifies a number of other subjects which must be taught to kindergartners which are neither:
No, it didn't specify any subjects which must be taught to kindergartners. It specified what must be included in any comprehensive sex-ed class offered in any grade, K-12. It didn't say that kindergartners had to be offered a comprehensive sex-ed class.
erik -
I wouldn't be happy with his explanation, but it fits with his worldview. He is a classic statist that thinks the government knows better than parents and that our children must be protected from being taught anything other than what those in charge of the government want them to know when they want them to know it. (Except of course for those elites like himself who can afford to pay $40,000 per year to make sure that their children aren't subjected to what the rest of us little people have to deal with.)
I would expect to disagree with him on that worldview, and it wouldn't be particularly controversial if we did. I doubt I would have even bothered to read the legislation at all, and I'm guessing that neither would pretty much anyone else.
But in the same vein, if he had responded in the way that a more intelligent and experienced politician would have then this discussion would never have taken place. Ann wouldn't have posted about it, and it simply wouldn't have risen above the level of "ground noise and static" in the overall election campaign.
What this serves to highlight is the very thing that many people have been complaining about with Obama for a long time now: he's too much of a neophyte. He has shown that he panics and reacts without regard to unintended consequences (even those that affect him directly) even in the face of such a typical campaign back and forth which is all this started out to be and all it would have ever been if not for his hysterical response [and which he would have been able to handle much more expertly if he had ever actually faced a serious opponent in an election before this].
No. Of the education-related bills that became law in the 93rd General Assembly, Obama sponsored four: SB 19, which freed charter schools from union interference, required them to offer standardized tests, comply with No Child Left behind, and employ at least 50% certified teachers.
Obama also sponsored SB 66, which established academic after-school programs for poor dumb kids; SB 533, which set up formal training and mentoring programs for new teachers, and SB 565, which established an Early Childhood Education Coordination Council, to find out what worked for kids 0-5, and share it with the various ECE providers.
All of these were more significant education accomplishments than sending Carol Ronen's sex education bill to the Senate floor, where it died without a vote.
Jim, you're getting awfully worked up.
My argument is simple.
The kindergartners were not taught the entire sex education curriculum. Reasonable people can differ about how much sex ed is appropriate and at what age. But reasonable people cannot dispute this: the bill did not propose that kindergartners be taught the entire sex ed curriculum.
"Comprehensive" = covering completely or broadly. Although the entire K-12 could fairly be described as comprehensive, the sex education that kindergartners receive can not. Unless the kindergartners are taught the entire curriculum, there is nothing comprehensive about the education kindergartners receive.
The McCain statement is:
Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners.
The McCain statement false.
Does someone who isn't Jim have an objection to this argument?
laura, trying to persuade the anti-Obamites is a losing game. They realize that "age-appropriate" means "teach 5 year olds the same things you teach 18 year olds."
Further, the "netroots" understand that "comprehensive sex ed" means "explicit sex ed" which means that kindergartners will start their school day, not by playing with lumps of clay or learning to print their names, but by watching Nina Hartley's Guide To Better Cunnilingus.
The sooner we admit this, the sooner we can move on.
What York and a lot of other people don't understand, or are pretending to not understand, is that the bill does not require K-12 sex ed. It merely permits it. And it says that schools which choose to offer sex ed need to follow certain guidelines.
This is one of the main reasons McCain's ad is a lie: because it indicates that the bill requires sex ed, even though the bill does not do so.
This is explained in more detail here.
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
FLS,
See, this is why arguing with anti-McCainites is a losing proposition.
I, and others, have already said, that the comprehensive sex-ed is deemed to be "age appropriate," but here you are, per usual, *lying* by saying critics are claiming that 5 year olds and 18 year olds will be taught the same set of facts.
washerdryer -
That's where you're wrong: it does specify that ALL chidren be taught about sexual HIV transmssion. Unless you see some specific clause which exempts kindergartners, the law would have required kindergartners to learn about it too.
I've asked the dissenters (specifically roost who keeps ducking the question) several times: how do you teach kindergartners about sexually transmitted HIV without ever talking about sex?
You can't. End of discussion. Just because you want the sky to be magenta doesn't mean that it is. You may wish that the bill doesn't say what it does, but it does.
Here's the deal, folks: if you want to vote for Obama, then do so. If you want to say that you don't care if the ad was accurate and that you're on Obama's side regardless of how he voted on this bill, then that's fine too.
But you can't come on here and claim that the bill doesn't say what it plainly does. That's not going to fly no matter how many different people try to deny reality.
You can't substitute what you think "age appropriate" means for what the bill specifically says will be taught to kindergartners. I know what I think is "age appropriate" for kindergartners, and that may or may not be the same thing as what you're thinking: but it's completely irrelevent. What matters is what is in the bill and what isn't.
What isn't in the bill is what Obama said was in the bill. What is in the bill is the exact phrase that McCain said was there.
You may not like that it makes Obama look bad if McCain points it out the way that he did, but Obama isn't entitled to be shielded from criticism nor does he get to have topics raised only in the way that puts him in the best possible light no matter what sense of entitlement he has. You people defending Obama on this seem to think that McCain is some kind of bad guy for not getting his ad cleared through David Axelrod and Obama himself before running it.
They knew this was out there. If they wanted to get in front of the issue, they had every opportunity over the past 20 months to put it out there in the most positive light possible and thereby avoid this whole mess. They failed to do that, and so it was raised on his opponent's terms. So their response? Addressing the issue directly like adults? No. The first instinct was to resort to ad hominem attacks like schoolground bullies. Yeah...that's what I want in a president.
But both he and his campaign think that no one would ever dare actually look into his record and call him out on it. After all, they've managed to skate by this long without anyone in the MSM ever asking the obvious questions. This is what living in the liberal cocoon gets you: you wind up blindsided by issues you should have been prepared to deal with if you had ever dealt with a real campaign or an honest press corps.
So in response Obama wound up lashing out hysterically and now that people are actually reading the legislation, he's the one with egg on his face. His supporters think that's inherently unfair: The One should never be made to look bad, so anyone who might be the proximate cause must be evil and a monster.
If that kind of hero worship makes you sleep better, great. But the rest of us will continue to critically examine what records are available and point out the obvious flaws whether you like it or not.
As all of the above discussion suggests, this issue is not a winner for Sen. Obama.
(Donn, respectfully, you are smarter than 95% of people, and you are disappointed that the Average Joe isn't thinking about the facts. Whatever they are. This is a barber shop issue. Inevitably, the issue will be "the Democrats want more sex talk in schools...they're tearing down marriage...it's pro-homosexual...pro-teen sex...pro-gay..."
Sex issues aside, every parent probably has some bugaboo about the public schools that drives them crazy. This reminds people of that. My guess is that more, rather than fewer, wish there were fewer legalistic rules and politicization in the schools than in the good ol' days when they were eating paste. Teacher organizations are, I think the largest contributors to the Democratic party and the largest bloc at the convention. Not a winner to associate bureaucratic school administrators with your party. Most folks don't like bureaucrats and complicated rules regarding 5 year olds.
