Obama and Sex Education
The McCain campaign not long ago released an ad claiming that Obama favored comprehensive sex education starting in Kindergarten. Here’s the ad:
There was much complaining from Obama supporters that this claim was a “lie.” However, it turns out to not be a lie at all. Thus making those spreading the “McCain is lying his way to the White House” meme look pretty foolish.
Honestly, in reading the description of the program, I’d have no problem with sharing that information with young kids; I’ve always given my kids as much detail as they want. However, while this sex ed issue could hurt Obama, shrieks of “liar liar!” will probably hurt him more. Better to change the subject I’d say.
91 comments
i think there’s still a great, gasping divide between the claim of "comprehensive sex education" for kindergarteners that McCain claims Obama endorses, and the "age-appropriate" education that Obama actually endorses.
distortion, lie, less than the truth. whatever you want to call it. but yes, as someone pointed out in a different thread, the state of politics is such that it’s probably better not to admit that you didn’t expect McCain to put out dishonest attack ads.
"great, gasping divide" is in the eye of the beholder.
zach,
The Obama campaign’s reply was that this was just about protecting children from predators, good touches and bad touches was I believe the expression that was used.
That certainly doesn’t sound like: "They include teaching children 5-8 years old about homosexuality, names for body parts and specific details about how a baby is made."
That sounds somewhat comprehensive to me. In any event, I don’t think you can make a case that McCain’s ad was further from the truth then Obama’s response to the ad.
The sex education for little kids isn’t an issue that is particularly bothersome to me, but a whole lot of parents are very concerned by it, and I think schools have exacerbated the problem over the years.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Service
I’d like an explanation as to how this is a "dishonest" attack ad. In what sense? It’s very clear from reading the material I linked that the program in question is detailed I’ve also yet to hear what positive things Obama has actually done on education, other than that.
I don’t see any dishonesty here; where is it?
As with most things, this is simply a Rorschach test for the observer. What I, as a conservative, view as "comprehensive sex education" almost certainly qualifies as "age appropriate sex education" to "progressives" who think that five year olds need to be read "Why Billy has two daddies" as a bedtime story.
Two different worlds folks. It’s a lie in one and the absolute truth in the other.
As far as the "liar, liar pants on fire" approach hurting the Obama campaign, well, so far it seems to be working pretty well. Just as it has worked against GW Bush. One thing the Left has learned is that calling conservatives evil, lying criminals is a reliable way to lower conservative poll numbers. So it’s no surprise Obama is using that technique.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Socialized Financial Systems?
Dean, it’s simple. If you don’t see a "great, gasping divide" — and I honestly believe zach when he says he doesn’t — then the McCain ad is dishonest.
If you see "teaching children 5-8 years old about homosexuality, names for body parts and specific details about how a baby is made" as "comprehensive", then the ad is spot on, and Senator Obama is a whiner.
And if you fall in the middle — no problem with the material yourself, but you sympathize with parents who disapprove and feel they should have a say in how this is presented to their children — then the ad and the response are politics as usual.
Or shorter: what Cosmic said.
Zach,
The thing is, McCain’s ad didn’t say that Obama endorses comprehensive sex ed for kindergarteners. His ad said that Obama’s one education-related accomplishment is voting for a bill that includes comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners. Obama voted for the bill, and the bill does contain language about what should be in comprehensive sex education for grades K-12.
There’s nothing false or even misleading in that ad; Obama’s best defense is probably incompetence (he didn’t actually read the bill or know what was in it before voting on it).
ctl,
whether that’s obama’s best defense or not depends on whether you think voting for the bill is indefensible on its own merits, which I doubt he would be ready to concede.
Dean and others,
okay. thinking about this harder i think i see the point. i still believe the ad is misleading, but all ads are misleading. the (to me) plain implication in the ad is that obama is trying to teach your 5 year olds how to put on a condom, wheras that’s not the point at all. The point, as I read the language in the SIECUS guidelines, is that children at all ages are naturally curious, and if these topics get brought up in a kindergarten classroom (either by the kids themselves in the form of innocent questions, or else by individual decisions made by the school board and community), there should be some guidance supplied to teachers so they aren’t out there on their own. In that sense I see it more as a "this far and no further" set of limits, rather than, as I think the McCain campaign would like the guidlines to be read, as a "minimum acceptable level of instruction."
…there should be some guidance supplied to teachers so they aren’t out there on their own.
How about this guidance for appropriate responses to kindergarten sex questions -
Kindergartener: Teacher, how are babies made?
Teacher: You should ask your parent(s) that question.
There now the teachers aren’t out there on their own.
Here is the list for K-3 recommendations:
A. Grades K-3:
1. Good touch, bad touch
2. Understanding body parts, proper anatomical names, stages in basic growth process
3. Communicable/non-communicable diseases, the concept
4. Behaviors that reduce the spread of communicable diseases (washing hands, not sharing eating utensils, using Kleenex)
5. Accepting of their uniqueness and a positive regard for themselves and others
6. Recognize risk behaviors (sharing body fluids) and methods of prevention
7. Unsafe objects (needles, broken glass, drug paraphernalia)
8. Refusal skills, role playing
9. Personal hygiene
10. Emotional development
The only thing really troubling here is number two. What do they mean by "understanding body parts"? How detailed can you get with 5-8 year olds?
What do they mean by "stages in basic growth process"? Are 5-8 year olds going to be taught about puberty? Or how babies are made? Once again, how much can 5-8 year olds understand and how much do they need to understand?
