A one-sided article criticizing McCain is not unexpected. Given that he is at least temporarily the front-runner, it may not even be a sign of political bias, but of the extra scrutiny and criticism that front-runners often get. But this?
On Friday on "The View," generally friendly territory for politicians, one co-host, Joy Behar, criticized [McCain's] new advertisements. "We know that those two ads are untrue," Ms. Behar said. "They are lies. And yet you, at the end of it, say, 'I approve these messages.' Do you really approve them?"
Wikipedia [yes, I know, but there's plenty of evidence that Behar is liberal, and the comment about the administration has a valid citation] tells us that "Behar stands on the left side of the political aisle and is in favor of taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research and is also in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, among other liberal positions. She has expressed her opposition to the war in Iraq.... Behar recently referred to the Bush administration as 'liars and murderers.'" Nevertheless, the Times not only featured Behar's criticism of McCain prominently in its story (without noting her political allegiances), but even ran an accompanying picture of McCain on "The View" with a caption repeating Behar's claims.
Next in the New York Times: Barbra Streisand calls John McCain "a big doodoo head."
Would you prefer if the press did not scrutinize whether or not a Presidential candidate's statements are true?
Do you disagree with Behar's claims? Do you believe that McCain's ads are true? Is he running an honorable campaign?
I would be interested to see if you have an opinion on the accuracy of the statements that you think are inappropriate for print.
what exactly was a "lie" in any mccain's ad?
So, essentially, you're upset that the NYT didn't frame it as another "he said, she said" issue between Democrats and Republicans? Wow. Please go sit in the corner.
Talk about jumping the shark....
Now you might think that there is nothing worth reporting on here. Just a partisan leftist calling McCain's ads lies. Happens every day, right? Actually, no. It is not every day that a candidate is told to a face that his campaign ads are lies. In fact, the media is loath to ever call a spade a spade. This almost never happens. That is why this is so surprising.
Lastly, I wonder why it is that you think a substantive critique of McCain's ads is equivalent to Barbara Streisand calling someone a "big doodoo head." Behar may or may not be sophisticated enough to merit mention, but her criticism, if on the mark, does deserve attention.
See the problem?
I really thought this blog was beyond the sub-kindergarten level "the New York Times is liberal!"-type observations. It's old, it's boring, and it doesn't move us one inch closer to the truth about anything.
When Obama goes on Hannity &Colmes, it will be news. Just as it was when Obama went on the O'Reilly Factor.
My objection is that the ads are indeed deceptive, and delivering that message out of the mouth of Joy Behar does nothing to lend it credibility.
"I really thought this blog was beyond the sub-kindergarten level "the New York Times is liberal!"-type observations."
Perhaps then we can all agree that Pinch has more taste than sense, with sensibility right out.
The View: friendly territory for "politicians."
The quote is in the 14th paragraph. How is that "huge weight"?
Mr. Nieporent -
The bill said:
SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide
for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. ... Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ... 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.
No. The weird thing is that we've reached the point where Joy Behar has more credibility than John McCain.
Exactly. But Bernstein would prefer to have a discussion about Behar, instead of a discussion about McCain. Similarly, the usual suspects would like to have a discussion about Charlie Gibson, instead of having a discussion about Sarah Palin. The attempt at misdirection is obvious. Behar and Gibson are not running for office.
BTW, I haven't followed the sex ed controversy, but RLG leaves out some very pertinent parts of the bill, which seem to support McCain's ad:
B99 - Illinois 2003
K-12 Comprehensive Sex Education Bill
(1) Factual information presented in course material and instruction shall be medically accurate and objective.
(2) All course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
(3) Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
(4) Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure
rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
(5) Course material and instruction shall stress that sexually transmitted infections are serious possible hazards of sexual activity or behavior. Pupils shall be provided with statistics based on the latest medical information citing the failure and success rates of all contraceptive methods in preventing unintended pregnancy and HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.
(6) Course material and instruction shall advise pupils that it is unlawful for males or females of any age to engage in sexual conduct or have sexual relations with a minor as specified in Article 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961.
(7) Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity.
(8) Course material and instruction shall emphasize that the pupil has the power to control personal behavior. Pupils shall be encouraged to base their actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of responsibility, self-control, and ethical considerations, such as respect for oneself and others.
(9) 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, non consensual 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.
(10) Course material and instruction shall teach male pupils about male accountability for sexual violence and shall teach female students about reducing vulnerability for sexual violence.
(11) Course material and instruction shall teach pupils about counseling, medical, and legal resources available to survivors of sexual abuse and sexual assault, including resources for escaping violent relationships.
(12) Course material and instruction in classes that discuss sexual activity or behavior shall teach pupils that it is wrong to take advantage of or to exploit another person.
(13) Course material and instruction shall be free of racial, ethnic, gender, religious, and sexual orientation biases.
None of the excerpts you quote make any sense when applied to kindergartners, particularly in dealing with child molesters.
Maybe the intent of legislators in dropping the age limit from grade 6 to kindergarten was to help them deal with pedophiles, but nothing in the text of the law substantiates that.
There's really no use pointing to sources, because the people making these arguments aren't interested in truth. They're interested in maintaining their power.
I guess that the next McCain ad should say that Obama supports abstinence education. That would be both a hit with conservative voters, and a lot truer than most anything a McCain ad has said until now.
The best McCain's talking heads could do to support this crstal clear allegation, after the fact, was to weakly argue--in a real stretch--that the bill could have been interpreted that way. See weak "defense" of ad.
At best it is a gross distortion. Not a classy move at all.
Nothing wrong with the NY Times pointing out that others are pointing out McCain's lies.
Good one. :)
Maybe I'm out of touch with modern youth, but what do kindergarteners need to know outside of "bad touching" and "private places"?
There is also a contradiction in giving "age appropriate" sex education while simultaneously teaching the most important of lessons involving sexual abuse: avoid people and situations that make you uncomfortable.
You should explain that to Boy Scouts of America, who have created a set of materials (including a video and a set of comic books) that are designed to be used by Cub Scouts starting at age 6 (maybe you'd like to quibble about one year), to teach the kids how to avoid sexual abuse. See here (pdf, pdf).
Maybe McCain would like to claim that 6-year old Cub Scouts are being given "comprehensive sex education." That claim would make exactly as much sense as the claim that McCain made about Obama.
Seems the gist of the bill was to do just what McCain claims. Factcheck needs to be fact checked!
Only time will tell.
There. Problem solved.
Maybe you've jumped it? Eh?
Indeed. The Bush presidency was an experiment in how much dishonesty Americans are willing to tolerate. The answer: a great deal. McCain has noticed the result of the experiment, and is taking advantage of it.
If we tolerate leaders who lie to us, we'll get exactly the leaders we deserve. The way McCain is running his campaign is the same way he will run the government. We might actually get nostalgic for Bush. Kind of like the way Bush made us nostalgic for Nixon.
Not much. But that's all that the bill calls for (for kindergarteners). And that's what McCain is falsely describing as "comprehensive sexual education."
There's no contradiction. "Age appropriate sex education" for kindergarteners basically consists of "avoid people and situations that make you uncomfortable." And some other concepts that are described in the BSA material I cited. This is all the bill calls for, and this is all that Obama advocated. This is not "comprehensive sex ed" for kindergarteners. McCain is accusing Obama of advocating something that Obama didn't advocate.
Please continue to ignore the part about "age appropriate." And please ignore the part about "how to say no to unwanted sexual advances," which is indeed something that kids should be taught. Unless you think that McCain should run an ad targeting the Cub Scout organization.
ha!
Here is the key to factcheck.org's defense of Obama: " [the bill] would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases."
So the ad was literally true, if you believe factcheck.org.
Considering the "age-appropriate" feature, it just means that the "comprehensive sex ed" would be age appropriate. The McCain ad doesn't deny this.
So, Obama supporters, what is comprehensive sex ed that is age appropriate for kindergarden?
and DB, wtf? if so few right-wingers are afraid to ask tough questions, why shouldn't the left be doing it?
Spongebob Squarepants.
I think there are 2 alternatives. 1) McCain is not lying; i.e., her factual claims are false 2) There is a suitable alternative that Professor Bernstein would considered qualified who would provide a similar quote
If you bother to read the whole factcheck article, you'll know that Obama answered that question personally and explicitly. And his view of the subject is indistinguishable from the Cub Scout view.
It "doesn't deny this," but it pointedly omits this critical information. This is called lying by omission. The ad is designed to convince the viewer that Obama advocates something he doesn't actually advocate.
The Fact Check piece is incredibly tendentious.
It claims the ad is false because Obama had more accomplishments than that one bill, and that it's not fair to call the sex-ed bill an Obama accomplishment, because he only voted for it, and didn't sponsor it.
What of Obama's votes and legislative acts are "accomplishments" are clearly in the eye of the beholder. And as to claiming he "only" voted for it, well, again, how culpable that makes Obama is very subjective. I certainly don't see anything that would make McCain a "liar" yet.
So now we're down to the content of the bill. Even Factcheck admits that the bill did, in fact, lower the age for "comprehensive sex education" to kindergarten. Which is all the McCain says.
Factcheck then goes on to argue, quite unconvincingly, that paragraph 9 (quote above) is the only paragraph that applies to kindergartners, and it's limited to "improper touching" type stuff. That's clearly what Obama said later when he was questioned, but there is absolutely nothing in the language of the statute to back that up -- nothing says or suggests the remaining paragraphs do not apply to kindergarten.
Finally, Factcheck disengenuously quotes Obama as saying he does not support "explicit" sex-ed for five year olds. But the McCain ad doesn't say he did. It just says "comprehensive", which is right out of the text of the bill.
Pray tell, exactly what part of the McCain ad is a "lie."