Jim, you're the one who has lost sight of the question at issue.
McCain says:
Obama's only accomplishment? Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners.
Is that true? It is not.
Jim,
Excellent points.
I want to mention one thing you said in passing, and that's about "innocence." Personally, this is one of the main reasons we opted our kids out of Jr. High sex-ed. When my ex went to view a presentation on the material, the teacher said one of the goals of the class was to break down barriers, and by that he meant take away their innocence (of course, all in the name of presenting "facts."
roost -
I'm not getting worked up. What I am trying to do is get you to answer the simple question:
How do you comply with the requirements of this bill to teach kindergartners about sexually transmitted HIV without teaching them about sex?
But both you and Obama's other defenders continually refuse to even attempt an answer to this question because it completely blows apart the argument you and others have been making that "Obama obviously never meant to teach kindergartners about sex."
The bill plainly requires that kindergartners are taught about sex, and until you can get around that then your argument falls on its face.
The fact that you and the others purposely duck the question is telling. You want to come on here and spew AATP without being questioned. That's not the way this blog works. If you make an assertion, then you better be prepared to back it up. You can't, so you want to hear from anyone other than the person asking you to back it up.
You've been exposed as frauds: go back and tell David and Barack that their spin isn't going to work here...
the government knows better than parents and that our children must be protected from being taught anything other than what those in charge of the government want them to know when they want them to know it.
Jim, I'd like to compare your sex ed curriculum to the Oregon Department of Education's. What did you teach your kids about sex and when did you teach it? What were the triggers? For example, did you discuss masturbation with them when you caught them playing with themselves?
Except of course for those elites like himself who can afford to pay $40,000 per year
The Obamas pay less than $18,000 a year to the school Michelle's employer operates, thanks to her 50% employee discount.
Tell me again how talking to kindergartners about sharing needles is age appropriate?
I agree with this, but since McCain tolerates this in his home state, where he and Cindy raised their children, I cannot fault Obama more than McCain.
I understood it as 50 million from a grant and 100 million of city matching funds.
You understood completely wrong. The Annenberg Foundation donated 50 million, to be matched with $100 million from private donors. Daley tried to control this money but failed.
roost -
You won't answer my repeated question about teaching kindergartners about sexually-transmitted HIV without teaching them about sex, but you expect me to answer yours? How about this...you answer mine first, then I'll answer yours.
Trying to change the subject isn't going to work...
The Obama campaign spokesman cited the age-appropriate Oregon Department of Education program, which is significantly different from the SIECUS program it is based on:
A. Grades K-3:
1. Good touch, bad touch
2. Understanding body parts, proper anatomical names, stages in basic
growth process
3. Communicable/non-communicable diseases, the concept
4. Behaviors that reduce the spread of communicable diseases (washing
hands, not sharing eating utensils, using Kleenex)
5. Accepting of their uniqueness and a positive regard for themselves and
others
6. Recognize risk behaviors (sharing body fluids) and methods of prevention
7. Unsafe objects (needles, broken glass, drug paraphernalia)
8. Refusal skills, role playing
9. Personal hygiene
10. Emotional development
http://www.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/hklb/hiv-aids/sexedguidelines.pdf
Or just go to http://www.ode.state.or.us/
Search on sex education, and click on Age Appropriate Sex PDF 12/19/2002 (26.37 KB)
the Democrats want more sex talk in schools...they're tearing down marriage...it's ...pro-teen sex
Excuse me? The Republicans paraded an unwed, pregnant teen on national TV, not the Democrats. Not a word of disapproval -- you would have thought Bristol was the Madonna.
When is that kid gonna get married, anyway? After the bun pops out of the oven?
That's my point, precisely, Jim. You're the one changing the subject, demanding I defend Barack Obama.
This post is about whether John McCain "lied". I think lied is a pretty loaded word, so I don't want to toss it around lightly, but I posted here to try to find some common ground about what he said.
We have exactly what he said, and in response to an explicit request made by Ms. Althouse in the original post, I've made an argument that what he said is false.
You want me to admit that Barack Obama signed a bill that would teach kids younger than 8 something about sex. That's changing the subject. I'll readily admit that, I'm not dodging anything and I'm not changing the subject.
The claim from the McCain camp is not that he'd teach them something about sex. It's that he'd teach them everything about sex. This is false, and it's the only point I've tried to make here.
Whether it's an effective strategy to call McCain a liar would be changing the subject.
Mitt Romney seems to think so.
fls -
It has been my position throughout this debate that sex education is a private matter to be dealt with by families. It is neither relevant nor any of your business how, when, what, or why I taught my children. As far as Oregon's standards, unless they were written into the bill in question they are no more relevant than your unwarranted inquires into my private life.
Does the fact that the Obamas get a discount somehow change the fact that enrolling 2 children in the school would cost anybody else about $40,000? [notice that I said "elitists like himself" - I never said the Obamas paid that amount - try reading for comprehension instead of speed next time] I didn't think so. So much for your off-topic "gotcha" attempt. Maybe Charlie Gibson can help you prep for your next comment and then you too can selectively edit my responses to make them say what you want them to say?
As far as what McCain "tolerates in his home state," since when do U.S. Senators pass or even propose state legislation? What responsibility does he have as a U.S. Senator to set education policy in the state of Arizona? You do realize that the executive branch of Arizona's state government is separate from the that of a U.S. Senator, right? In attempting to set a logic trap for me, you only show your own ignorance of how the separation of powers between state and federal as well as legislative and executive work....being a "former law student" I would have expected you to know the difference...my bad.
Does someone who isn't Jim have an objection to this argument?
Yeah, I do. Under your definition, the only people who have received "comprehensive" sex ed are the 12th (or near) graders who have been taught every last thing the entire program offers at any level. Any less than 100% of the entire curriculum doesn't count as "comprehensive."
That's not the sense in which the ordinary parent (or ad viewer) would understand that term in this context, and I think you know it. (Though I will say it's a lot more persuasive when you put it all in bold letters like that.)
The problem for Obama is that he appears to think that, perhaps unlike most of his state senate constituents, most people in America would find the actual content of the "K"-directed parts of this legislation to be too comprehensive. That's why his spokespeople don't admit to all of it, preferring to charactize it as nothing more than a "good touch/bad touch" program at the K level. McCain agrees with Obama that most Americans would disapprove of this legislation, and that's why he features it in his ad. They may both be wrong about what most Americans would think of the legislation, but they do agree.
As I've said, I don't think I'd have touched this issue if I were McCain. Obama was responsible to his constituents for his approval of this bill, not to the whole country, and for all I know his constituents were cool with it. But I also don't think it does Obama any good to drag out the conversation with too-clever-by-half arguments purporting to prove that McCain is technically lying here if we can only agree on the right definition of "comprehensive."
fls: thanks for the confirmation...
Next.
fls -
Just because the campaign pointed to it ex post facto doesn't in any way make it relevant to this discussion. It wasn't referenced in the bill, nor are there any guidelines in the bill that would suggest that the Illinois law would conform to those guidelines.