We told our then 3 1/2 year old son that his baby brother was growing in mama’s belly and that when we went to the hospital, the doctor would get him out. It ended up being literal because he was a C-section, but that is what we would have told him anyway. Even now, at 5, we wouldn’t go into any more detail than that. It just wouldn’t be appropriate and he wouldn’t even understand most of it anyway.
Dean,
This ad says that the bill called for "comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners," and that is simply not true, by any normal meaning of the world "comprehensive". It would be like describing teaching kindergarteners to count as comprehensive mathematics instruction.
Furthermore, the ad describes this bill as "Obama’s one eduction accomplishment." Obama was not a sponsor or cosponsor of this bill. This bill never passed the Ill Senate. So it was not anyone’s accomplishment. Obama’s connection to the bill is he voted for it in a committee.
According to factcheck.org, Obama does have real Eduction accomplishments:
He was a cosponsor of what became the Chicago Education Reform Act of 2003, which allowed for an increase in the number of Chicago charter schools and required the Chicago Board of Education to enter into a formal partnership with the Chicago Teachers Union to "advance the Chicago Public Schools to the next level of education reform." He was also a cosponsor of a bipartisan bill to help Illinois high school graduates be eligible for in-state college tuition rates even if they weren’t U.S. citizens.
On the federal level, Obama sponsored three amendments to The America COMPETES Act, which became law in 2007. All three amendments were passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and became law. One amendment proposed language that would create a mentoring program for women and minority groups during their studies in Department of Energy programs. He also proposed language to support summer learning programs and boost their math curricula. And he put forward a requirement that women and minorities be represented in the President’s Science and Technology Summit. Whether or not one considers any of these measures earth-shaking, they’re accomplishments nonetheless
The quotes at the beginning of the ad about Obama’s record on education are also misleading and in some cases improperely attributed. Most of those sources are more critical of McCain’s education policy than Obama’s.
You can go read what factcheck.org has to say for yourself:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html
In short almost nothing in this ad passes a smell test. Everything it says is either factually incorrect or stated in a way to totally mislead. That in my book is a lie.
Heh…
When you are reduced to listing AMENDMENTS to existing bills as "accomplishments" of your candidate, I’m pretty sure you aren’t actually making the point you are attempting to make.
Just for the record, these sorts of amendments are sort of like voting "present" on a bill. It’s not about leadership, it’s about getting your name on something in some way.
ROTFLMAO!!
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..November 5th, 2008?
Actually Mike I think you need to read the article I linked on the front page, since it addresses your claims quite well. FactCheck doesn’t always get everything right, even if they usually do. TexasAgo already quoted from it above describing this fairly comprehensive education set for Kindergarteners (which by the way I wouldn’t object to, but some parents obviously would). The education includes all the basics about penises, vaginas, babies, etc. That’s pretty comprehensive as far as I can tell. YMMV.
Dean, I did read the story you linked to. It is obviously McCain campaign propaganda. It repeatedly describes the bill as "Obama’s legislation," which is simply not true.
This ad is a classic smear of the worst possible type. The ad is trying to suggest that Obama wants to teach Kingergarteners how to use condoms. It uses images to try to scare voters into believing Obama is a sex pervert. It is the most despicable kind of political smear imaginable.
It would be like claiming the John McCain cared so little about his family he left his children in the care of a drug adict.
Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but the fact that the document is titled “Guidelines For COMPREHENSIVE Sexuality Education” might have something to do with the choice of words in the McCain ad.
Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but the fact that the document is titled “Guidelines For COMPREHENSIVE Sexuality Education” might have something to do with the choice of words in the McCain ad.
Yeah, and if I have document on "Comprehensive Mathematics education" for kindergarten through 12th graders, and it mentions algebra, that means it proposes to teach algebra to kindergarteners?
That is the level of this argument.
Mike,
Can you explain a little more clearly why the bill that Obama voted for used the phrase "comprehensive sex education" for K-12 and yet McCain’s add is lying by using the phrase "comprehensive sex education"?
Why is using the actual language of the thing that Obama actually voted for deceptive?
(Incidentally, "one accomplishment" is obvious puffery, like "best burghers in town". No reasonable person would take that as a statement of objective fact: it’s clearly a judgment.)
Mikeca:
"This ad is a classic smear of the worst possible type. The ad is trying to suggest that Obama wants to teach Kingergarteners how to use condoms. It uses images to try to scare voters into believing Obama is a sex pervert. It is the most despicable kind of political smear imaginable. "
Hmm…. as despicable as Democrat ads in 2000 suggesting that Bush supports lynching of black men? As despicable as Obama’s ad on McCain’s lack of email mastery (when his wife answers all of his emails for him each night because the REAL torture he suffered from his stay in Vietnam leaves him unable to type on a keyboard for long periods?)
As despicable as ads that call GW Bush a liar because of policy differences? As despicable as ads in 2000 that suggested a Bush election would result in rampant burning of black churches?
You have remarkably selective outrage mikeca….
But then, we already knew that, didn’t we?
As far as I’m concerned, this is fairly typical stuff, and it comes in more or less equal measure from both sides.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..I blame Bush
Equating sex ed with mathematics is a pretty smooth bait-and-switch, there. If you’re aware of any significant political or social debate on the subject of algebra teaching, I’m all ears.
Meanwhile, here are excerpts from the bill in question:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS.