David: I think you got it right in your post. The trouble with the line in the article is the insinuation that the 'The View' is friendly to politicians is universally true. 'The View' is quite liberal and quite pro-obama. Therefore the juxtaposition of their 'friendliness' and their opinion is misleading.
Most bias arises not from direct mistakes but from juxtaposition--which is insidious because it can pass the red face test but it is misleading to readers.
I smell fear now.
I'm with Joy, McCain's a liar.
Welcome to politics.
Where Bernstein's criticism is correct is that once upon a time we used to be able to depend on the media to help us sort it out. No longer.
You are correct, insofar as that matters, that intellectually Behar is rather lightweight, and certainly biased in a more liberal direction. But that neither makes her axiomatically wrong: nor correct. Good analysis does not impeach the source, but impeaches the claim.
In the case of these McCain advertisements (and many other recent claims from the McCain/Palin campaign), what is astounding is the "depth of the bench" for those who find them outright false or deeply misleading. The New York Times did not rely on the Behar representation as their sole and best support for the position in that article.
That you would dismiss their entire coverage in that article, because just ONE of their points of evidence is someone you can easily ad hominem, is to miss everything.
That's not like your work, sir. I'd prefer to see you impeach the claim through a sturdy understanding, or admit the claim after a strong analysis. (But, likely, not to defer to Behar as an intellectual authority alone.)
This is not good for McCain, but his people might have seen it coming with this stupid sex-ed ad (not matter its degree of techincal truth).
Bottom line: The percentage of voters who now think McCain has a problem with the truth (as a result of this ad) has increased more than the percentage of voters who now think Obama really wants to teach sex to little kids. Point Obama.
Of course, it requires that these things be taught in an "age appropriate" way, but it requires that they be included. It is therefore -- what's your favorite word? oh yeah -- a "lie" to state that "all" the bill calls for, for kindergartners, is to teach them about "bad touching" and "private places."
Just for good measure, it's sexist ("shall teach male pupils about male accountability for sexual violence and shall teach female students about reducing vulnerability for sexual violence").
I wish I knew what you mean by "later when he was questioned." You almost seem to be implying that Obama "was questioned" after McCain ran the ad. Wrong. As the factcheck article indicates, Obama explicitly described what he intended on 10/21/04, in a debate with Keyes. So there is no excuse for anyone to be confused about Obama's intention.
What is it about the words "age appropriate" that make them unable to reach your retina?
The word "comprehensive" means 'complete.' By saying "comprehensive," and leaving out "age appropriate," McCain is plainly indicating that Obama advocates giving kindergarteners 'complete' sex education. Trouble is, he doesn't.
When I tell someone that you advocate something which I know you don't advocate, there's a word for what I'm doing: lying.
I generally try to ignore Bernstein's posts b/c he's such a thoughtless, neocon zombie. But this campaign season has seen him regularly stoop to especially troubling lows, even for him. I can't wait until Senator Obama is elected President and the Democrats win back the Senate. If ever there was a basis to justify a bill of attainder— notwithstanding the Constitution — he is it. Don't let the door hit you... David. We won't miss you.
Please make it possible to avoid seeing posts by individuals. Thanks!
"Age appropriate" affects the manner in which the topic is discussed, but not whether the topic is discussed, not when the statute explicitly requires that those topics be discussed.
When you say that he is "plainly indicating" something he isn't, that's called lying. The fact that your interpretation of a particular set of words makes them false just means you're dishonest at reading words, not that the person who said them is a liar.
And once again, what Obama "advocates" is not at issue; what he voted for was.
Interestingly, The View generally is friendly territory for politicians. Although you might disagree with certain panelists' political views, The View is in no way Hannity and Colmes - the latter is an explicitly partisan program that often criticizes politicians. The former is not and is well-known for softball interviews of all stripes. The inference, therefore, is that the McCain campaign's disingenuousness is extreme enough that it's now getting called out on even more mainstream programs.
Put bluntly, as someone not unsympathetic to McCain, the past few weeks have been disillusioning. Although you might be able to torture out a defense of, say, the sex ed ad, it was pretty clearly misleading in its implications about Obama's position. In the context of other campaign statements and ads, such as those on immigration, earmarks, the Bridge to Nowhere, etc., I can see why a mainstream program would start thinking the McCain campaign has become misleading.
By the way, I've seen the defense that "this is just the way politics is played" popping up a lot recently. The fact that this is "politics" may explain the conduct, but it doesn't excuse it. Intentionally misinforming voters is a poor way to win an election.
Obama did exactly the same thing with his "McCain supports 100 years of war in Iraq" ad awhile back. It was even less technically true than the sex ed ad, but had enough truthiness to allow the Obama campaign to go with it.
We get this kind of politics because it's what "rationally ignorant" voters respond to. Don't blame the candidates - blame the citizens. We get the campaigns (and government) we deserve.
As verified by wikipedia?
Never heard of her, am barely aware of the existence of 'The view,' but since she asked the question, how do the Times reporter not ascribe the question to her?
Professor, are you seriously worried that some Times reader is going to mistake this woman for a McCain stalking horse who has suddenly turned on her master?
Her question does not seem to be inherently silly, which is more than I can say for any statement I have seen justifying Sarah Palin's experience as relevant to being president, for example.
Are you serious? If so do you have any evidence? If not, please cut it out.
The ad speaks to a concern many parents have that too much of their authority over the education of their children is being taken away from them. In the case of the cub scouts and similar organizations, the excuse is usually liability, of the schools, their traditional duty of civic formation that has bled into the moral. In either case, parents are frustrated.
I share those concerns. While I would entrust my own kindergarten teacher with complete freedom, I know of more than one in whom I would not. The bill quoted above not only entrusts teachers down to kindergarten age to broach these subjects, but even compels them to do so. Many will do so unwisely.
Perhaps this was why the former law stopped at 6th grade. If McCain believed that was appropriate, why was it illegitimate to point out this policy difference?
LM-- this clarifies everything. Evidence? I was pointing out VC became crazy 'round this issue, in a number of ways. Cut it out? Get real, argumogralogist!
But Professor Bernstein, this is all based on the assumption that simply because she's liberal you'd expect her to stridently attack McCain's honesty. She may be a liberal, but she's also a host of a women's talk show that traditionally treats politicians, of whatever party, in as friendly, powderpuffy a way as you'll ever see on TV. So yeah, I think it is news when even the hosts of 'The View' are grilling you. I'd also note that this shark-jumping, egregiously biased story says this immediately after the paragraph you cite:
Of course, there are many other dishonesties they could've cited, but they don't mention all of Mccain's either.
When McCain lies, he NEVER backs down.
... or a simple, "No, I wasn't serious" would have worked too.
Video of Romney calling McCain "dishonest" is here. First he said "lying," and then he backed away from that.
I disagree, because creating an ad is a lot more deliberate than delivering a statement carelessly. There are times that Obama made the statement carelessly ("John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years"), and there are times he said it accurately ("has said that he is willing to have these troops over there for 100 years"). I think he made the careless statement on exactly two occasions. Enshrining a falsehood in an ad is a lot more deliberate, and more egregious.
And that's what McCain did with the business about Iran being "tiny."
By the way, only one of these candidates uses "straight talk" as a slogan.
==============================
sg:
Obama made an ad on this subject? Show me. And it said those words? Show me.
I know of a DNC ad, but it didn't use those words, and it didn't use any words that weren't true.
Agreed. When we tolerate lots of dishonesty (as we did with Bush), that virtually guarantees that subsequent politicians will push that envelope further and further. Why shouldn't they? McCain is taking Bush's ball and running with it.
Wrong. It requires that they be included, but it doesn't require that they be included at every grade. Try reading more carefully. The bill is here (pdf). Notice this passage:
The key word is the first one. Now notice the next passage, which is an example of the various passages which you're complaining about:
Do you notice the word that's omitted from the beginning of that sentence? The passage does not say "all course material … shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence …" Why not, since the earlier passage begins with "all?" Because these later passages only indicate content that needs to appear somewhere in the K-12 program. Not everywhere in the program. Whereas the passage that begins "all" is intended to apply everywhere.
So you're not reading the statute carefully. And aside from that, Obama made his intention clear, in 2004. So the most you can do is claim he voted for a bill that wasn't clear enough in expressing his intention (he didn't write the bill).
The statute enumerates topics that need to "be discussed" somewhere in a K-12 program. It doesn't stipulate what is supposed to appear at each grade level. It only says that decision should be made on an "age appropriate" basis. Interpreting that is in the hands of each school district, which is a sensible approach.
It's not my "interpretation" of the words in the ad that make them false. It's the lack of congruence between the ad and reality which makes them false.
Your point will make sense as you soon as you show that women rape men as often as men rape women.
Maybe you'd like to chew on this one (more details here).
There are so many to choose from.
You and the ad ignore the fact that the bill stipulates that parents can always opt out.
It "compels" that all the topics appear somewhere in a K-12 program, but it does not 'compel' that all these topics appear in kindergarten.
Because McCain didn't honestly portray Obama's stated, known intentions.
Obama's policy is that kids in kindergarten should be taught how to avoid sexual predators. If McCain thinks that's bad policy, let him run an ad saying that, directly and honestly (if he truly thinks it's a major national issue; obviously, it's not). Trouble is, that's not what McCain did.
And maybe "the former law stopped at 6th grade" because there are lawmakers who are worried that an unscrupulous opponent like McCain might ambush them someday, the way McCain is ambushing Obama. Notice who pays for this: kids who are denied a chance to learn how to protect themselves. Unless they're lucky enough to be a Cub Scout.
And FWIW, the fact that McCain is willing to go to hostile territory to try to attract women's votes reflects a new confidence, perhaps overconfidence.