All it says is that they went looking for relatively innocuous guidelines after being called out on his vote, and said "There. That's what he meant."
If that's what he meant, then he should have argued that those guidelines be included. He didn't. Show me where he even asked to have language included that only good touch/bad touch be taught to kindergartners. After all, that was his defense when the issue was raised: it was all about good touch/bad touch and that McCain was an evil man for saying otherwise.
What Obama did was give a blank check to any educator or school system to teach anything they desired to children at the behest of the NEA and Planned Parenthood. You assume that those educators would be responsible with that blank check, but as I and other commenters have pointed out: they rarely are - especially when, as Ann's post pointed out, you let Planned Parenthood write the bill.
I live in the real world where educators try to jam their agendas down children's throats regardless of what the curriculum states should be taught "in theory" and against the wishes of their parents.
Obama's support of this bill is evidence that this is the sort of education system that he supports.
I believe that parents should have the final say in what their kids are and not taught - especially in the area of sexuality and morality: not you, not Obama, not some faceless bureaucrat in the Department of Education.
Obama's support for this bill is anathema to parents who don't believe that government knows best when it comes to their kids. You are free to disagree, but it doesn't make it any less valid or illustrative to point out how Obama voted on this legislation.
Laura,
You are joking, right, in thanking FLS after what he posted is a demonstratable lie? Amazing!
I read the bill. Part of my daily job involves sexual abuse safety training for minors. I have been doing this job for 17 years. I have a Doctorate. From reading the bill, it is clear that nobody with my training and experience was involved in writing that bill.
That bill is a sex education bill.
It is not oriented toward safety training at all.
There is no developmentally appropriate sexual curriculum for 5 to 10 year olds other than keeping them away from sexually explicit or suggestive materials.
Trey
Roost wrote: "Jim, you're the one who has lost sight of the question at issue... McCain says: Obama's only accomplishment? Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners....Is that true? It is not."
Obama has defined his response to address the real issue: sex education for 5-year-olds. And as usual, he has lied about the effect of the bill. When the media swallowed his "explanation", he called McCain a liar.
The "one accomplishment" language may or may not be true, but its context is "education" and it is obviously typical political hyperbole. Your attempt to transform it to something else by misquoting is disingenuous. Even Obama hasn't gone that far -- yet.
In fact, the bill clearly opened the door to teach kindergarteners about sex. The "protection from predators" argument is a joke. Why would new legislation have been required to authorize that?!
It has been my position throughout this debate that sex education is a private matter to be dealt with by families.
Come on now. You must have some idea, some guiding principles. And, unless you and your wife are planning to strip off, you must be planning to use some instructional materials. Otherwise I will be forced to conclude you have no clue how you are going to explain sex to your kids.
Further, in every state with a comprehensive K-12 sex education program, the state Department of Education establishes a recommended curriculum in compliance with the dictates of the relevant statute.
You do realize that the executive branch of Oregon's state government is separate from the legislative branch, right? Else, you only show your own ignorance of how the separation of powers between legislative and executive work....being a "jim" I would have expected you to know the difference...my bad.
You are joking, right, in thanking FLS after what he posted is a demonstratable lie? Amazing!
No, Laura is thanking me for pointing out that vincible ignorance can't be cured.
FLS:
No, Laura is thanking me for pointing out that vincible ignorance can't be cured.
There you go, talking about yourself again.
There is no developmentally appropriate sexual curriculum for 5 to 10 year olds other than keeping them away from sexually explicit or suggestive materials.
My friends' dad was already having full intercourse with their sister when she was eight years old. I'm pretty sure little Susie had no access to Playboy magazine.
Thanks PJ.
First, on pure political strategy: Obama's not the one dragging it out, it's just me. I made this argument up myself this morning, it's not some campaign talking point or anything. I agree that the Obama campaign doesn't want to make sex ed an issue. But they aren't. They're having surrogates call McCain a liar and move on, and it's a good move, regardless of whether it's true on the merits.
If we're arguing on a message board, we've probably made up our minds, but most people won't get to the bottom of it. Whether we (as political partisans) think its true or not, the claim that Obama wants to teach comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners just sounds like a lie. It can't convince people that don't already dislike Obama, and to those undecided, it sounds like a dishonest claim. And now that Democrats, prominent Republicans, and major news sources have reached a consensus that it is a lie, I think the issue is settled. "Sleazy Liar" was a good political move.
But for the record and on the merits, I do think the claim that Barack Obama legislated comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners is a lie.
You raise a fair objection to my argument. My definition was too strict.
I'll grant your point that the education need not be entirely complete to be considered 'comprehensive'.
Will you grant mine that what kindergartners receive is not in any sense comprehensive?
Jim, by repeatedly asking that question of Roost, it's just proving the point that we're all interpreting this bill differently. You're interpreting it as all kindergartener's have to learn everything about sex. You are correct in saying HIV guideline is supposed to be taught to children ages 5 to 8, but doesn't it make sense to teach something like that at 8 and not 5? And wouldn't they be complying with the guidelines if they were to do that? That is our interpretation. Yours is different.
You keep talking about the facts in the bill, but laws are interpreted differently all the time. Just ask the Supreme Court -- they've only been debating the meaning of laws for more than 200 years now.
As for this:
"What Obama did was give a blank check to any educator or school system to teach anything they desired to children at the behest of the NEA and Planned Parenthood."
Isn't that what Republicans want (not the Planned Parenthood part obviously) -- to give more control to schools and local government rather than having a federally run education system?
former law student wrote: "The Obama campaign spokesman cited the age-appropriate Oregon Department of Education program, ...."
Wait a minute! Nobody thinks the Obama campaign will ever fail to come up with some explanation, however risible, for everything The One has ever done. The question is how dumb or how partisan do you have to be to ignore its absurdity.
You may remember from your law school days, fls, that the preferred indicator of legislative intent is the language of the bill itself.
The Obama campaign cited Oregon legislation? Oh please!!
fls -
I will repeat that how my wife and I choose to educate our children is none of your business. I will not discuss it with you in any way, shape or form. Which part of "get your nose out of my business" are you having a difficulty with?
[This is the problem with statists like yourself and Obama. You think that what goes on in my home is any of your business and that I somehow have an obligation to explain myself to you. Thank you for making my point about why Obama's vote on this legislation is a much bigger deal than you want to admit.]
Again, you make my point for me in that Obama pointedly declined to request the requirement for "good touch/bad touch only" sex education for kindergartners in the legislation which would have been the "relevant statute" that you describe. If that were something he even considered halfway important, there would be a record he could point to that showed he at least tried to have the bill so amended. Since there isn't and even Obama hasn't made the argument that he did, it puts completely to rest the idea that this was the purpose of his vote on the legislation, so thank you for debunking his campaign's response for me.