…
(a) If any school district provides courses of
8 instruction designed to promote wholesome and comprehensive
9 understanding of the emotional, psychological, physiological,
10 hygienic and social responsibility aspects of family life,
11 then such courses of instruction shall include the teaching
12 of prevention of unintended pregnancy and all options related
13 to unintended pregnancy, as the alternatives to abortion,
14 appropriate to the various grade levels; and whenever such
15 courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K 6
16 through 12, then such courses also shall include age
17 appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually
18 transmitted infections, including the prevention,
19 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS.
…
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 6 through 12 on the prevention of
33 sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention,
-10- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS, public and environmental
2 health, consumer health, safety education and disaster
3 survival, mental health and illness, personal health habits,
4 alcohol, drug use, and abuse including the medical and legal
5 ramifications of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, abuse during
6 pregnancy, sexual abstinence until marriage, tobacco,
7 nutrition, and dental health.
(b) All comprehensive health education programs
9 established under this Act shall satisfy the following
10 criteria:
11 (1) Factual information presented in course
12 material and instruction shall be medically accurate and
13 objective.
14 (2) All course material and instruction in classes
15 that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or
16 behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
17 (3) Course material and instruction shall include a
18 discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent
19 unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections,
20 including HIV.
21 (4) Course material and instruction shall present
22 the latest medically factual information regarding both
23 the possible side effects and health benefits of all
24 forms of contraception, including the success and failure
25 rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually
26 transmitted infections, including HIV.
27 (5) Course material and instruction shall stress
28 that sexually transmitted infections are serious possible
29 hazards of sexual activity or behavior. Pupils shall be
30 provided with statistics based on the latest medical
31 information citing the failure and success rates of all
32 methods of contraception in preventing HIV and other
33 sexually transmitted infections.
34 (6) Course material and instruction shall advise
-11- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1 pupils that it is unlawful for males or females of any
2 age to engage in sexual conduct or have sexual relations
3 with a minor as specified in Article 12 of the Criminal
4 Code of 1961.
5 (7) Course material and discussion shall discuss
6 and provide for the development of positive communication
7 skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid
8 unwanted sexual activity.
9 (8) Course material and instruction shall emphasize
10 that the pupil has the power to control personal
11 behavior. Pupils shall be encouraged to base their
12 actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of
13 responsibility, self-control, and ethical considerations,
14 such as respect for oneself and others.
15 (9) Course material and instruction shall teach
16 pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual
17 advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances
18 and shall include information about verbal, physical, and
19 visual sexual harassment, including without limitation
20 nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical
21 sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course
22 material and instruction shall contain methods of
23 preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including
24 exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that
25 impairs one’s judgment. The course material and
26 instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and
27 respect for others and shall also encourage youth to
28 resist negative peer pressure. The course material and
29 instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal
30 consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance.
31 Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful
32 to touch an intimate part of another person as specified
33 in the Criminal Code of 1961.
34 (10) Course material and instruction shall teach
-12- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1 male pupils about male accountability for sexual violence
2 and shall teach female students about reducing
3 vulnerability for sexual violence.
4 (11) Course material and instruction shall teach
5 pupils about counseling, medical, and legal resources
6 available to survivors of sexual abuse and sexual
7 assault, including resources for escaping violent
8 relationships.
9 (12) Course material and instruction in classes
10 that discuss sexual activity or behavior shall teach
11 pupils that it is wrong to take advantage of or to
12 exploit another person.
13 (13) Course material and instruction shall be free
14 of racial, ethnic, gender, religious, or sexual
15 orientation biases.
…
Sec. 2. Definitions. In this Act, the following terms
-9- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1 shall have the following meanings respectively prescribed for
2 them, except as the context otherwise requires:
3 (a) "Comprehensive Health Education Program": a
4 systematic and extensive educational program designed to
5 provide a variety of learning experiences based upon
6 scientific knowledge of the human organism as it functions
7 within its environment which will favorably influence the
8 knowledge, attitudes, values and practices of Illinois school
9 youth; and which will aid them in making wise personal
10 decisions in matters of health.
The confusion here is simple, really: it’s a monstrously huge bill drafted by committee; and like most such, it contradicts itself. In some areas, it clearly calls for teaching about STDs at the kindergarten level if family life is taught at that level. In other areas, it just as clearly insists that all curricula be "age appropriate", ignoring the fact that many parents won’t consider any discussion of STDs to be age appropriate for kindergarteners.
Oh, and one more source of confusion: never once does the bill even allude to a definition of "age appropriate"; but early on, it very clearly does support "instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS." for children as young as kindergarten. Given that, is it any wonder that worried parents assume "age appropriate" is a euphemism for "anything we want"?
This bill, as drafted, is a disaster. That’s the real problem.
Mikeca,
"The ad is trying to suggest that Obama wants to teach Kingergarteners how to use condoms."
The ad never mentions the word "condom". If you get to make these sort of assumptions of intent about McCain’s ad, why don’t we get to make similar assumptions of intent about the bill that Obama voted for?
Can you explain a little more clearly why the bill that Obama voted for used the phrase "comprehensive sex education" for K-12 and yet McCain’s add is lying by using the phrase "comprehensive sex education"?
I just did explain this.
There is a big difference between
1) "comprehensive, age appropriate, sex education for K-12"
2) "comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners."