McCain's ad was factually true-and intentionally misleading, but that really is what politicians do-even Obama. And to be honestly as a parent I am not sure I even want my kids teacher to teach my kindergartener good touch/bad touch in a way they deem age appropriate. Sure Cub Scouts has their chapter, but a den leader isn't the one teaching it-that portion is read by the parent to the child and the parent and child discuss it-which is very different from a kindergarten teacher teaching it.
Age appropriate is left undefined-and I know from talking with other parents what they consider age appropriate sex ed with their children isn't what I consider age appropriate.
It isn't so cut and dried and as clearly defined as some might think it is. And I am sure Obama had his ideas of age appropriate when he voted for the law, but was it the same as the guy three rows up, and the guy four seats down?
And I really don't think a DNC ad using the 100 years war stuff means Obama doesn't support it when Obama has used the line all the time during the election cycle. The charge didn't come out of nowhere and is just as misleading.
As for Behar's glasses comment-I hadn't heard it, but I am somebody who wears glasses because I can't wear contacts-so contacts are not an option for everyone.
Amazing how many lawyers have reading comprehension problems when it comes to politics.
Well not that amazing really.
"Because McCain didn't honestly portray Obama's stated, known intentions."
Which is certainly a relief. We all know that the courts base everything on what a politician "intended" rather than what is actually *written* in the law. God help us all if laws are implemented as written.
Frankly one reason I really enjoy this blog is that it reminds me that people who work with the law are as dumb and opinionated as anybody else.
"It "compels" that all the topics appear somewhere in a K-12 program, but it does not 'compel' that all these topics appear in kindergarten. "
**LAUGH**
He did. In the ad we are discussing.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
And the statement that indifferently anonymous person made has been vetted by every single viewer of the page. A quick glance at the page history tells you if there is any controversy which might result in temporary distortions, and let you look at the opposing edits and discern for yourselves the validity of the post.
Also, a wikipedia post serves as a aggregation of links to the means to verify a post.
Which is more than you can do more easily there than for any other information source, frankly making wikipedia generally the superior one in my view.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
All my life I felt disgust for the liars.
I also was ashamed if somebody would associated my friends or supporters with liars and sleaze.
How do you feel about it?
And don't worry about McCain camp, they obviously do not care:
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said this to the Politico about the increased media scrutiny of the campaign’s factual claims: “We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.”
If the Obama campaign was being honest in its defense here, it would say (1) Obama’s support of the bill was based on his understanding that it would provide for age-appropriate sex education; (2) his belief is that age-appropriate sex education for kindergartners consists of teaching them to be aware of inappropriate touching (or something like that); (3) this wasn’t a bill that he was particularly involved with, and his support for it was based on trusting the (Democratic) sponsors; (4) he never read or thought about the parts of the bill which suggest that students, including kindergartners, should be given “comprehensive sex education,” including instruction on transmission of STDs; and (5) none of this is particularly important or relevant to the presidency anyway.
Instead of making this defense, Obama accuses McCain of lying.
Thank you,
A Loyal Reader
Frequently, the idea fails to get as far as...the parents. In fact, the entire course material is sometimes unknown to the parents so there is nothing to opt from.
Or the opt-out papers get lost. Turning up later, like certain billing records. Or not at all.
Opting out is not a solution. It's an excuse.
Wow, that's interesting, because I'm thinking that if McCain "expected" one of the hosts of the show to out-and-out call him a liar, he probably would have skipped the appearance.
I'm pretty sure he didn't "expect" it based on his appearance on the same show in 2005, either. [Photo from that episode, showing Behar not calling McCain a liar.]
On a more positive note: This nonsense just encourages the DailyKos and MoveOn crowds and their ilk to maintain their delusions. It can only benefit McCain/Palin.
You have three candidate who have never run anything. And one with limited experience. You have one presidential candidate who has no legislative accomplishments (that means he has done more than sign on as a co-sponsor). You have two presidential candidate who have voted with their parties >90% of the time yet claim to "agents of change."
You have liberals saying that a mother should stay at home with here kids, and "pregnant and in the kitchen" conservatives saying "you go girl." You have the R's who have stacked the decked against themselves for 8 years and D's who seem terrified that a hail mary pass will connect.
Means where are serious policy discussions and questions from the press. Not about minutia and what words to apply to policy.
The race in the gutter is just beginning. Meanwhile some of us would like to here about stopping the erosion of civil liberties and about the limits of wealth redistribution.
I am now leaning towards Obama simply because I am strongly disturbed by the success of McCain's recent "Big Lie" approach where his campaign just says something untrue and repeats it over and over again - and as a result he's closed the gap with Obama. If you don't ever admit you're wrong the media is powerless to do anything against you, because when they call you a liar you just call them liars back. Meanwhile, Obama stupidly admits when one of his ads is wrong or lying and gets hit for it.
Quite frankly if this gets rewarded I am horrified at what it means for the future of US democracy. The worst part is that, win or lose, politicians of both spectrums will notice how effective it is for McCain (and Bush before him, who was the pioneer in simply refusing to acknowledge any attempt at proving something the campaign said to be right or wrong).
I remember seeing an ad, but after doing some research I believe it was probably the DNC ad. And as you point out, that ad is technically true.
So I withdraw my assertion that the 100 years ad was worse than the sex ed ad. I'd call them roughly equal in that they are both technically true, but I'd give the edge (such as it is) to Obama, since the DNC and not Obama ran the ad.
I stand by my main assertion that it's kind of silly to get upset with politicians who play politics. It's like being angry that fish are wet. It comes with the territory. I don't think either politician has "crossed the line", although I do think McCain's campaign is spending more time real close to it.
A line of attack that I think would be both more honest and more salient would be to acknowledge that Obama didn't want to teach sex ed to Kindergardners, but was so poor at drafting legislation that that could have been the outcome. And then draw the point that all of Obama's experience, as a community organizer, as an edcation reformed, and as a legislator, is marked by well-intentioned failures.
How can anyone take this seriously?
Would this be reported as Obama appeared on O'Reilly, where he could have expected "friendly" treatment and instead was attacked?
This isn't a lie either. Obama is reflecting the concern a lot of people have with the U.S. playing world policeman, a policy McCain is much more likely to continue than Obama. We still have a substantial troop presence in Germany over 60 years on - getting close to 100.
"More recently, Mr. Obama has been criticized for advertisements that have distorted Mr. McCain’s record on schools financing and incorrectly accused him of not supporting loan guarantees for the auto industry — a hot topic in Michigan."
Again, which candidate is more likely to increase school financing? To actually bail out Michigan instead of merely promising to? Clearly, the answer is Obama. These are not lies.
"He has also taken Mr. McCain’s repeated comments that American economy is “fundamentally sound” out of context, leaving out the fact that Mr. McCain almost always adds at the same time that he understands that times are tough and 'people are hurting.'"
The two are not mutually exclusive. McCain is more likely than Obama to believe that the economy is fundamentally sound.
Bottom line: if we keep playing along with the character assassination of our elected representatives and candidates, the alternative is unlikely to be more honest elected representatives and candidates, and more likely to to be even greater power for the unelected - media, the bureaucracy, and K Street.
Your detailed dissection of the law is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that teaching 6yr olds about sexual predators means indirectly teaching them about sex and destroys the innocence of ignorance.
Which DOES matter to a great many people, otherwise you're right the statute would say "all" everywhere. Unfortunately people backing that statute failed to consider that sex pred talk implies learning to a degree about sex--if sex is just mommy and daddy hugging under the sheets why are the perps dangerous !?! inquiring children will wonder.
These comments seem to reflect a sense of deep rooted panic setting in among the liberal Obamaites. He ascended into the heavens from his temple on mount Invesco, and the Lord spake to him and verily the lord said to him, you will not be president because you are an empty suit with tired old socialist ideas dating back to the 1920's.
Interesting poll out in Minnesota of all places. The extremely liberal Star Tribuen, who famously tilts its polls for the democrats, has a new poll out showing McCain Dead Even with Obama, having closed a 13 point gap.
If McCain actually carried a state like Minnesota then a huge democrat defeat up and down the ticket would likely be in the works.
Oh, and on sex education for Kindergartners. Obama voted for it and the ad is TRUE. Liberals don't understand that there are millions and millions of parents in this country that think its there job to tell their 5 year olds to be wary of strangers. These same people distrust having their 5 year olds being indoctrinated into all sorts of Liberal dogma from sex ed to abortion to homosexuality.
Says the "Dog"
Frequently, the idea fails to get as far as...the parents. In fact, the entire course material is sometimes unknown to the parents so there is nothing to opt from.
Or the opt-out papers get lost. Turning up later, like certain billing records. Or not at all.
Opting out is not a solution. It's an excuse.
Especially when you consider it is a class for 5 year olds-and they are expected to be the go between when it comes to important paperwork.
I think my concern though is under the vague and undefined term "age appropriate" because I am not really certain what this means and honestly when it comes to sexual matters being discussed with my 5 year old I prefer to be the one doing the discussing and deciding what is age appropriate.
I think the real problem is it was a poorly written law and Obama's best defense is to say just that-and I am sure his intent was not that condoms and STD information be taught to 5 year olds, but he did vote for a law that said it should be-even if that isn't what he thought it meant.
I suspect lawmakers vote for laws all the time that they haven't taken the time to read and vote more on what they think the intent of the law is.
Teaching good touch/bad touch to 6 year olds has nothing to do with sex. It's about who can see or touch their private parts and what to do if someone not on the approved list touches them. Where's the sex?
Do you feel the need to go into the motives of someone who would want to touch your 6 year old's genitalia? When you talked with your 6 year old did you bring up mommy and daddy hugging under the sheets?
If this discussion at this age begs questions in the mind of a kindergartner about sex, you're doing it wrong.