Point me to where I said anything about Oregon's executive or legislative branches let alone conflated their functions. Since I didn't, your entire diatribe on this point is completely nonsensical. Did I hit too close to the bone by pointing your ignorance about the respective branches of government? This is the kind of irrational lashing out that I would expect from the Obama campaign. Are you an adviser?
The Obama campaign cited Oregon legislation? Oh please!!
No. The Oregon Department of Education is not the Oregon legislature.
What the Oregon Department of Education did was create a curriculum that complied with their statute. Because the Department of Education creates curricula, and the Legislature creates statutes. This is thanks to the separation of powers that jim reminded us of.
Again, it's not the job of the legislature to create K-12 curricula. That is the job of people who know something about how to educate school children, like the state Department of Education.
I will repeat that how my wife and I choose to educate our children is none of your business.
Funny, that's what Susie's dad thought, too. He thought having sex with his eight-year-old daughter was none of anyone else's business. And Susie kept their secret until she was eighteen years old.
Not that you're any kind of pervert or anything. But it's odd how you keep ducking the issue.
FLS,
Why aren't you willing to admit you *lied* when you claimed those of us defending the ad on this thread have stated that we believe that the exact same things were to be taught to 5 year olds as to 18 years old?
Why are Liberals such liars?
As a lifelong Democrat I feel I have no other option than to support McCain due to all the lying on the Obama side!
Point me to where I said anything about Oregon's executive or legislative branches let alone conflated their functions.
You apparently don't understand the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches for any state, because you keep insisting that the sex education statute must include a detailed curriculum for each grade.
Roost @ 11:02
Pastor Jeff, I just finished reading that curriculum you linked to.
It didn't say the stuff you said it did!
That's a very serious accusation about facts and truth, and one that I'd wish you'd made more carefully.
The SIECUS curriculum does indeed include the information I listed. You have to read through each section to find the materials which are recommended for 'level 1' (ages 5-8).
For example: reproduction and vaginal intercourse (p 26), heterosexuality and homosexuality (p 29), masturbation (p 51-52), STDs (p 63), HIV/AIDS transmission (p 65), etc., etc.
An apology would be appropriate and appreciated.
Why aren't you willing to admit you *lied* when you claimed those of us defending the ad on this thread have stated that we believe that the exact same things were to be taught to 5 year olds as to 18 years old?
Oh, are you guys making more nuanced arguments on today's thread? Sorry, the McCain supporters' arguments from the past few days are still dancing in my head.
erik -
So you're of the firm belief that teaching eight-year olds about sex is OK too? Even if I were to concede (which I don't) that we're talking about 8 year olds, how does teaching them about intravenous drug use and sex make it any better? Even if I gave you the full benefit of the doubt: we're talking about 3rd graders here. Point me to the statistics regarding the out of control promiscuous sex and intravenous drug use by 3rd graders and then you might have a valid argument. But since you can't, my point still stands whether we're talking about 5 or 8 year olds.
I will repeat once again: is there an epidemic of intravenous drug use and AIDS which is sweeping elementary schools that I'm unaware of? If there were, then maybe what you're talking about would be "age appropriate." But there isn't, there hasn't, and there never will be. So you're arguing from some kind of alternate universe where that sort of thing is something that we need to even debate.
I really don't see how you think moving the goalposts from 5 to 8 makes your argument any better. Do you really think you're going to find a majority of parents who would actually vote to require their 8 year olds be taught about intravenous drug use and sex? You and Obama go have good luck trying to make that argument...
As far as the point about giving over local control, that's not what this bill does at all. It is a mandate at the state level as to how sex education is to be taught and to whom. Local control, as advocated by conservatives, refers to parents deciding what is right for their children, not Barack Obama and his puppet masters at the NEA and Planned Parenthood telling them what must be taught to them.
FLS,
LOL.....good one!
fls wrote: "My friends' dad was already having full intercourse with their sister when she was eight years old. I'm pretty sure little Susie had no access to Playboy magazine."
Rats, I am so sorry for your friend and I hope her father is still locked up.
But your point is mush. She was not the problem. I bet the pervert had access to Playboy.
Trey
FLS --
Let's remember that Obama's spokesman pointed to both the Oregon and the SIECUS curriculum.
Obama may or may not have intended for kindergarteners to hear about STDs, intercourse, sexual orientation, and masturbation, but the bill he supported was written vaguely enough to be read as either encouraging or mandating "comprehensive sex education" for K-12. And his spokesman pointed to both the Oregon and SIECUS curricula as examples.
Did the people of Illinois have any reason to expect that they'd get something like the Oregon materials, as opposed to the SIECUS ones?
fls -
I'm not "ducking an issue." It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS any more than how many times a day you cover yourself in Crisco and masturbate to photoshopped pictures of your Messiah, Barack Obama, is mine.
Maybe I should ask how many times you touch the little girls in your neighborhood when their parents aren't around or how long it's been since you stopped beating your wife and then wonder aloud how you keep "ducking the issue"?
For even insinuating that my wife or I are in any way comparable to a child molester is repulsive. You are nothing but a coward and beneath my contempt.
FLS,
On a more serious note.
Doesn't it strike you as more than a little bit ironic that you are here calling, at worst, McCain a liar, and at best, someone who exaggerated the sex-ed issue, and yet you turn around and do the exact same thing to those here on the other side of the issue.
"I really don't see how you think moving the goalposts from 5 to 8 makes your argument any better."
I'm simply trying to debunk your claim that kindergarteners are being taught this stuff when chances are they aren't until at least a few years alter.
I knew kids who were doing drugs in grade school. I knew some who were having sex by the age of 11. This was more than 10 years ago, so just imagine what could be going on in our schools today. I'm of the firm belief that education is never a bad thing. Do you get this worked up about evolution too?
erik -
If this is your oblique way of asking if I'm a Creationist, then the answer is no.
What is it with you guys and the inquisition about my personal life? Why can't you stick to the subject? Are the facts that plainly against your argument that the only way you can "win" is to change the subject?
As far as your attempts to "debunk" my argument, you're basing your argument on nothing more than an assumption which has no basis in the actual bill under discussion.
I have repeatedly pointed out the provisions that require teaching sex to kindergartners. You have yet to refute it. You want to point to some other state's guidelines and claim that it is somehow applicable to this bill. It isn't. It's a change of subject and a diversion from Obama's vote on the bill as it was written - not how you'd like or wish it to be.
Erik,
Funny you should mention evolution.
As the leftists in the USA attack Palin over her supposed "creationist" views, the left in the UK are falling all over themselves to protect Islamic "creationist" views.
Pastor Jeff, I never meant you any disrespect, and I didn't mean to level any serious accusations.
I did miss the second set of level 1 bullets on page 26, and they do mention intercourse. My mistake.
I do apologize.
And I do agree that some of the stuff in that curriculum is misguided and embarrassing. Because it's written in adult language, it's hard to know how it translates into lessons for kids.
And it is funny that there is a bullet point for caesarian section. (p27) Why would you teach small children about caesarian sections?
That said, your description led me to expect something much worse than what I found. I do appreciate the link, so that I could check it out myself.