Number 2 implies you want to teach every thing to kindergarteners, whereas 1 implies that it will be taught in an age appropriate manner between K and 12th grade.
As I said before, a plan for "Comprehensive Mathematics education in K-12" does not mean you want to teach algebra to kindergarteners.
Oh, and one more source of confusion: never once does the bill even allude to a definition of "age appropriate"
The definition of age appropriate is left to local school boards.
I suppose you want your state government deciding what is age appropriate rather than your local school board?
When the opening section says "teach STD prevention to kindergarteners", the state government has just declared that age appropriate, without giving judgment to the local school boards. And no, parents don’t want them doing that. I’m glad you finally understand what was wrong with this bill.
And hey, the state (and federal) governments decide what’s appropriate to teach when it comes to evolution……
Sorry, couldn’t resist that one. For the record, I don’t have a problem with the bill or its goals, but I can see how some people would. It sounds like a bunch of political gibberish that doesn’t clarify anything, which is probably not unintentional.
And I have no problems with the McCain ad. I don’t see any lies there. It’s just a classic button-pusher.
Mike,
Ok, now that you’ve talked about some other bill than the one that Obama voted for, would you mind talking about the one that said:
"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."
And:
"All sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior shall satisfy the following criteria:…(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."
and critera 5:
"(5) Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of the possible consequences of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV."
You’re correct that criteria 2 is that the material be "age and developmentally appropriate", but there’s nothing which says that criteria 2 supersedes all later criteria. Indeed, since they come later, one assumes that they supersede previous criteria where there’s a conflict; that’s normally how one lists directives.
When the opening section says "teach STD prevention to kindergarteners", the state government has just declared that age appropriate, without giving judgment to the local school boards. And no, parents don’t want them doing that. I’m glad you finally understand what was wrong with this bill.
Below is one section of the bill that discusses this. Note that is says, if a school teaches a sex ed class in K-12 that is "designed to promote wholesome and comprehensive understanding" of the responsibilities of family life, then it must include pregnancy prevention and STDs. It does not require that such classes be taught in kindergarten. It only says, if your school is already teaching a sex ed class in some grade, it needs to include pregnancy prevention and STDS.
If any school district provides courses of
8 instruction designed to promote wholesome and comprehensive
9 understanding of the emotional, psychological, physiological,
10 hygienic and social responsibility aspects of family life,
11 then such courses of instruction shall include the teaching
12 of prevention of unintended pregnancy and all options related
13 to unintended pregnancy, as the alternatives to abortion,
14 appropriate to the various grade levels; and whenever such
15 courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K 6
16 through 12, then such courses also shall include age
17 appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually
18 transmitted infections, including the prevention,
19 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. However, no pupil shall
20 be required to take or participate in any family life class
21 or course on HIV AIDS instruction if his parent or guardian
22 submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or
23 participate in such course or program shall not be reason for
24 suspension or expulsion of such pupil.
I love this.
ctl and Martin post quotes from the bill that absolutely incontrovertably provide proof that the bill as written provides the potential for teaching kindergartners about sexually transmitted diseases and sexual behavior in general and mikeca posts quotes from the same bill that could be interpreted to suggest that what is taught to a kindergartner might be different from what is taught to a high school senior.
In other words, to mikeca it simply doesn’t matter what the bill says in one place, if he can use some part of it from a different place to rebut it.
In other words, from mikeca’s perspective the parts of the bill you are quoting DON’T MATTER.
In other words, mikeca isn’t really concerned with whether the ad is TECHNICALLY ACCURATE he only cares that it is something that Republicans can beat Obama about the head and shoulders with, and THAT BY ITSELF makes it unfair, and therefore a "lie."
That’s how it works in mikeca’s version of reality.
See, the fundamental principle is you must not attack The One! All else is simply parsing.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..I blame Bush
Link to the bill was broken. Try this.
Oh, one more comment…
This is undoubtedly a bill that Obama SHOULD have voted "present" on.
By the way, I don’t think Obama consciously voted to teach kindergartners sex ed and STD prevention. Surely he’s smarter than that. What I DO think is that he voted on this bill based on coaching from his lobbyists who represented this as a bill to help children, which it no doubt was intended to do.
What this does prove is that Obama voted "yes" on a very poorly written bill that could be interpreted a number of ways without a realization of the potential political football it would create in any future election campaign.
Which doesn’t sound like a very ringing endorsement of his political savvy to me…
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..I blame Bush
ctl and Martin post quotes from the bill that absolutely incontrovertably provide proof that the bill as written provides for teaching kindergartners about sexually transmitted diseases and sexual behavior in general and mikeca posts quotes from the same bill that could be interpreted to suggest that what is taught to a kindergartner might be different from what is taught to a high school senior.
Note to Cosmic, I think you better improve you English reading ability. The sentence
"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."
Does NOT require classes on STD in kindergarten, unless the school is already teaching a comprehensive sex education class in kindergarten, which, of course, no school district is. The section of the bill I posted makes this clear.
CC,
Actually, we don’t prove that the bill provides to teaching STDs to kindergarteners. The bill, as written, is unclear and perhaps (depending on your view of whether STDs and all forms of contraception are age and developmentally appropriate for kindergarteners) contradictory.