I assume you speak from experience, right?
So then you admit it's news in a certain sense?
Professor, is it your contention that some of them are not liars?
Is this woman, whoever she is, half right?
What part of "shall include a discussion of the possible consequences of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV" (actual text) can't you comprehend? You aren't that dense, you're doing this deliberately.
There is no 'age appropriate' classroom education that teaches the consequences of sexual relations and the use of contraceptives to kindergarten children. Yet that is mandated by the law Obama voted for.
'markH' fall for the same BS, asking "It's about who can see or touch their private parts and what to do if someone not on the approved list touches them. Where's the sex?" assuming that age appropriate somehow means teaching different subjects for different ages.
Not so. The law dicates a list of precisely what subjects must be covered: that sex with a minor is illegal (taught in all classes, sexually transmitted disease as a possible consequence of sex (taught in all classes), and the possible side effects and health benefits of different contraceptives (taught in all classes), are just some of the mandatory subjects in the law.
Those defending Obama --perhaps Obama himself-- illustrate "the quintessential leftist habit of judging politics by its intentions, not its acts." [Horowitz in Radical Son 1998]
Despite the undeniable fact that this proposed legislation would mandate sex education (and specified the contents) for children in kindergarten and all elementary grades, liberals deny the facts anyway.
The intent was good.
The intent was good, so teaching 6 year-olds about condoms and HIV if OK. The proposal was a disgrace, and McCain was absolutely truthful on this score.
All politicians lie. This is often a prerequisite for the profession – at best, they must be disingenuous, or mislead, or avoid the subject, or obfuscate . . . in other words, push the truth to its limit. Of course, there are gigantic variations in scale (see, e.g., the Republican party – there’s an order of magnitude difference here), which ties into questions of agency, accountability, and guilt, but the core moral question remains the same.
You cannot be absolutely, 100% honest in politics. There are other professions that have a similar requirement (e.g., advertiser, etc.), and, as is often the case in the aforementioned professions, the important distinction is not a black and white Lie/Truth dichotomy but a sliding scale of ethics.
On one end, there is hardly any unethical behavior – it’s more a matter of politeness (“I do not question John McCain’s qualification for president due to his advanced age.”). In the middle is simple-minded rhetoric that is understood (by reasonable people) to be a bunch of hot air and hooey (“Read my lips: No new taxes.”). And at the furthest extreme is a knowing lie that is repeated in the face of objective reality (“Sarah Palin’s record shows that she is an opponent of earmarks.”).
What we’re seeing from the McCain campaign, and their assorted hacks, flacks, and false attacks, is a total abandonment of any ethical restrictions whatsoever. It’s the difference between an overheated advertisement (e.g., “Product X is awesome dude!” – the advertiser does not actually expect consumers to be literally overwhelmed by awe) and a culpable, knowing lie (e.g., “Cigarettes do not have any negative health effects.” – when your own company’s studies show that they do).
The only way that I can see these people justifying their lies as ethical (or, rather, not unethical) is an “ends justify the means” rationale: more along the lines of, say, an undercover police officer or a spy. If you’re infiltrating the mafia, you have to lie (“Hey, no, I’m no cop man!”) and there is no real ethical conundrum. The problem here is that the mole believes that the people they’re lying to are the enemy: in a very literal sense. An enemy that is immoral, criminal, and must be destroyed.
Yes, and even Sen. Obama. He’s just hard to catch at it (i.e., is very very careful), and his lies are much more of the shading-the-truth variety, rather than the big bullshit whoppers other politicians are prone to. Which is one of the reasons I like him – he lies far, far less than any other (national) politician I’ve seen.
The footnote leads to a clip where she says "they are liars and they are murderers." She doesn't say "Bush administration" (at least not in that clip). Do you have a clip that establishes the antecedent for "they?" Why is her previous sentence omitted from the clip that's presented?
I wonder if you think of VC as one of the "more respectable outlets that have a stake in objectivity."
One of the things you're overlooking about the bill (and this is something I haven't mentioned yet) is that it doesn't require that anything be taught to anyone. It only says that if a school decides to provide "sex education courses," that those courses shall meet certain guidelines:
Where does the bill say that every school shall offer "sex education courses," or that any school is required to do so? For any grade? Nowhere.
Obama issued a statement about this (pdf). The statement points out that a number of states (including MA under Romney) have already passed bills like this. The language in those bills is quite similar to the language that Obama approved, and I don't think any kindergartener in those states (including CA, MI, NH, IA and NJ) is currently being taught how to use a condom.
Then McCain should run an ad accusing Obama of signing "a poorly written law" (as if McCain has never done such a thing). But what McCain did is quite different. McCain's ad accused Obama of supporting "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners." But here's the key statement in the bill which uses the phrase "comprehensive sex education:"
As a commenter elsewhere explained:
Nowhere does the bill establish a requirement that "comprehensive sex education" be taught to kindergarteners. In fact, nowhere does the bill establish a requirement that "comprehensive sex education" be taught to anyone. The bill only says that if you are already teaching "comprehensive sex education" (at any grade level), then you have to make your course meet certain criteria. Likewise if in the future you decide to establish such a course.
I have just demonstrated that the ad is not factually true.
You seem determined to obscure the fact that the bill emphatically gives parents a chance to opt-out.
Wrong. Read the BSA material I cited. The "It Happened to Me" video is designed to be shown at a den meeting. Parents are encouraged to attend with their son, but the parent's presence is not a requirement.
Similarly, if you want to be present in school while a teacher is teaching the same material, I'm sure no teacher would object. So there's essentially no difference between the Cub Scout approach and the approach defined in the bill.
That's why the bill offers you a chance to opt-out.
This bill, like other similar bills that have passed in quite a few states, leaves those decisions in the hands of the school district and the parent, where they should be.
You should explain what's dishonest about the DNC ad. And you should explain why you said "all the time." As far as I can tell, Obama made the statement in a careless manner on exactly two occasions. If you can show otherwise, please do so.
Above I cited the statement issued by his campaign. It says most of the things you are claiming he needs to say.
Not "instead." In addition to. And it's appropriate to point out that McCain is lying, because McCain is lying.
As I have explained, there is no language in the bill that "mandates" that anything be taught to anyone. It just says that if you already are offering "comprehensive sex education," or intend to do so, then you have to adhere to certain guidelines.
No school is required to offer sex ed, to kindergarteners, or any other grade. But if a school chooses to do so, it has to adhere to certain guidelines.
Were you taught that you shouldn't claim a bill "mandates" something that it doesn't actually mandate?
Because the bill says certain things "shall" be taught only if a school has already made a decision to teach sex ed. If your school board opts to not teach sex ed, then you have nothing to fear from this bill.
And if your school decides to teach sex ed, this bill requires them to do it in an "age appropriate" manner. By the way, here's an example of how to teach a 5-year old about HIV in an age-appropriate manner: 'if you see a needle lying in the gutter, don't pick it up.' There are some communities where kids don't need to know that. But there are other communities where they do need to know that.
It mostly depends on whether or not parents are paying attention. If they are, then opting out will work. If they're not, then all sorts of bad things are likely to happen. When parents are too distracted with other activities and ambitions, they sometimes even have a hard time making sure their kids stay unpregnant long enough to finish high school. Which is a good reason to try to equip schools to address this problem.
But if you didn't know anything about Behar when you read the story, you wouldn't know that (a) she's a left-wing political activist with a history of outrageous comments; and (b) she's not an entertainer, not a serious political commentator.
do you point out your right-wing political activism on all of your posts? I didn't think so.
Actually what I've said is that there should be a parent home with the kids. People who keep having lots of kids even though no parent is around to take care of them are being irresponsible. This is true in the Bronx, and it's true in Wasilla.
Palin's irresponsible parenting is my business only because she's trying to convince me that she's capable of being responsible.
I've explained why the sex ad doesn't even rise to the level of being 'technically' true. The ad describes the bill as "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners." This plainly indicates that the bill creates a requirement "to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners." But that's not what the bill does. It just says that if a school chooses "to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners" (or to any other grade), that it must do so according to certain guidelines. Here's one of those guidelines: that it be "age appropriate." Here's another guideline: to emphasize abstinence. I guess this makes Obama quite a radical.
I think your standards are too low. And I think your complacent attitude tends to guarantee that it's only going to get worse.
The net result is that people decide that democracy is a failure, and they should just stop paying attention. Deliberately inciting cynicism is a winning strategy for certain groups.
Ak is correct in pointing out that democracy is at risk.
Yes. And it's pretty shocking that we have to rely on a show like that to give us an honest appraisal of what's going on.
Your perspective is legitimate. I'm sure a lot of people agree with you. Then again, I'm sure a lot of people don't. In any case, you could choose to opt-out. Or if your community is made up of people like you, then your school just wouldn't offer sex ed at all. The key point is that Obama's bill did not mandate sex ed. That's why the ad is a lie.
I think if you review the BSA material, and other similar material, you will see that there are ways of handing the subject without "learning to a degree about sex."
you could try to take a shower once in a while. it might help until the next time palin says something stupid.
Ultimately the point of the programs is to break down children's concepts of trust--which is itself a loss of innocence. At age five, they are not generally developmentally ready for this--and exhibit substantial incomprehension of even the concept of a 'stranger'. By age 7, children tend to naturally be aware of and receptive to these concepts.*
In a typical school setting, the program uses group instruction. Yet age is already a poor proxy for developmental readiness after 36mo. One size fits all; it just isn't "appropriate".
For further reading:
* Daro, D.A. (1994). Prevention of child sexual abuse. The future of children: Sexual abuse of children, 42(2), 198-223.