Doesn't it strike you as more than a little bit ironic that you are here calling, at worst, McCain a liar...
First, nobody here is running for President, so our character flaws are insignificant. But, if one commenter here sees that another is cheating, being unfair, etc. it's easy to call him on it.
We are discussing here, simply, "Does McCain play fair?" "Did he lie about his opponent for political gain?" These are good questions, very relevant to understanding the type of President each would make. Maybe we want a ruthless, lying President. After all, Nixon got a lot done before he resigned in disgrace.
But these questions get bogged down in people's personal feelings about sex education, and their personal understanding of the legislative process.
Now these are interesting questions. Should sex education, currently recommended for Grades 6-12, be extended to younger grades? I would say yes: Girls are developing earlier: what used to start in 7th grade is now starting in 6th grade, and is starting to show up in 5th grade. Further, children younger than 12 are subject to sexual exploitation -- a local talk show host is going to federal prison for viewing videos of children as young as three. Surely kids younger than 12 need to be forewarned and thus forearmed.
Jim argues that sex education should be left up to the family. That raises the question: Is parental sex education sufficient for the needs of the child? I don't know, Jim keeps his curriculum a deep, dark secret. Secrets are usually kept out of shame; Jim insists he has nothing to be ashamed of.
Roost,
Thank you very much for your gracious apology.
That said, your description led me to expect something much worse than what I found.
Understood. We can all have a healthy disagreement over what (if anything) is appropriate sex ed for kindergarteners, what Obama intended, and what the bill means, as long as we're working from the facts.
And ultimately, I think it's a silly ad and an unimportant issue for a national election. But that's nothing new for either party.
FLS,
Fair enough.
My answer would be that, no, sex-ed should not even be in the Elementary grades. I realize that people disagree about that, but as I mentioned earlier in a comment to Jim, what early sex eduction does imo, is take away a child's *natural" innocence. I say this from having six of my own kids, and being involved in sex-ed at the public schools, as well as reading the material the school thought was appropriate.
Uh... That raises the question: Is parental sex education sufficient for the needs of the child? I don't know, Jim keeps his curriculum a deep, dark secret. Secrets are usually kept out of shame;
Keep it up.
You demonstrate that liberals are about delving into the personal lives of anyone deemed questionable. There is no assumption of privacy? Or is that just selective?
I can keep my curriculum a deep dark secret if I want to and not only can't you demand to see it, it's *wrong* of you to even think you OUGHT to see it.
It's not a matter of having something to hide, it's a matter of fundamental liberty.
It reads like this... "Why can't I violate your privacy? Why can't I dig through your trash and read your mail? Why can't I monitor your child rearing? Why can't I listen to and record your political conversations? Why can't I tap your phone? You don't have something to HIDE do you?"
"you're basing your argument on nothing more than an assumption which has no basis in the actual bill under discussion."
But my argument is based on the guidelines the bill seeks to follow. Your argument is based on your own (strict) interpretation of the bill. I'm arguing for another interpretation.
fls -
fuck off and die you disgusting piece of shit
"I'm simply trying to debunk your claim that kindergarteners are being taught this stuff when chances are they aren't until at least a few years alter."
Well then.
We'll just go with our "chances" then. After all, probably common-sense will prevail. The odds are good. And if some teacher goes off the deep end, well, chances are that our kid won't be in her class.
I can keep my curriculum a deep dark secret if I want to and not only can't you demand to see it, it's *wrong* of you to even think you OUGHT to see it.
Apparently conservatives prefer to argue based on feelings, not facts. None of those who advocate parental sex education can point to a curriculum they would use, much less say what they would explain, when, and how, even in the most abstract terms. If sex is a subject not to be discussed, how can they discuss it with their children?
erik -
But my argument is based on the guidelines the bill seeks to follow.
On what basis do you assume that this bill seeks to follow these guidelines? Because it's an example that the Obama campaign trotted out after his vote was called into question? Can you point to anything in the legislative record that even hints that this is the model they're looking to follow? Is there any Obama statement prior to be called out by McCain's ad that it was his intention all along?
"We'll just go with our "chances" then. After all, probably common-sense will prevail. The odds are good. And if some teacher goes off the deep end, well, chances are that our kid won't be in her class."
As I asked before -- has there been some outcry from this law (which actually never passed)? No. I trust the school's administration (or parents) will notice if a teacher goes off the deep end.
Jim -- as it was pointed out earlier, the legislature doesn't set a school's curriculum, the school board does. So obviously there are SOME guidelines for sex ed, which Pastor Jeff linked to earlier.
"I trust the school's administration (or parents) will notice if a teacher goes off the deep end."
Because?
What do you place this trust in? A K-3 student accurately relaying the contents of a classroom discussion?
It's weird to me what some people trust.
Apparently fls' chronic masturbation vis a vis Barack Obama is such an issue that he can't bear to talk about it openly - the first sign of addiction.
He keeps ducking the issue of touching little girls inappropriately, not that I'm insinuating he does in any way...It's just kind of odd that he wants to completely avoid the topic, doncha think? I mean...c'mon, wouldn't you want that kind of thing out in the open?
And he never did address those domestic violence issues which are evidently prevalent in his home. But the real question is he the victim or the aggressor?
I propose that Barack Obama immediately introduce legislation requiring government education for young children about the dangers of fls...I mean this kind of secrecy is awfully suspicious: we must demand government action!
Roost--
You might teach a small child about cesareans if they were born that way. Children often ask about that sort of thing.
(This has nothing to do with sex ed in schools, mind you, just answering that idle question.)
I'm highly amused by the defense of some which seems to come down to "It depends on what you mean by 'comprehensive'."
I'm envisioning the honors class. "Today, children, we'll be watching 'two girls, one cup. Later, we'll have a presentation on bukkake. Finally, we'll give you some tips on how to do a proper Cleveland Steamer."
Heh.
Sex education should never be comprehensive.
Will you grant mine that what kindergartners receive is not in any sense comprehensive?
Sorry, I don't agree with that. I think the education described in the legislation is "comprehensive" with respect to kindergartners in any sense of that word that takes account of age-appropriateness. McCain's claim, as I always understood it, was that the program was too comprehensive to be appropriate for kindergartners. As I said above, I think Obama thinks that most voters would agree with that if they knew the content of the bill.
I do agree with you, however, that this is the sort of charge (by McCain) that most people would rather believe is false, and so Obama's claim of falsehood will be well received. And in any case, true or not, the making of the charge appears to take the debate to the gutter. Not a political win for McCain.
PJ,
Good points!
How can I have a discussion about sex with my children without a curriculum?
Is that actually what you're asking?
You know... a few years ago someone asked a similarly moronic question on a home school forum about drug education... "What curriculum do you use?"
Yeah... I use a curriculum all the time with my kids. When I teach them to make meals and other "life skills" I use a "life skills" curriculum prepared by an expert because there's just no way I could do without.
When I teach them about relationships, biology and how to be safe, I use a curriculum because these thing are just entirely beyond the scope of my pitiful understanding. Good thing someone made a sex ed curriculum to use or I'd be toast!