In Mikeca’s favor, it’s plausible that people wouldn’t have implemented it in the straightforward, standard way, instead preferring some clauses to others in order to produce the result that they felt most sensible. That’s a far cry from McCain’s ad being a lie, though. The most favorable interpretation for Obama that I can see is that as a legislator he would vote for bills that he never read.
mikeca:
What I am trying to tell you is that the bill AS WRITTEN can be ACCURATELY DESCRIBED as a bill that WOULD ALLOW kindergartners to be taught STD protection and sexual information.
I’m not saying that your interpretation isn’t ALSO accurate, I’m saying that AS WRITTEN the McCain ad is TECHNICALLY ACCURATE.
No matter how much you don’t like it.
Now, as to the question of whether the ad is FAIR or not.
Of course not. It’s purely an attack ad that is taking an issue and twisting it around as far as it can be twisted to turn it into a hammer to beat Obama with.
That’s sort of what politics is all about.
Hey, Mike, have you seen the ad showing another ex-POW complaining how McCain was a “hot-head” when he was being tortured in Hanoi?
Wondering what you think about THAT ad, since THIS ad is apparently the worst ad ever.
And yes, I know that ad isn’t an Obama campaign ad. I think it’s an ad produced by Howard Dean’s brother using money from a Howard Dean foundation.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..I blame Bush
ctl:
I said that your quotes provide the proof that the bill provides the POTENTIAL for teaching kindergartners STD protection, not that it WILL teach it.
Nobody actually thinks that the bill truly intended to promote such things.
I’m not defending the bill, nor am I saying anything aobut Obama’s educational program.
I’m simply saying that to call the McCain ad a "lie" is to completely misstate the word "lie".
Or to put it another way, it is a LIE to call the ad a "lie."
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..I blame Bush
CC,
I agree with your take on the situation. I just objected to your use of the word "incontrovertible".
Mikeca,
You’re correct that the bill wouldn’t require comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners. But that’s not what the ad said. It said, "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education… to kindergartners". Now, the fact that the bill changed the covered grades from 6 down to kindergarten is suggestive, and in any event this was clearly legislation "to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners". It describes in some detail mandatory components of that sex ed.
It wasn’t legislation to make sex ed for Ks mandatory, but the McCain ad didn’t say anything about mandatory sex ed.
Incidentally, I don’t think that you can worm your way out of this by saying that the schools would only teach incomprehensive sex ed; it would be idiotic to provide positive requirements only for comprehensive sex ed, while letting non-comprehensive sex ed omit anything that it wants. If that were the case, this law couldn’t accomplish anything at all, since anyone omitting medically relevant information about HIV would by definition be teaching non-comprehensive sex ed and thus not qualify. So if this part of the bill Obama voted for isn’t completely pointless, it must realistically be viewed as encouraging sex ed for kindergarten students.
Well, I poked around a bit, and I found an education related bill Obama sponsored that was passed while he was in the IL Senate. So that part about “one accomplishment” in the ad could technically be considered a lie.
Not sure that it would win many conservative converts though:
Snippet:
Public Act 93-0406 SB890 Enrolled LRB093 10614 NHT 10900 b AN ACT concerning education. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The School Code is amended by changingSection 27-21 as follows: (105 ILCS 5/27-21) (from Ch. 122, par. 27-21) Sec. 27-21. History of United States. History of theUnited States shall be taught in all public schools and inall other educational institutions in this State supported ormaintained, in whole or in part, by public funds. Theteaching of history shall have as one of its objectives theimparting to pupils of a comprehensive idea of our democraticform of government and the principles for which ourgovernment stands as regards other nations, including thestudying of the place of our government in world-widemovements and the leaders thereof, with particular stressupon the basic principles and ideals of our representativeform of government. The teaching of history shall include astudy of the role and contributions of African Americans andother ethnic groups including but not restricted to Polish,Lithuanian, German, Hungarian, Irish, Bohemian, Russian,Albanian, Italian, Czech, Slovak, French, Scots, Hispanics,Asian Americans, etc., in the history of this country andthis State. The teaching of history also shall include astudy of the role of labor unions and their interaction withgovernment in achieving the goals of a mixed free enterprisesystem. No pupils shall be graduated from the eighth gradeof any public school unless he has received such instructionin the history of the United States and gives evidence ofhaving a comprehensive knowledge thereof.(Source: P.A. 92-27, eff. 7-1-01.)
Yes, let’s legislate what "history" means so that we can make sure the kiddies are taught what we WANT them to be taught…
And gotta make sure they are taught about labor unions…
I hope they do teach about labor unions, the good and the bad.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..I blame Bush
ctl:
Well, I think "incontrovertable" is actually just redundant. If it’s proof, it doesn’t need to be "incontrovertable" you can’t get more "proof" than "proof." It was sort of like saying "singularly unique."
It was pure and simple verbosity. Heh.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..I blame Bush
I said that your quotes provide the proof that the bill provides the POTENTIAL for teaching kindergartners STD protection, not that it WILL teach it.
Nobody actually thinks that the bill truly intended to promote such things.
What the ad actually says is "Obama’s one accomplishment, legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners". Now you admit that nobody actually believes that the bill was intended to do that. So everyone who claims it does is lying?
Hey, Mike, have you seen the ad showing another ex-POW complaining how McCain was a “hot-head” when he was being tortured in Hanoi?
I think I have. He is not the only one to say that. At least one prominent Republican Senator said the same thing during the primaries. Have you seen this Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g
These guys seem to think McCain is a traitor to the US, aided the enemy while a prisoner, and used his position in the Senate to obstruct investigations of MIA to cover up his own treason. You will notice a number or prominent Republicans (and some nut cases like Bob B-1 Dornan) in this video. If you think the swift boaters were just fine, then I suppose you would be ok with a an ad charging McCain with treason and obstruction to cover it up?