The law has a general requirement: all instruction has to be age appropriate. But it also has specific requirements: the course shall teach a list of specific things. There is no "K-12 program," despite what you claim; it's not a collective requirement over the entire time period. The statute says that any course -- a course is something at an individual grade -- yes, at each grade level -- covered by the law must teach those things.
You have completely misunderstood the law. There is no "K-12 program." Each grade is considered individually.
No, I can claim that he voted for a bill that did not comport with his after-the-fact self-proclaimed "intention."
The fact that he found a way to spin his vote after the fact does not change what he actually voted for, and if he had an (R) after his name, you'd be screaming about his "dishonesty" in falsely representing what he did instead of placing the blame on the "bill" for not being clear.
If women rape men only 1/10th as frequently as men rape women, would that make it not sexist to treat women solely as victims and men solely as perpetrators?
Please answer yes or no, and offer any pertinent explanation. But if the answer is no, I think if you're being intellectually honest you'd have to say that Bernstein has a point. Does it make that much of a difference? Maybe not. But is it evidence of bias (shocking, from the Times no less)? Of course it is.
Newsflash: admitting bias (as many conservatives would admit of FoxNews) doesn't preclude you from supporting your preferred candidate!
Call it the Obama toddler-sex education proposal if you want:
093_SB0099, AN ACT concerning education.
[Strikethrough = delete, italics = addition]
22 Sec. 3. Comprehensive Health Education Program.
23 (a) The program established under this Act shall
24 include, but not be limited to, the following major
25 educational areas as a basis for curricula in all elementary
26 and secondary schools in this State: human ecology and
27 health, human growth and development, the emotional,
28 psychological, physiological, hygienic and social
29 responsibilities of family life, including sexual abstinence
30 and prevention of unintended pregnancy
until marriage,31 prevention and control of disease, including age appropriate
32 instruction in grades K
6through 12 on the prevention of33 sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention,
[[ -10- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b]]
1 transmission and spread of HIV
AIDS, public and environmentalUnder these provisions, is clearly unlawful to teach tiny children 'no stranger touchy' without teaching all the other listed categories (condoms, HIV, etc) in any class.
Argue a school can opt out by teaching 6-12 but not K-5; but "basis for curricula in all elementary and secondary schools in this State" seems as clear as one can get.
13 such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K
6through 12 shall15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV
AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
Argue it was poor writing if you want, but the words and meanings are clear on its face (and consistent throughout); if any sex ed takes place in any classroom, all the listed elements must be taught.
Now it's possible Obama voted for this because he didn't read it or maybe Obama voted because he doesn't understand legal language like "shall teach" or "all classes". Nobody claimed Obama wants kindergarteners having sex or putting condoms on, but this bill's words is clear and unambiguous.
McCain's ad was absolutely accurate on what the bill said and what its effect would have been.
Call it the Obama toddler-sex education proposal if you want:
093_SB0099, AN ACT concerning education.
[Strikethrough = delete, italics = addition]
22 Sec. 3. Comprehensive Health Education Program.
23 (a) The program established under this Act shall
24 include, but not be limited to, the following major
25 educational areas as a basis for curricula in all elementary
26 and secondary schools in this State: human ecology and
27 health, human growth and development, the emotional,
28 psychological, physiological, hygienic and social
29 responsibilities of family life, including sexual abstinence
30 and prevention of unintended pregnancy
until marriage,31 prevention and control of disease, including age appropriate
32 instruction in grades K
6through 12 on the prevention of33 sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention,
[[ -10- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b]]
1 transmission and spread of HIV
AIDS, public and environmentalUnder these provisions, is clearly unlawful to teach tiny children 'no stranger touchy' without teaching all the other listed categories (condoms, HIV, etc) in any class.
Argue a school can opt out by teaching 6-12 but not K-5; but "basis for curricula in all elementary and secondary schools in this State" seems as clear as one can get.
13 such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K
6through 12 shall15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV
AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
Argue it was poor writing if you want, but the words and meanings are clear on its face (and consistent throughout); if any sex ed takes place in any classroom, all the listed elements must be taught.
Now it's possible Obama voted for this because he didn't read it or maybe Obama voted because he doesn't understand legal language like "shall teach" or "all classes". Nobody claimed Obama wants kindergarteners having sex or putting condoms on, but this bill's words is clear and unambiguous.
McCain's ad was absolutely accurate on what the bill said and what its effect would have been.
Now I get it. Something happened here even more intolerable than robbing children of their innocent ignorance of sex. David was robbed of his innocent ignorance of Joy Behar. Well, for that, David, you have my sincere sympathy.
I think it is possible to say this, but one point of fact. BSA doesn't teach the good/touch bad touch in a den or pack meeting situation. They provide the material in a small booklet and as part of the requirement to earn your Bobcat badge you read the material with your parents and discuss it with your parents. This is entirely done at home-not at the scout meeting.
Key words there are parents. Why with parents? Because it is possible the materials will provoke questions that are more detailed and a parent can handle those questions as they see fit. What happens in the school setting, when a child raises a question? Who determines what is age appropriate for that child and the other children in the class to learn?
Not to mention-the law actually does require that all those other things be taught-Obama may not have intended that or realized that, but that is when he says "this is what I intended by the law, and I admit I didn't read the bill carefully enough when I voted. But Obama has a really hard time admitting he is wrong about something-it is that arrogance thing that keeps creeping up and IMO is a huge character flaw.
Would this be reported as Obama appeared on O'Reilly, where he could have expected "friendly" treatment and instead was attacked?
No, but it would be reported as it actually happened, just as the "View" story was. Just because you don't know anything about The View doesn't mean that everyone needs a reminder.
It was billed as the ultimate smackdown, and it certainly promised to be a wonk vs. wacko match: the cerebral, conciliatory Senator Barack Obama versus Bill O’Reilly, Fox News Channel’s most irascible, combative anchor: a commentator who calls liberals “loons” and “pinheads” and on Thursday’s show described reporters scrutinizing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as “sniveling, left-wing, wine-drinking, brie-eating.”
The interviewer's political orientation was clearly staked out. The question is why the same was not done with Behar? At the end of the day, no one disagrees that the questions and answers are more important. But the way that the coverage is presented is relevant as just another example of how the "news" is presented differently when it involves conservatives and liberals. I expect you'd find similar contrasts with FoxNews. But it's fun to watch some of you liberals contort yourself rather than admitting that, yes, the Times is biased and they do slant news coverage, even in very subtle ways. Those differences don't always matter, but the fact that they exist will inevitably affect coverage. I have no problem covering either event, but if you're going to talk about how O'Reilly calls liberals loons, talk about how Behar says that Bush is a murderer. Give context in equal doses.
And please save the retort that this was "different" because Obama's appearance in a conservative forum was newsworthy, making the political orientation a legitimate subject. The View is a notoriously liberal program, notwithstanding the token conservative they have on the show. I also don't think it would have mattered, as I firmly believe that if there was an entertainment analogue to the View hosted by conservatives, the political orientation of the questioner would have been mentioned. If you disagree on that last point, please say so. I'd really be interested to see someone say that they think the Times wouldn't have mentioned someone's conservative politics in that context.
McCain voted with his party 90% of the time in one year, 2007. His voting with the GOP has been as low as 67% during the Bush Administration.
Obama, however, has voted with the Dems 96-97% of the time during his few years in the Senate.
Fair enough. Thanks for answering my question.
You recently said I have "no job." Here's an idea: pick one story and stick with it.
Really? Prove it. The current 6-12 law is structured the same way. So please tell us if 6th graders in Illinois are currently being taught all "those things."
The bill could be clearer (like most bills), but it's sufficiently clear to indicate that McCain's ad is a lie.
The ad describes the bill as "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners." You should explain the hairsplitting which tells you that this is any different from saying that "Obama's bill mandated sex ed."
If it's true that "women rape men only 1/10th as frequently as men rape women" then the approach suggested in the bill is about 90% correct. Not bad for government work. And I think the proper figure is probably closer to 1/50 or 1/100th. If you have some data on this point, I'd love to see it.
Not quite. It would just be "unlawful to teach tiny children 'no stranger touchy' " if you didn't also include "all the other listed categories (condoms, HIV, etc)" somewhere in the K-12 curriculum. The bill doesn't say that every topic has to be covered in every grade. It just says that every topic needs to be covered in the overall K-12 curriculum. This is especially obvious when you notice the way the bill emphasizes the concept of "age-appropriate."
I think that language just means that the bill applies to "all" schools. Which is not the same thing as saying all schools are required to teach sex ed. If the bill was trying to say that all schools are required to teach sex ed, then the following key sentence doesn't make sense:
If the bill intended to force all schools to teach sex ed, then that sentence should have said this:
But it doesn't.
That one sentence ("each class or course") is specifically talking about HIV. Yes, it does say that in any grade where the school is providing "comprehensive sex education," it must also cover HIV. So what? No school is obligated to offer "comprehensive sex education" in kindergarten. And aside from that, it's perfectly fine to tell kindergarteners to avoid picking up used needles they see in the street. That is an "age appropriate" way to educate a kindergartener on HIV.
Are we reading the same bill? Those phrases appear in the bill a grand total of this many times: zero.
Unfortunately, the ad does indeed strongly imply that Obama wants kindergarteners to learn about "having sex [and] putting condoms on."
Yes, especially when you invent phrases that don't even appear in the bill.
Really? There's already a law in effect covering 6-12. If McCain is correct, then 6th graders in Illinois are currently getting "comprehensive sex education," including inappropriate and explicit information about condoms, pregnancy and STDs. Can you show this is true? If the old law did not bring such information to 6th graders, then there's no reason to think the new law will bring such information kindergarteners.