For drug education I slavishly follow one of the failed public school drug awareness curriculums. It would be foolish for me to think that I might understand my children and that the one-size-fits all public school model won't magically work for them when it works for no one else.
Again, FLS, you don't have a right and it's actually *wrong* for you to insist that I have to use an "expert" prepared social program and that you get to approve or disapprove of it.
Oh... the reaction to "what drug awareness curriculum do you use?" was a whole bunch of incomprehension because of the bizarre nature of the question. The assumption that normal life issues required such a thing was so foreign as to be nothing more than gibberish.
Oh... and before I forget... I scrolled back and read more of your conversation with Jim, and FLS, you're a fascist pig.
erik -
The legislature sets the boundaries within which the school boards and state department of education operate. If the legislators had wanted only "good touch/bad touch" to be taught, then it was incumbent upon them to write it into the law. Obama claimed this was a good touch/bad touch issue, yet that it demonstrably false.
He never advocated for good touch/bad touch education only for kindergartners and there's no requirement in the legislation for it. So I take it that you're ready to call Obama a liar for the manner in which he responded to McCain's ad?
Also, I'd like to point out that this didn't just show up as "McCain LIED about Obama's Sex Ed program".
It did show up that way.
But it also showed up as "Why are Republicans pro-pedophile?!?!"
Which is where FLS has, unfortunately, taken it.
blake -
from fls silence about touching little girls, we can only assume that was projection...
I mean, I'm just asking questions not making accusations here, but usually you only keep those kinds of secrets out of shame...
I remember hearing in middle school that a friend of mine was a breech birth.
What does that mean? I asked.
"Butt first."
Something about our c-section digression and Jim's commenting style reminded me of that.
roost -
Is that what you're reduced to: childish name calling?
I've always been taught that the person who first resorts to name-calling is admitting that they have no legitimate argument left to make...It's the first refuge of the ignorant...
"The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of sex-ed classes by presenting written objections.
The bill also specified that “all sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior…be age and developmentally appropriate.
And, after covering a number of other provisions, the bill addressed the issue of inappropriate advances..."
1. "The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of sex-ed classes by presenting written objections."
2. The bill also specified that “all sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior…be age and developmentally appropriate.
I challenge anybody here to read the entire bill and show me where, as McCain's ad suggests, the sponsors were interested in "sex education for kindergarteners."
Again, FLS, you don't have a right and it's actually *wrong* for you to insist that I have to use an "expert" prepared social program and that you get to approve or disapprove of it.
I thought your purpose in joining the discussion here was to persuade others to adopt your point of view. If you are merely venting, fine.
But in this context, curriculum would be the content of the sex education of your children. What you would teach, and when. However, as I pointed out, you are unable to speak of how you would instruct your children even in the most abstract terms. If sex is a subject not to be discussed, how can you discuss it with your children?
Out of curiosity, I checked a few homeschooling websites. Although they offer texts even for Physical Education, none offer any sex education texts. So parents are completely on their own.
I think the education described in the legislation is "comprehensive" with respect to kindergartners in any sense of that word that takes account of age-appropriateness.
How can teaching about HIV possibly ever be age-appropriate for kindergartners? The exact wording from the bill:
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.
Note grades K through 12, and the word "shall", not "may".
The bill failed on its merits, after it passed out of committee with Obama's support.
Out of curiosity, I checked a few homeschooling websites. Although they offer texts even for Physical Education, none offer any sex education texts. So parents are completely on their own.
Right, because nobody has ever written anything on the subject of sex.
I challenge anybody here to read the entire bill and show me where, as McCain's ad suggests, the sponsors were interested in "sex education for kindergarteners
That's what that capital "K" was for.
michael -
1. We've already covered the fact that the bill tacitly admits that school officials will retaliate against those who opt out by prohibiting suspension or expulsion. But it doesn't say anything about punitive alternative homework assignments, ostracization, coercive grading, etc. All of which have been known to happen when parents have the nerve to stand up against school administrators. That makes the "opt-out" option a complete joke, so let's not even pretend that you take it seriously.
2. If you can read through this and previous threads and not be able to understand the many ways to define "age appropriate" and how the bill directly contradicts itself in terms of what it does require to be taught to kindergartners, then I doubt you're even seriously entertaining the question.
Requiring people to restate what they've already said here in this thread solely for your benefit is ridiculous...
2.
Speaking of "age appropriate," I certainly don't propose sex education for all kindergarteners,
but I do think there should be a great deal of flexibility because it really depends on who you are and where you live, and the kind of instruction provided can and should be entirely different for different situations and circumstances:
PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE STUDY:
In this longitudinal study of 119 inner-city children and their families - Number of Children Exposed to an Event 1 or More Times -
Have seen someone arrested 81
Have heard guns being shot 75
Have seen drug deals 60
Have seen someone get shot 34
Have seen grown-ups in the home hit each other 28
Have not felt safe at home 23
Have seen a dead body outside 18
Have seen someone in the home get shot or stabbed 10
Now think back to your childhood and family life and tell me how many here, as a child, has similar experiences.
Roost, your reasoning is backwards; the bill unequivocally sought to apply "comprehensive sex education" to kindergarteners. The plain language of the bill states that. That the actual effect was different means the law wasn't followed, not that the law said something different.
jim, I was merely reiterating the two points I felt appropriate.
Why not just move on past anything I post instead of taking the time to criticize anything I say...and of course, without discussing or debating my point?
*Or...take a look at my next post and tell me how "age appropriate" would pertain to the people in the study.
michael -
I would be more supportive of courses teaching children how to cope with and process witnessing violence than I would be of ever letting the government intrude into a clearly personal and moral field such as sex education.
Joe, do you really think the bill was designed to teach sex education to kindergartners?
Really?
jim, if ALL parents provided ex education I would agree, but do you think all parents do so?
Would you leave education itself to be left up to ALL parents...including college?
michael -
I specifically did answer your first question in my response.
Your second question was both argumentative ("I challenge anyone") and repetitive (lots of people here have read the entire bill and done exactly what you asked them to do already. If you were truly interested in an answer, you would have scrolled up to see that).
If you had offered a fresh viewpoint on the subject or made a statement that I could either agree or disagree with I must have missed it.
Once again:
jim, if ALL parents provided ex education I would agree, but do you think all parents do so?
How can teaching about HIV possibly ever be age-appropriate for kindergartners?
K-12 instruction on HIV is mandatory in most states. It has been mandatory in McCain's Arizona since 1991, so John Sidney IV "Jack" (b. 1986),
James "Jimmy" (b. 1988), and certainly Bridget (b. 1991) received HIV instruction as kindergarteners.
Has John McCain ever spoken out publicly on the HIV education his children received?
FLS - You're wasting your breath.
Most here do not want anyone telling their kids anything about anything.
They'll all take care of it themselves, so why shouldn't ALL parents handle it, too?
*I would lay odds there are people here who still believe HIV is a "gay disease."