By the way, I think these guys are conspiracy nut cases who should not be taken seriously.
Mike:
Seriously, do you want some cheese with your whine?
The ad is accurate enough to stand on its own. Yes it is intentionally twisting the intent of the bill to get at Obama. If you think this is unique to this campaign, or that from OUR side a lot of Obama’s ads don’t look just as disingenuous, you are so blinded by partisanship that you can’t be reasoned with. BOTH SIDES do this, and both sides have DONE this sort of thing since the beginning of the Republic. What ctl, Martin and I find so funny here is your faux outrage. Or if it isn’t faux outrage, it’s simple overt partisanship. In other words, get over it. I’ve seen worse ads on both sides, and the "GW Bush approves lynching" or "Voting for GW Bush will lead to black church burnings" ads are still, by far, the most offensive political ads I’ve ever seen. This is downright policy wonk tame in comparison.
Now on to the Dean brothers’ attempt to out swift-boat the swift boaters.
I think it’s hilarious. I think it will backfire like crazy. People will watch this and ask themselves "Gee, if I were stuck in a four foot by four foot bamboo cage and beaten within an inch of my life day after day, would I get a little hot-headed? Damn right!"
Now, as far as claims that McCain was actually a traitor? Go for it mike. All I can say is take your best shot.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..I blame Bush
Oh, and in case you missed the reference to the Anti-McCain POW ad, it CLEARLY is tied directly to Howard Dean. You know, the SAME Howard Dean who is the HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
At least with the Swift Boat ads the Republican Party and the Bush campaign could plausibly claim that they were unaware of and did not approve of them.
Anyone who doubts that the DNC and Howard Dean DID approve of this new ad has the mental faculties of a turnip.
So mikeca, how do you feel about your wonderful Democrat party now that your DNC Chairperson is underwriting ads that are TRULY vile? Where is your outrage over this? Are you going to write Howard Dean a letter demanding an explanation?
Or are you going to continue to strain at Republican gnats while eagerly swallowing Democrat camels?
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..I blame Bush
Mikeca,
Actually, when you get down to it, the only sensible way for criteria 2 and criteria 4 & 5 to not contradict each other (and they’re on the same page, so no one could plausibly not notice them together) is either to believe that criteria 4&5 (comprehensive contraception & unwanted pregnancy) are appropriate for everyone in K-12, or that no one will ever teach sex ed in kindergarten. The fact that they’ve amended grades 6-12 to K-12 makes it unlikely that they think that no one will create a sex ed class for kindergarteners. It’s plausible, of course, but it seems suspect: "I voted for this bill because I think that it will never be applied" is dubious reasoning at best.
The ad is accurate enough to stand on its own. Yes it is intentionally twisting the intent of the bill to get at Obama.
You have a rather twisted sense of accuracy. You admit that almost every fact claimed in the ad is wrong or is a misrepresentation, but you still think the ad is accurate enough.
McCain talks a lot about honor. What is so shocking about this ad is what it says about McCain. McCain is a graduate of the US Naval Academy. The Honor Concept of the US Naval Academy says:
"Midshipmen are persons of integrity: They stand for that which is right.
They tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known. They do not lie.
This ad is far, far from the full truth. McCain has violated his own code of honor. He is no more a man of honor than any hack politician.
*sigh*
Democrats (Obama particularly) claim that Republicans (McCain) don’t want to talk about policy matters….
but when they do, the Democrats just respond with "liar liar liar"….
… and then go back to claiming Republicans don’t want to talk policy.
I’ve lived that dream there. It’s called "Abusive Relationship".
mike:
What I have is an accurate sense of accuracy. What you are demonstrating is an inability to recognize the difference between content and intent. You demonstrated exactly the same inability on the lipstick on a pig issue.
Because you have discerned that the intent of the ad in question is to use accurate content to create a negative impression of Obama you have concluded that the content itself must be wrong.
Now you may be correct in questioning the motives of the McCain campaign, and you may be correct in asserting that the accurate content of the ad is being used to create a false impression, that is not what you said. You said the ad itself was a lie. It is not. Obama did vote for that bill. That bill as written does provide the opportunity to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners. You can try to parse it away all you want, but nobody here is buying it.
Complain all you like that Obama is being misrepresented. But stop calling the ad a lie.
Quite frankly when I compare this ad to the Obama campaign’s deliberate smear against McCain over the email thing, I find the Obama ad far more viscerally offensive and far less objectively accurate. Yet I hear no objection from you on that ad, even though it quite literally targets McCain’s injuries from torture during his captivity in Vietnam. So spare me your partisan selective outrage mike. I ain’t buying it.
For shame mike, for shame.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..I blame Bush
Mikeca,
So, why on earth would Obama have voted for that ad if he thought that the critera 4 and 5 requirements wouldn’t be age appropriate for kindergarteners? Is he incomeptent (didn’t bother to read the bill)? Stupid (couldn’t understand the bill even though he read it)?
I assume you must believe in a fourth option. What is it? Why did Obama vote in favor of this bill, given what the bill actually says?
I think schools should be teaching kids how to read, rather than vague notions about sex, hygiene, and their penises.