I've already told you where to look to realize that you're wrong. But I guess you're going to keep making this false claim until I rub your nose in the evidence. Of course even that might not stop you. The relevant document is here (pdf). See page 2:
Yes, they do indeed "teach the good/touch bad touch in a den or pack meeting situation."
As I already pointed out, parents are encouraged to attend, but it's not a requirement.
It requires "all those other things be taught" somewhere in the K-12 program. Not in any particular grade. And this is true only if the school makes a decision to teach sex ed.
Hopefully you'll be back here setting a fine example for him, when you admit you are wrong about BSA.
Is that the only year that McCain voted 90% with the GOP? Really? Since he came to Washington? I wonder how you know.
Yes, it's true that in 2007 McCain voted 90% with the GOP. In that same year, he voted 95% with Bush.
Yes, in 2001. McCain 2008 is a very different creature from McCain 2001. He realizes that this is his last chance, and he has decided that he is willing to say anything and do anything in order to get elected.
14 education offered in any of grades K
6through 12 shall15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV
AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
19 (b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high
20 school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual
21 activity or behavior
intercourseshall emphasize thatThe change from 6th grade to K does not require any kind of class or course to be taught to any particular grade. It says that any class in "comprehensive sex education" at any grade level must include attention to STDs. It is unclear from the quotes provided by subpatre whether education on related subjects that wouldn't fall under the rubric of "comprehensive sex education," like safety awareness, is permissible or mandated to pupils elsewhere in the IL Ed code, or whether and how "comprehensive sex education" is defined in the law.
Having read the whole law, albeit quickly, it is pretty clear what the law intended.
In several places, the law refers to: "All course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate." Looking at the context on pp. 10 and 11, most of the rest of the provisions simply state: "Course material and instruction shall include...." This suggests that some classes teach sex education and sexual activity and some do not, and thus some provisions apply to all health/family life type classes and some only to those that relate to "comprehensive sexual education" which presumably was and still is only taught to about-to-be pubescent pupils and older.
There is no evidence that the implementation of this law would have led to new material being taught to kindergarten students, be that about sexual activity or more innocuous safety from strangers sorts of lessons.
My first introduction to sex ed was in 5th grade, and I believe the age of puberty has only gotten earlier since the early 80s. Why not change the law to read 5, not K? Who knows, but the most simple explanation is that K-12 covers all schools and is no longer written to cover junior high/middle and high school. Using K and not 4 or 5 does not require any school to say anything about sex to anyone.
One consistent edit throughout the law is striking intercourse with "sexual activity." For those conservatives who are aghast at the supposed oral sex culture or were flabbergasted by Bill Clinton's definition of "relations" it seems that IL was making sure that pupils are aware of the risks of all sexual activity and not just going all the way. Seems like something conservatives would like.
Most of the rest is making sure that local school districts don't teach lies to children of any age. Good. Many of the claims made in abstinence-only curricula were demonstrably false fearmongering -- fearmongering that has been shown not to work when you look at surveys of adolescent sexual activity and teenage pregnancy rates.
I'd love for Eugene to take a look at that law and whether it would have mandated teaching about HIV in a course that wasn't already delving into the mechanics of sex and fertility. I don't think so, and the chances of that having been the intent of the legislation are even slimmer. Even then, the McCain ad rests on the edit from 6th grade to K being combined with the idea that "comprehensive sex education" was ever going to go much lower than grade 5 which is rather ridiculous when you remember that real live teachers actually implement the law and aren't textual robots will will implement an "uncommonly silly" law just so they don't get called judicial activists.
neener.
If you're willing to defend the two claims by the McCain campaign that Behar called (accurately, in my view) "lies," my challenge to go on blogginheads.tv is out there. To date, no defender of McCain has picked up the gantlet.
If, as would be natural, you're unwiling to defend them because they were, in fact, lies, then I'm not sure I see what you're fussing about. As Tom Edsall points out today, the McCain Campaign is blazing new trails in mendacity, trying to rewrite the rules of Presidential campaigning to include no truth constraint whatsoever. Part of the strategy is to "poison the well" by pre-emptively discrediting the press, thus protecting the lies from effective exposure. Your willingness to collude in that effort comes as a disappointment.
Mark
Well put, but let's not concede the idea that comprehensive sex education is inappropriate for 6th graders. Many 6th graders are ovulating, getting erections and ejaculating although probably not with other people just yet. Which is the point. Educating students before they get a chance to educate themselves is wise.
Let's talk mendacity. Earlier this summer, Obama said McCain would scare voters by talking about his race and funny name. McCain has done neither. Obama's statement was a smear, pure and simple, which is why he gave a phony denial about it being about his "race." Is a false accusation of racism vicious, or is that just part of a tough campaign?
I happen to agree that the McCain claim about sex education is ridiculous. But the media hasn't been going with the story and the ad isn't being played up. It's getting exposure now only because Democrats are using it as an example of how bad McCain is. Well, it is bad, but it doesn't really distinguish McCain in my view because Obama is just as bad. Not saying two wrongs make a right, but I also can do without the feigned outrage.
Obama also lied about McCain and his number of houses. He claimed to be quoting McCain when McCain's actual words were actually quite different. I don't actually think that situation is nearly as bad as the McCain ad, but the point is these guys all phony up charges against the other side. And it boggles the mind to see how you'll rationalize a false and outrageous smear of racism while harping on a McCain claim that is really getting no air time.
I'm pretty sure Obama was responding to the "Paris Hilton" ad in which a background audio track included "O BA MA! O BA MA!" So maybe Obama's name was being used against him. In either case, Obama said that "they" were going to do this and as it turns out "they" have even if McCain himself has not. By the standards of this campaign, not a bad qualifier, since everything the media or Daily Kos diehards does serves as evidence for what "libs" think and therefore and Obama presidency will bring.
Its always fun to see conservatives adopt a moral equivalency, especially when the evidence shows that the McCain campaign's relationship to the facts is far weaker than Obama's. The Bridge to Nowhere lie has been repeated dozens of times now. The 7 houses (7 properties, really) claim was based on a moment at an actual press conference during which McCain stumbled, and fits into context of Cindy describing AZ as place you have to fly around and other statements that show McCain as out of touch with the daily lives of typical Americans. Heck, he even admitted as much just this past week. As good as it would be for him to reach out and engage the experiences of others, there are ways of doing that without putting an unqualified person in VP slot.
And if you're going to hold McCain accountable for every nutty thing said on the right, do the people on the right get to hold Obama accountable for the Kosmonaut crowd? In a viciousness contest, that crowd will win in a walk.
No moral equivalency here, and if you'd read the post you'd know that. Unlike yourself, I have enough intellectual honesty to say McCain acted inappropriately. Too bad you can't do the same. Then maybe we can talk about which one is worse. But in your world view, there is only one "good guy" (Obama) against one bad guy (McCain). Naive doesn't begin to describe you.
You realize this makes no sense, right? In a year when Bush is extremely unpopular, McCain frequently votes with him. He does so to win an election?
Really? Maybe you don't realize that in McCain's first ad he called himself "The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For." As if the other candidate isn't exactly American. It's hard to interpret McCain's words as something other than a claim that a black person named Barack Obama isn't quite as fully "American" as John McCain.
Then on 6/27/08, McCain put out an ad showing Obama's face on US currency (video). This was before Obama made the remark about how he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Given McCain's ad, that comment was justified.
Here's an interesting exercise. Obama's remark got lots of coverage. See if you can find even one MSM report about Obama's remark that also mentions McCain's ad.
Notice that I'm just talking about stuff coming directly from McCain.
Tell me about one ad that Obama ran that is half as sleazy and dishonest as McCain's sex ad. And McCain's Iran-tiny ad is every bit as dishonest.
A nice video summary of McCain's dishonest ads is here. It's been viewed almost 700,000 times in about 3 days.
What lie? I don't know what you're talking about. Obama's ad about the houses is here.
It's no secret that McCain has been moving to the right, to appeal to the base. There are many, many indications of this. Palin is just one.
McCain is running the same old GOP playbook, which is to win by inciting culture wars that polarize the electorate and excite the GOP base.
(I see trad already explained it better than I did.)
I guess VC would probably not report this, but Greenspan just said that McCain's tax cuts aren't affordable without a lot of spending cuts.
Best part is, so did Obama!
Either that... or 0bama is a clueless doofus.
Your call. Take your pick.
Not quite. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center figured out that there's a $2.8 trillion gap in McCain's economic plan. The gap is so obvious that the McCain campaign had to admit that he's been making statements that shouldn't be considered "official." In other words, "McCain may not speak for the McCain campaign." Inspires confidence, right?
The gap on Obama's side is a lot smaller. Look it up.
Sorry to confuse you with the facts.
No. he does so to get the nomination.
Then he starts spreading BS about how he wants change in Washington. Apparently he's able to fool a lot of people.
McCain has gne from being a widely respected individual to a being one of the scummiest liars ever to run for national office, all in the space of a few months.
Angus:
Except that the wording indicates all classes taken in grades k-12, not one of the classes taken in grades k-12. From the text of one of the amended laws, emphasis mine:
You can check to see whether this is out of context, since I provide a link at the bottom of the post. And I'm not sure exactly how much of the stuff being talked about this quote is applicable to (other than the discussion of HIV, which is in the quote). But barring a mistake in interpretation on my part, the language does indicate that all the classes between kindergarten and high school would be affected, not just one of them. Indeed, all the classes between kindergarten and 5th grade would be effected, not just affected.
jukeboxgrad:
Emphasis mine:
Now, unless you take "age-appropriate" instruction to be "no" instruction, that looks like a required program for all grades K-12. And why bother lowering the limit from 6th grade to kindergarten if the "age-appropriate" thing to do from kindergarten to 5th grade is nothing?