I've maintained all along--and no one agrees with me :-)--that education is an inherently religious and moral matter, and therefore the government really shouldn't be involved at all.
The citizens of the country have strong motivation to educate their young, and to do so better than any bureaucracy ever could, so there's no need being filled unless one accepts some arbitrary definition of what a good education is. (Which, of course, people do.)
But just for starters, in order to educate, you have to take a position about what it is you're doing. And if you believe that children are animals that need to be trained, or automatons to be programmed, or spiritual beings to be communicated with, that choice is going to be reflected in your approach.
Does your local school look like a temple, a data center--or a zoo?
Blake, how would this system of yours work or those children who only have one parent, who works full time?
Or, for that matter, no parents?
Home schooling, but with nobody at home? Adoption agency schooling?
Which provisions either by themselves or in conjunction with other provisions in the bill or in conjunction with other provisions in other bills require any class which doesn't already exist to be taught? I agree that it makes requirements about the subject matter "[a]ll public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education," "[a]ll sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior," "[a]ll family life courses of instruction," and "[a]ll comprehensive health education programs established under this Act," and that those requirements include teaching age and developmentally appropriate lessons about HIV prevention, but I seriously don't see, either in this comment thread (but I may have missed it) or in the bill (same proviso) any requirement that any non-existing class come into existence. Which means that it would regulate any existing sex-ed class taught to kindergartners, and any sex-ed class taught to kindergartners which came into existence independently of the bill, but would cause none to come into existence.
michael -
Do ALL parents provide loving and nurturing homes? I'm not talking about just providing food and shelter: I'm talking about truly caring and loving environments where children grow up safe and secure into fully healthy adults.
(For the purposes of this example, I'm not talking about parents who are in any way abusive: just parents who don't really give a rat's behind about their children but pass our minimum standards for the child's safety.)
You can cite any number of areas where the government could theoretically intrude if we define down far enough the rights and responsibilities of the family unit. The question is: do we, as a society, think it is the appropriate role of government to attempt to supplant the role of parents because some small fraction of them don't do everything we'd like them to do or that we know are actually required in order to produce a well-balanced healthy adult?
How many adults do you know who grew up with screwed-up childhoods because their parents were divorced, married multiple times, moved a lot, or whatever other situation that could have left them with psychological issues when they reached adulthood?
Are you advocating government intervention or mandatory education for every single one of these cases? Where does it end? At what point do we stop and say: this is not the proper role of government?
The problem here is that sexuality is a particular bugaboo of the Left. They don't like the sexual morality taught at home by conservative parents, so in an attempt to circumvent their teachings they do things like mandate sex education in school at younger and younger ages until those distasteful morals from their parents can be completely stamped out. They use child sexual abuse as an excuse, but that's just the Trojan Horse for the real agenda. You don't think that it's an accident that Planned Parenthood was the one that wrote this bill do you? If the motive were truly about preventing child abuse, wouldn't it have been an actual child advocacy group instead?
Too many people have grown comfortable believing that somehow government has a right or an obligation to get involved. But yet if you ask if the government should get involved in preventing potential harm to children any other area that might infringe on the rights of more liberal parents: like forcing them to stay in one place, to stay married, to not have multiple sex partners, etc. the answer is a resounding "NO."
The psychological damage done to children from screwed up homes who meet our basic definition of "safe" is arguable far greater because of its much wider impact, yet because that would intrude on liberal sensibilities, those topics are strictly verboten.
Sex education is the camel's nose under the proverbial tent: it's government's entry into dictating how we raise our children - replacing the needs of the family with the "needs of the many."
As far as leaving ALL education up to the family, that clearly isn't practical for the vast majority of families. Especially given the plethora of home-schooling materials available, I would argue that - where possible - homeschooling would be preferable to subjecting children to the all too often toxic environment of public schools.
With regard to colleges, almost anything would be preferable to the intolerance and lack of intellectual diversity on college campuses today. Too much of college is about parroting back the particular brand of communist,socialist,liberal politics to which the professor subscribes and not nearly enough about actual learning - especially in the liberal arts. I would argue that it is less the case in the hard sciences and mathematics, but no one graduates college by only taking hard sciences and mathematics alone.
Roost,
Nice apology. I (and others) appreciate it when people apologize for mistakes AND when their apologies are accepted.
I would hope that the dextrosphere can admit fault as graciously AND that the progosphere can accept it as well.
Blake, how would this system of yours work or those children who only have one parent, who works full time?
Or, for that matter, no parents?
Home schooling, but with nobody at home? Adoption agency schooling?
There's nothing about recognizing the importance of the philosophical approach that mandates homeschooling. Long before the government was involved, the Church and the private sector provided schooling, which carried with it certain educational ideas about the nature of Man.
It is, of course, clichéd for a statist to go there, as statists see the government as the solution to every problem, real or imagined.
But, in fact, educational systems have been in place for as long as humans have had information and technology to pass on, and it's only very recently that the government has been dominant in those fields. And only very recently those fields have begun to fail so broadly and completely.
Having said that, though, it's not impossible for the government to be involved, actually, in the form of providing money to children to attend schools that reflect their parents' values.
Jim, I don't consider most government sponsored education as an "intrusion," but I do understand why many people do.
The problem i really more related to those who do not have parents or at the least the kinds of parents who provide the kind of nurturing, etc. you describe.
There's no doubt "government" itself is hard to control, but without it, we have anarchy.
The problem here is that sexuality is a particular bugaboo of the Left.
I choked on my popcorn.
bugaboo: An object of obsessive, usually exaggerated fear or anxiety:
Please recognize: The Left can discuss sexuality while the Right is mute.
fls -
are you discussing your sexuality vis a vis your chronic masturbation or touching of little girls?
Why do you keep ducking the subject? What is it you're trying to hide?
FLS: The right doesn't have sex so why talk about it?
It is, of course, clichéd for a statist to go there, as statists see the government as the solution to every problem, real or imagined.
Right about now, free enterprise is looking to government to solve their $60 trillion dollar credit default swap problem. AIG is praying for a government bailout. Lehman Brothers went bust, Merrill Lynch found someone to absorb their problems, WaMu is next.
The free enterprise dominoes are falling, and only government is big enough to prevent total breakdown of the economic order.
Libertarian chickens are coming home to roost.
Jim, what's with the "touching little girls" comment?
Strange thing to say.
FLS has it exactly right.
The free enterprise zealots shout to the mountain tops that they want government out of the way...right up to when they're hanging off of a ledge.
Then everything changes.
jim, I seldom masturbate more than three or four times a day, so that's not a problem. And these days, the youngest girls I spend time with are 27 or so.
michael -
So would you have government in the business of deciding which families (who are otherwise not doing anything wrong) are in need of having solutions imposed on them (whether the family wanted it or not)? Should the government mandate a different education for single-parent families?
Why are we restricting to this sex education only? Shouldn't children who lack a positive male role model be forced to take different courses? What about orphans? Don't they have special psychological issues for which there should be government programs? What is the justification for imposing these solutions on families who are capably handling these issues on their own? Are we going to put the government in charge of deciding who is and isn't capable?