HB
From what I had heard through the grapevine was, "age appropriate sex education" for kindergardners was "good touches" and "bad touches". This has been appropriate since I was a kid and was discussed for like a day in school if I remember correctly.
A relatively good site that takes some of the work out of doing the research for this type of spin (for those of us with school, a job, and a life that doesn’t allows us to keep track of politics 8 hours a day) is factcheck.org they have an article here describing the various details that make this spin. Yes they attack Obama ads as well and it is fairly non-biased from what I can tell.
An article detailing the attack on Obama regarding sex-ed
I think schools should be teaching kids how to read, rather than vague notions about sex, hygiene, and their penises.
I always wondered why this had to be an issue in schools also Hank. It makes being a parent more of a job I guess when you have to explain it to your kids yourself…
Uh, can I just mention again that some of you guys might want to actually read the materials I linked on the front page? Which (amongst other things) notes where FactCheck.org got it wrong too? (They’re no more perfect than anyone).
Isn’t FactCheck.org owned by one of Obama’s main financial and political backers?
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Well, I’ve been waiting for this
CC,
factcheck.org is owned and operated by the annenberg foundation, which afaik is not a backer of the obama campaign.
jrogge,
Thanks, but I’ll take reading the bill itself over factcheck.org.
I was about to post what zach did. The Annenberg Public Policy Center is part of the University of Pennsylvania.
Also, while factcheck.org is not necessarily infallible, they do apply scrutiny to both candidates and I don’t think they’re particularly partisan.
Elizabeth,
How is something that’s part of a university not partisan? If anything, that would practically guarantee that they favor democrats.
I skimmed the factcheck.org article on this, and it was either written by an Obama partisan or someone with the critical thinking skills of a sea cucumber.
Are you sure there’s no connection between Obama and the Annenbergs?
I think Obama served on the board (was actually the chairman) of the Chicago chapter of the Annenberg foundation (an organization that seemed to accomplish absolutlely nothing, I might add). I am also pretty sure that the Annenberg family is a heavy contributor to the Obama campaign.
If there were similar connections between a supposedly "non-partisan" organization and McCain or Palin, anything they published would be laughed out of respectability.
Perhaps FactCheck.org is principled enough to overlook these connections, but I think people should know this if they are going to quote Factcheck on anything in this race.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..More evidence of the press being just the PR wing of the Democrat party
I love all these amateur legal experts here who claim to have read the bill and believe it absolutely backs up the ad. I read the bill too, and it is clear the bill does not say anything like what the ad claims it says. All of the MSM sources that have looked at the bill say it does not.
Candidates frequently distort their opponents record or take quotes out of context to misrepresent what their opponents said, but to do that to suggest that your opponent wants to teach compressive sex education to kindergardeners and to put that in an ad with pictures designed to suggest your opponent is a sex pervert is way, way over the line.
The fact that all of you cannot see that, says a lot about the moral character of conservatives today.
…pictures designed to suggest your opponent is a sex pervert…
Twice you’ve claimed that now. Which pictures? Unless you have a dirty mind, I can’t see it. Screen captures, please, if you can.
… as opposed to ads designed to make your opponent look like a clueless luddite when the real reason he doesn’t use computers is because of the beatings and torture he took on behalf of the United States.
Oh yeah, mike, your response to that point was a slimy attempt to paint McCain as a traitor to his country.
Yeah, you’ve got such higher moral ideals. Sure you do.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..They just can’t help themselves?
Mikeca,
Does the fact that you apparently can’t read the fairly plain english in a bill reflect more about your intellect or your partisanship?
Isn’t FactCheck.org owned by one of Obama’s main financial and political backers?
If so then they need to start telling factcheck.org to leave Obama’s commercials alone. Besides it has been linked a few times (on this site even) to show the inherent lies in Obamaisms.
Also if that’s the case why does the McCain campaign quote factcheck (or misquote as the case may be) in their commercials?
What this does prove is that Obama voted "yes" on a very poorly written bill that could be interpreted a number of ways without a realization of the potential political football it would create in any future election campaign.
Every Senator is guilty of this if this is the case.
jrogge:
"Everybody does it" is a pretty weak defense of a bad vote on a bad bill.
In fact, I think Obama pretty much hung his hat on the whole idea that he was the VERY ANTITHESIS of "everybody."
So it still matters.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..They just can’t help themselves?
How is something that’s part of a university not partisan? If anything, that would practically guarantee that they favor democrats.
Universities tend to be "partisan" only if you are a right wing radical. Most communities tend to be only concerned with things that affect their mode of function. You have to remember that these Universities tend to have business schools, law schools, and a number of other departments that have plenty of Republican thinkers. If you are thinking of your average "Liberal Arts" teacher, then yes they most likely support Obama. Otherwise it is hard to tell.
The wording of the bill in question does not say, "Grades K-12" it says Grades, "K 6 through 12". Nor, does it say grades K, 6 through 12". This is simply bad language that if unscrupulously interpreted can include Grade K. However this is obviously intended to teach grades 6-12 about STDs.
If it were intended to teach children in kindergarten the language should say "K-12" or something to that effect. The lack of a comma or a hyphon in those passages indicate that the bill is being misinterpreted and that STDs are not the topic of discussion for small children.
The wording of the bill in question does not say, "Grades K-12" it says Grades, "K 6 through 12". Nor, does it say grades K, 6 through 12".