So in the proposed legislation, we see that:
1. The program would be required for grades K-12 (unless "age-appropriate" means "optional").
2. The program is required to teach at least some components (e.g. STD prevention) right down to the kindergarten level, though in an "age-appropriate" manner.
Then the only question remaining would be whether an "age-appropriate" discussion of STDs in kindergarten would be considered "sex ed". If it would be, then McCain's ad is entirely true.
The full text of law SB0099, which is the relevant legislation, can be found here. I took the liberty of cutting out parts that the proposed amendment would have deleted rather than putting in strikethroughs.
But McCain's overall voting record since 2000 has been under 90% in party line. More to the point, his voting record since 2005 has been under that mark - he averaged 76% and 84% in 2005 and 2006, respectively, and he voted many more times in those years than in 2007. So his average ought to be around 84% for those three years, though exact numbers are elusive. Linky. Meanwhile, Obama's voting record has hovered around 97% since his arrival in national office a few years ago. So if we're going to get into discussions of who's been the rank-and-file partisan, it's not McCain who'll be tarnished.
And Harry Eagar wins the thread, even if it's me he's disgusted with.
The reason the event was newsworthy is that the hosts of a daytime talk show watched for frivolity and entertainment, as much as for more serious topics, were the first to directly challenge McCain on the serious matter of his campaign's honesty. Meanwhile, supposedly "serious" political news sources seemed afraid to tackle this question directly, and have spent more time on fluff issues instead. The turnabout in that situation is what merits notice, rather than anything special about Joy Behar. Why was she the first one to ask a tough journalistic question that needed asking?
Regardless, the McCain ad quite clearly suggests that Obama's priority is for kids to be learning all about sex before they learn reading. If you consider this an honest portrayal, no matter what the correct parsing of the bill's language is, then there's no point discussing it further. Try not to be such a bad person, if that's the issue.
Then you refer to Obama on the dollar bill. Hmm . . . maybe that's sarcasm given that Obama had already made his own presidential seal. In fact, I didn't know that McCain had done that but that's just funny as hell. He should play that up more. Would make a great SNL skit. Obama has been lampooned — fairly — for taking curtain measurements at the White House, and the dollar bill reference sounds right up that alley. If you can read racism into that, I now stand corrected on the lipstick remark — definitely about Palin. Amazing how rationalizers like yourself infer egregious intent from any statement by a Republican and then fraudulently dismiss clear smears by your candidate.
Check out the story in the Atlantic about the crazy photographer -- it describes you to a tee. Wonder when you'll take up photography.
This is what happens when a person gets so blinded by the "rightness" of their candidate/side of a political debate that they see only honor in what they do and only evil on the other side. Pathetic. But not surprising given the TPM references, where that is par for the course.
If the McCain references could reasonably be interpreted in the manner you suggest — rather than the silly inferences you attempt to draw — Obama and his staff would have defended his remarks. They didn't because they couldn't. That's why they lied about what they were saying, because the remarks were indefensible.
You guys remind me of the Republicans during the late 90s. You're out of power for so long that your hate consumes you and causes you to believe the very worst about the other side. And the other side is guilty in this case of some clear distortions. But your blindness cannot possibly allow you to believe that your candidate has engaged in similar misbehavior. And when faced with that bad behavior, you try to justify a remark he awasn't willing to defend himself.
You're pathetic.
Republicans, do your job. Attack Palin so the NYT can feature both sides.
The duty of a newspaper is to show that the emperor has no clothes, not to think of possible ways in which the naked emperor could actually be clad ("Well, he does have a thin film of grime from the atmosphere all over his body...") Let McCain's apologists respond.
I was a bit shocked to see multiple View members attack McCain. I guess chat show host attacks will be credible only when Jay Leno calls McCain a liar to his face.
Not really. The View atracts far left radical women viewers. Not the type McCain is trying to woo.
a little o/t, but as someone who sat through a sex education class less than 3 years ago, I'd say that 3rd-4th grade is too early for the sex talk. Puberty, maybe, in 4th grade, but in school I certainly wouldn't have wanted to learn about the specifics of what would happen to my genitalia, or that of the opposite sex. Leave that to Mom and Dad. I didn't see hide nor hair of a sex ed class until around 7th grade, and puberty ed came around 5th grade.
Given the rhetorical technique and the fact that many (most?) children begin learning to read before kindergarten anyway, I'd guess that that particular statement was hyperbole - but badly executed. It's certainly misleading to the listener.
2. The Bill (SB 99) cited on the McCain ad was never called for a vote.
3. The Bill (SB 99) cited on the McCain ad expired at the end of the 93rd session of the Illinois General Assembly.
4. The committee Obama chaired, Health &Human Services, did send the Bill (SB 99) cited on the McCain ad to the Senate floor, affirmatively recommending it.
California passed its own version of SB 99, back in 2003. The age/development appropriate curriculum resulting from the bill's implementation requires that Kindergarteners be taught about (drum roll) sexual predation.
Parents who after reading the comments, particularly Nieporent's, are concerned that Kindergarten teachers will destroy the innocence of their children, will want to keep away from John McCain's Arizona, which mandates abstinence education, as well as drug abuse education, for four-year-olds:
15-716. Instruction on acquired immune deficiency syndrome; department assistance
A. Each common, high and unified school district may provide instruction to kindergarten programs through the twelfth grade on acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the human immunodeficiency virus.
B. Each district is free to develop its own course of study for each grade. At a minimum, instruction shall:
1. Be appropriate to the grade level in which it is offered.
2. Be medically accurate.
3. Promote abstinence.
4. Discourage drug abuse.
5. Dispel myths regarding transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.
C. No district shall include in its course of study instruction which:
1. Promotes a homosexual life-style.
2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style.
3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.
D. At the request of a school district, the department of health services or the department of education shall review instruction materials to determine their medical accuracy.
E. At the request of a school district, the department of education shall provide the following assistance:
1. A suggested course of study.
2. Teacher training.
3. A list of available films and other teaching aids.
F. At the request of a parent, a pupil shall be excused from instruction on the acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the human immunodeficiency virus as provided in subsection A of this section. The school district shall notify all parents of their ability to withdraw their child from the instruction.
Housewives of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your diaper bags!
Child abuse, including sexual exploitation:
Identifying ways to seek assistance if worried, abused, or threatened, including how to tell a trusted adult if uncomfortable touching occurs Developing and using communication skills to tell others when touching is unwanted
After parents are notified and local standards are complied with, age-appropriate information about child abuse or neglect can be introduced. Included should be reference to each person’s right to the privacy of his or her body and the appropriateness of telling others when touching is not welcome. Instruction should emphasize that a child is not at fault if the child is touched in an improper or uncomfortable way by an adult. The child’s responsibility in this situation is to tell a trusted adult what had occurred.
And yet McCain opposed this.
McCain encourages perverts to molest your little kids.
I think it's a rather bad idea to contribute to child abuse hysteria by telling kindergartners about it, but the California one you quote does contrast strongly with the Illinois one; no instruction in AIDs, STDs, pregnancy, or contraception. Just child abuse.
Done. McCain is no standard for behavior and judgment. I do want the innocence of our children of tender years protected. The liberals are crazed about sex and McCain is one of them.
What I quoted was the implementation of the statute by the California Department of Education. They are the education subject matter experts, not the legislature. Unremarkably, the California legislature passed a statute, and the executive branch signed it and implemented it.
Here is part of the California statute, including the ominous, Obama-approved words:
comprehensive sexual ... education
age-appropriate
Kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive
Medically accurate and objective
Schools may, but are not required to, teach children earlier than Seventh Grade about birth control, STDs, emergency contraception, how to make responsible decisions about their sexuality, and how to safely surrender a newborn.
Yes, by commenter logic, the State of California teaches kindergartners how to put on a condom, how and where to get RU 486, and where to drop off their newborns.
51933. (a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the appropriate courses.
(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:
(1) Instruction and materials shall be age appropriate.
(2) All factual information presented shall be medically accurate and objective.
Although I obviously cannot swear to it, based on the California precedent, I'm fairly certain that the education authorities in Illinois would similarly interpret the Illinois statute to find that the only sex education appropriate to kindergartners is defending against child molesters.
I already addressed this. The key word in your sentence is "supports." Let's be clearer: the bill permits "education about at least some sex ed issues right down to kindergarten." 'Permits' and 'requires' are two very different things. McCain's ad dishonestly implies the latter, even though that's not what the bill says.
I already addressed this. A grade would be affected by this portion of the bill only if the school had already decided to present "such courses of instruction" in that particular grade. In other words, if your school had made a decision to offer sex ed in kindergarten, then this passage in the bill requires your school to make some kind of HIV information part of that course, in an age-appropriate way. This would probably mean 'don't pick up needles in the gutter.'
I already addressed this. This does not mean there is "a required program for all grades K-12." It just means that the scope of the bill is K-12. This means that under this bill, sex ed is permitted in those grades, but it has to conform to the criteria set out in the bill.
Because this bill did not pass, the current situation in Illinois is that a principal who wants to offer sex ed in 5th grade is probably going to decide to not do that. Why? Because he will be subject to criticism and complaints. But for 6-12, he has a law that tells him exactly what he is allowed to do, and that law helps shield him from criticism.
There is no basis for your claim of "required." Even nieporent admitted that the bill does not mandate sex ed (he said "if the ad said that Obama's bill mandated sex ed, then the ad would be a lie").
No. You are required to teach STD prevention at any particular grade level only if you have decided to offer sex ed at that grade level.
I have explained that the bill does not mandate a "discussion of STDs in kindergarten." But even if it did, telling kids to stay away from used needles is hardly something that should be "considered 'sex ed', " in the sense that is implied by the ad.
No matter how you slice it, the ad is a big fat dirty lie.
"Under" is an exaggeration. The link you cited says this:
That's not "under."