There are all sorts of very valid questions that can be asked for which I could offer an equally strong argument that if you're willing to endorse government-sponsored sex education then you should be equally in support of mandating education in those areas as well.
Why stop at sex ed? Why not try to regulate and indoctrinate every other area of our lives as well? Those are the questions you should be asking. After all, if you're willing to hand over basic morality to the government why shouldn't you give up the other portions of your life as well? If not, then why would you surrender any other portion of your life or that of your family to the government?
And to put it into perspective for you: what if those whose ideology you were diametrically imposed to were the ones deciding whether or not you and your family needed re-education? How in favor of it would you be then?
That's the problem with government-imposed solutions. They sound really good if you agree 100% with the people in charge. It's just totalitarianism if you don't.
Anarchy is the result of a lack of law and order - not the lack of government mandated education. I don't think anyone here has advocated getting rid of laws or law enforcement.
michael -
Scroll up the thread to where fls thought it was somehow appropriate to insinuate that, because I told him that how my wife and I choose to educate our children was none of his business, somehow she and I were child molesters with something to hide. You can read my response and you'll understand what follows...
He's a piece of shit....
Right about now, free enterprise is looking to government to solve their $60 trillion dollar credit default swap problem.
There ain't nothing free enterprise about the banking in this country.
The free enterprise dominoes are falling, and only government is big enough to prevent total breakdown of the economic order.
So, can we agree then: You are, in fact, an advocate of centralized control of the economy?
Libertarian chickens are coming home to roost.
Well, fortunately you can point to the success of all the countries with centrally controlled economies to show those chickens up.
The right doesn't have sex so why talk about it?
All those children in "red" areas must be test-tube babies.
But wait! The right is anti-technology!
What a conundrum.
michael -
This is yet another fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on in the financial markets. The roots of the crisis can be boiled down to spillover from the actions of the quasi-governmental agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their ventures into financing sub-prime mortgages as well as their corrupt accounting practices.
How did that happen? Barack Obama was one of biggest beneficiaries in Congress of their lobbying dollars (top 4: Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama...coincidence?)
Why don't you ask him why he looked the other way at how they were doing business while he (and the other prominent Democrats) took their money...
There ain't nothing free enterprise about the banking in this country.
The credit default swap market is completely unregulated.
Privatize the profits but make the taxpapers pay for any losses -- our free enterprise system in action. We should have learned from the S&L meltdown -- McCain had a ringside seat for that, too.
top 4: Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama...coincidence?)
They were running for President, dude. All their financial institution money added together would barely match what W. got back in 2006.
FLS, I appreciate your points about safety training children. I have been doing safety training with my kids since they were 4.
They know that if anyone touches their privates and tells them to not tell that they need to tell and their parents will stop it.
There is no need for discussing sex when discussing sexual abuse prevention! I just tell the kids that their privates are under their swimsuit, they laugh and giggle.
No mention of sexual organs or doing the hot nasty required!
Trey
"I've maintained all along--and no one agrees with me :-)--that education is an inherently religious and moral matter, and therefore the government really shouldn't be involved at all."
Ha! Sibling!
Probably a decade ago I signed the Separation of School and State thing... though I lost track of their mailing list, etc., during some move or computer meltdown or other.
It's impossible to separate ideology from education and have an education worth anything. There *has* to be ideological element binding all the "facts" together or the whole enterprise is meaningless.
Public education by it's nature does violence to freedom of conscience and thought by requiring compulsory education be provided by the state... a clear conflict of interest if ever there was one.
Then, of course, there is the violence it does to the principle of freedom of association in both directions... student-teacher and teacher-student.
Doing without state provided compulsory education is possible... after all, the money comes from people to begin with... but would require very different assumptions than most people have. Still, there's no reason that it wouldn't work to move the war over children's minds into the market place... churches are used to this already.
Rather than put all that effort into influencing ginormous school districts with mandatory curriculum requirements, the effort would have to be in providing a product that parents will chose over the Baptist K-8 down the road... and then putting their own money (no longer collected in taxes) where their ideological mouths are.
You want poor people to have the option of a good secular education following the very best new reasearch on how children learn? Do what the Catholics do... build schools and take donations for scholarships.
"I have been doing safety training with my kids since they were 4."
I've concentrated on making sure my kids always understood that they were the masters of their own selves and that they should expect, from the very youngest age, to have their wishes respected when it comes to their bodies.
The result was kids who weren't always very deferential to adults. ;-)
I also *encouraged* them to talk to strangers... because if they didn't have a large experience base to draw on how the heck were they supposed to tell if someone was "off" or not? Being scared of everyone didn't seem like a useful way to teach them to be safe.
Granted... we homeschooled and I could monitor their interactions myself. It seems a small price to pay to get by without having to encourage them to be afraid that people would hurt them.
I hear too many stories... from my best friend who was so proud that her son refused to go with "strangers" who stopped to help when his playmate was seriously injured on his bicycle... or that kid lost in the national forest who HID FROM HIS RESCUERS because he'd been so carefully taught to never go with strangers.
"The problem here is that sexuality is a particular bugaboo of the Left. They don't like the sexual morality taught at home by conservative parents, so in an attempt to circumvent their teachings they do things like mandate sex education in school at younger and younger ages until those distasteful morals from their parents can be completely stamped out."
Do you really believe that? I have no problem with what conservative parents teach their own children. You want your kids to be abstinent until they're married, that's fine, it's none of my business.
Unfortunately, sometimes that education isn't complete. Some parents might refuse to teach their children about birth control, or even HOW babies are made. Then you get a 16 year old girl rebelling against her parents. She has sex and gets pregnant because she honestly HAS NO CLUE how a person becomes pregnant! (watch the movie Saved, it's real)
Then you have parents who might force the kids to get married, possibly leading to an extremely screwed up marriage and likely a divorce. And now the two or three other kids she popped out before the divorce don't ever see their daddy and are living with a mom who has to work three jobs just to pay the rent.
Those kids grow up without any good role models, so they start doing drugs and having sex at 14, leading to another underage pregnancy.
Obviously I'm being very dramatic here, but the point remains -- sex education is necessary because it prevents kids from making bad life choices.
Sure, parents can provide the same education, and I hope they do, but it can't hurt to learn it twice. I'd rather take my chances and teach every kid about birth control than risk that one kid who screws up their life by having a baby when they're not ready.
**Note, this has nothing to do with our original discussion. It's just about sex ed in general.
That is just perfect, Synova. As is this:
I've concentrated on making sure my kids always understood that they were the masters of their own selves and that they should expect, from the very youngest age, to have their wishes respected when it comes to their bodies.
The result was kids who weren't always very deferential to adults. ;-)
Exactly! We were separated at birth!
Teach your child that they're sovereign over their own bodies, and you don't have to worry so much about "good touch, bad touch". They know.
Also, "stranger danger" is bullshit. Being able to spot dangerous and untrustworthy people is, like, the critical life skill at any age.
Post a Comment