But that's not the point. The point is that McCain is constantly (and especially recently) flogging his maverickness. But when you look at his record, and especially his recent record, you discover that this is just another distortion.
Obama is not pretending that he's running against the Democrats. But McCain is indeed pretending that he's running against Bush and the GOP (change! change! change!), even though his recent record is very closely aligned with Bush and the GOP.
Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter.
You seem to be someone who does not think, read or write very carefully. What you said McCain said is not what McCain said. Go back and find the word you omitted. It matters. It was put there for a reason. And maybe you omitted it for a reason.
The fact that McCain put Obama's face on money is absolutely relevant to Obama's later comment, about how he looks different then the other presidents who have their faces on money. The fact that you didn't even know the context underlines my point, that our lazy media didn't even explain the context behind Obama's remark.
There is exactly one TPM reference in this thread. It's a pointer to the McCain video you had never seen. So you should explain why you said "references," and you should explain your objection to the one reference that was provided.
You should explain what you're talking about ("lied"). Earlier you made this claim:
I asked you to show proof for that claim. Why haven't you?
Show some proof.
Nice. And let's be clear about what really goes on behind closed doors in "John McCain's Arizona:"
In John McCain's Arizona, schools are permitted to provide "sex education lessons" to kindergarteners! Some of those kids probably don't know how to read, but Arizona lawmakers think it's OK to give them "sex education lessons." I'm horrified.
And these perverted lawmakers thought that waiting eight days between each 'sex education lesson' would make this OK. As if this would make us not notice that someone is giving "sex education lessons" to an innocent 4-year old.
But things might be even worse in the fine state of Alaska, where proposals were raised where:
Can you imagine? Obama's bill strongly emphasized that parents always have a right to opt-out. Those perverts in Alaska (a very red state) need to get some guidance from Obama.
Indeed. McCain's ad discourages lawmakers and schools from implementing programs which teach kids how to protect themselves. Any legislator or principal who was considering doing such a thing now has to take into account that they could end up being the target of the same kind of despicable attack that McCain just made against Obama.
It's really hard for me to understand how any honorable person can still support McCain. He has sold his soul to the corrupt gang that is running his campaign. They are going to run the government the same way they are running the campaign.
That's not what's meant by "McCain opposed this." He opposed it in the sense that his ad is effectively a criticism of all such education.
Why are you assuming that the portion pasted into this thread represents the entirety of the CA curriculum? Are you really that simple-minded? The CA curriculum (pdf) indeed includes all that other stuff that you ignorantly claim is not in the CA curriculum.
And likewise for a bunch of other states that are mentioned in Obama's statement (pdf).
I see Tony also explained this.
Not really. One of its stars, Elisabeth Hasselback, is an extremely conservative woman who recently made (minor) headlines when she praised Cindy McCain's openness and said she had nothing to hide, unlike some others (the implication being Michelle Obama), after both Michelle and Cindy had made separate appearances on the show.
You'd have to ask some advertising person for a detailed breakdown of who watches the show, but I know that it's very mainstream and popular among all kinds and ages of women.
"K-12 Comprehensive Sex Education Bill".
Please note the "K" part.
Just as long as neither side shows movies of Dr John singing
As I recall, this figured prominently in STD schooling back in the day...It was supposed to make it all edgy and relevant you see...I may still not have recovered...
Youtube Recording, but without the visuals...
Cub Scout leaders who viewed the video suggested that it would be most effective when used as a special pack meeting, or even at a special den meeting with a smaller group of participants.
Well when my sons were in cub scouts that was done only at home-not in den meetings or pack meetings and when my sons were tigers I was required to attend every meeting with them.
I do note the link was revised in 2007, my boys have been out of cubscouts and out of this program for three years.
Interesting quotes though, which indicate my point that it is intended for use by parents:
The intent of the video is to develop communication between parent and child about
personal safety decisions made by the child—but with help from parents or other trusted
adults.
It Happened to Me is designed for a viewing audience of children from 6 to 9 years of
age. When used in the Cub Scout program, parents should be present to view and discuss
the video with their child. Some units will want to preview the video with the Cub Scout
pack committee or invite parents to preview the video before watching it with their children.
To accomplish the objective
of strengthening communication between parent and child, the discussions are intended to
be family-specific with parents and their children discussing how the rules would apply in
their family.
Before showing It Happened to Me at a unit meeting, a letter should be sent to the
parents of each Cub Scout to inform them of the planned presentation and to encourage
them to attend with their children. A sample letter is included as part of this guide.
In 2007, McCain did indeed vote with his party 90% of the time (though he voted on less than half the bills proposed, having spent the rest of the time campaigning). In 2006, he voted with his party 84% of the time (being present for 90+ percent of the votes); in 2005, 76%; and for his whole career, 88%. Bearing in mind that his early years in the Senate showed 100% party unity, that means that his record from 2000 to 2007 was well under 90%, which was my claim. Are you going to go with a sparse (because oft-absent) voting record from 2007, or a full voting record from 2005-07 or 2000-07?
McCain has been one of the less party-unified conservatives in Congress. He's certainly a Republican, but runs closer to the center than most and certainly demonstrates a willingness to work with Democrats - witness McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, and the Gang of 14. Irrespective of my opinion of those acts, they were not the actions of a blind partisan.
Wait, are you seriously saying that Obama hasn't been running on change? Obama has been running on the New Politics line, throwing out the "old" divisions (as supposedly represented by Bush, McCain, HRC, and so on) for unity and working together to achieve progress. That's a centrist platform. Yet he votes with his party 97% of the time. That's not the action of a uniter, of someone who wants to break old quarrels and reach across the aisle. McCain, on the other hand, has a demonstrated willingness to go bipartisan in order to get things done, even if the voting record as a whole is more right than left. So when both run on a centrist platform of "Change" and bipartisanship, which one will you castigate, the one who's voted with his party 84% of the time since 2005, or the one who's voted with his party 97% of the time during the same period?
Please note that permitting something is not the same thing as requiring something. And please note that this has already been explained in this thread. Did you read it?
The following words were published on 7/7/2000:
So teaching this material at a pack meeting is not something that just started 1-3 years ago.
Yes, I said that parents are encouraged to attend. But you said this:
That statement is false, and it's been false for at least 8 years. I think it was you who said this:
How ironic.
OK, I see your point (about "under"). I didn't read your statement carefully enough. My mistake.
I think you're correctly describing a McCain that no longer exists.
Obama's record going all the way back to HLR indeed demonstrates his willingness and ability to "reach across the aisle." He was elected president of HLR (in part) because conservatives there believed he would give them a fair shake. And there is every indication that he did.
It would be nice if you could reduce the whole analysis to a comparison between the number 84 and the number 97. But that entirely misses the point. McCain's party has been in charge for the last 8 eight years. Obama's party has not. It's laughable that McCain claims to represent change, since he is a leader of the party that's been in charge.
Really amazing.
McCain-Feingold was in 2002, McCain-Lieberman introduced in 2003, and the Gang of 14 was 2005. Only the 2007 voting record indicates any abnormally conservative tendencies, and McCain wasn't even there half the time so it doesn't make sense to use the 2007 voting record as a benchmark. So on what basis do you say that the bipartisan McCain no longer exists?
So you're saying that what Obama did as chair of the Harvard Law Review 17 years ago is significant, but neither his voting record from the last four years nor McCain's from the last eight is indicative of anything. I love the sound of cognitive dissonance in the morning - too bad it's after 9:00 PM where I am.
Except that Obama, like McCain, campaigned on being different from BOTH parties, not just on being different from the party in power. We saw this during his early campaigning and primary run against Hillary. I already made this point.
Picking Palin is sufficient proof of "abnormally conservative tendencies."
The reaction of the GOP base to Palin, as compared with their very lukewarm feelings toward McCain himself, is sufficient proof that Palin is "abnormally conservative" (compared with McCain).
If you want to argue that recency is an important criterion, then you need to acknowledge that McCain picking Palin is more recent than anything else we've mentioned. And in the last year or so he has given various other indications of turning to the right.
The key point is that it's a joke to claim that you represent 'change' when you're the candidate of the party that's been in charge. Even if your alignment with that party is 'only' 84%. By that measure (a measure you chose), McCain is 16% 'maverick' and 84% GOP. Not that impressive, if the message is 'change.'
McCain picked Palin to pander to the base. It says nothing about how conservative he is, and in fact speaks to the fact that he wasn't conservative enough for the base!
No, I was pointing out the dissonance between your use of McCain's 2007 voting record (instead of a more complete one) due to "recency" and your use of Obama's 17-year-old HLR record over his ENTIRE Senate voting record. As for picking Palin showing "conservative tendencies," see above: it simply doesn't.
What happens when you look only at the votes where there was actually a party split? I mean, voting with the 91 in a 91-9 vote doesn't exactly show party unity...
And besides, if that's a joke, both the candidates are comedians. Obama only voted against his party 3% of the time, yet claimed to represent a change from his own party as well as from the Republicans. But you ignore that, preferring to measure change only by divergence from the party in power and neglecting to note what the candidate says he's diverging from.
That's like saying 'President X governed as an extreme conservative only to pander to the base. It says nothing about how conservative he is.' In other words, I think you're describing a meaningless distinction.
If you think there's no distinction between picking a conservative VP and governing by pursuing conservative policies, I have nothing more to say to you.
It's not that there's no distinction. It's that picking Palin is an indication of abnormally conservative tendencies on the part of McCain. It's in direct conflict with the idea that you're promoting, that McCain is more of a centrist than a rightist. Maybe used to be. Not anymore.
Maybe the real point is that it's hard to know what McCain is, because it seems to depend on which way the wind is blowing. Even more so than with most politicians.