Sorry, wrong. Check the link above. The "6" is struck out in all cases, and the "K" is a substitution for the "6". Some places where the text has been copied and pasted, the strike-through got lost in the process. Somehow that happened when I pasted in text above: the strike-through was there when I edited, gone when the comment appeared. K - 12 is what was intended in the final language.
There was a history of the bill online somewhere recently (National Review, I think). The bill started out "6 - 12"; but after seeking advice from Planned Parenthood, lawmakers decided grade 6 is too late for some kids. So 6 was replaced with K.
The bill is indeed poorly drafted, but not in the sense you think. And yes, it does indeed suggest teaching STD prevention to kindergarteners if they’re being taught any form of comprehensive sex ed. Later passages leave open the possibility that "family life" classes constitute "comprehensive sex ed".
Let’s be clear on the intent here: the clear intent of this bill is "If you teach abstinence at any grade level – even kindergarten – you must also teach contraception and STD prevention." This was a direct response to a push for abstinence-only sex education. It doesn’t mandate teaching contraception and STD prevention in kindergarted unless you’re already teaching abstinence there.
But then later sections of the bill completely muddy the waters, by confusing the whole definition of what constitutes "comprehensive sex ed". From those later sections, it’s entirely reasonable to conclude that "family life" classes count.
This bill is a mess.
… as opposed to ads designed to make your opponent look like a clueless luddite when the real reason he doesn’t use computers is because of the beatings and torture he took on behalf of the United States.
John McCain has described himself as a computer illiterate in several interviews. In one interview he said he "relied on his wife for all the assistance I can get." In another interview he said his staff takes care of email for him. He has never indicated that this is because of his war injuries. In fact, as far as I can tell, the McCain campaign has never claimed this is because of his war injuries, or that section of the ad is unfair.
Some bloggers at NRO apparently came up with this idea that this is related to McCain’s war injuries. Since McCain and the McCain campaign have apparently never said this, I am skeptical.
I think you doth protest to much.
CC,
Obama served on the board of a site of an Annenberg Challenge Grant, which isn’t the same thing. I don’t think there is a Chicago "chapter" of the Annenberg foundation.
The current president of the Annenberg foundation, Leonore Annenberg, donated $47,500 to the RNC in 2004, and $2,300 to McCain in 2008. Her daughter, Wallis (VP of Annenberg), donated $25,000 to the DNC in 2007.
source.
sounds like a bipartisan family to me!
The only thing really troubling here is number two. What do they mean by "understanding body parts"? How detailed can you get with 5-8 year olds?
Most kids my age had the Birds and the Bees talk by this age and yes we knew what a "Penis" was. In fact after reviewing the guidelines as proposed by SEICUS the only additions I see here to the existing curriculum for children is the discussion of diversity and of the fact that homosexuals exist and calling them names is hurtful.
Other than that I see nothing that was not already in place when I was a kid and that was quite awhile ago.
Sorry, wrong. Check the link above. The "6" is struck out in all cases, and the "K" is a substitution for the "6".
Ahh, my apologies I thought it was pasted as is. You are right the definition of “comprehensive sex education” is muddied and therefore it is not a valid criticism to state that Obama wants to teach children about adult matters. It is a valid criticism to say he voted for a poorly written bill, but I guarantee every senator is guilty of that. I found the STD information for ages 5-8 BTW.
Level 1 • Sexually transmitted diseases are caused by germs such as bacteria and viruses.
• There are many types of sexually transmitted diseases.
• People who do not engage in certain behaviors do not get STDs.
• A small number of children are born with STDs that they get from their mothers during pregnancy or birth.
• The most common ways for a person to get an STD is to participate in sexual behavior or share a needle with another person who is already infected with an STD.
• Children who find needles on the ground should not touch them and should tell an adult.
Yes we have education about STDs in the same form when I was younger but they were just called diseases then. People are making it sound like they show videos of coitus to kindergarteners and this is a simple exaggeration.
I think you doth protest to much.
Do you seriously think that the snark persuades anyone of anything other than your partisan blindness?
Also, I’m still waiting for those screen captures which show how this ad paints Senator Obama as a pervert.
People are making it sound like they show videos of coitus to kindergarteners…
Transcript where it says anything remotely like that in the ad, please.
If you’re going to accuse Senator McCain’s ad of exaggerating Senator Obama’s record, it would be more convincing if you could do so without your own exaggerations.
John McCain has described himself as a computer illiterate in several interviews. In one interview he said he "relied on his wife for all the assistance I can get." In another interview he said his staff takes care of email for him. He has never indicated that this is because of his war injuries. In fact, as far as I can tell, the McCain campaign has never claimed this is because of his war injuries, or that section of the ad is unfair.
If John McCain cannot use a computer because of his injuries it must sure be hard to wipe his own ass. Your arms do a lot more work to do that than they do to type, for bending and stretching and all. I wonder if one of the people who defend McCain’s lack of computer use in this manner is his own personal buttwipe. That would explain the intimate knowledge of what he can and can’t do.
Also, I’m still waiting for those screen captures which show how this ad paints Senator Obama as a pervert.
Go watch the ad again. If you cannot see it, then no number of screen captures will convince you.
jrogge:
Classy, real classy.
The original story that ran on McCain’s use of a computer being hampered by his injuries ran in the Boston Globe. Not the National Review.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..They just can’t help themselves?
mike:
If we don’t see them, maybe it’s because they aren’t there. In our world anyway. Who knows what you see in your world.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..They just can’t help themselves?
zach:
Bipartisan or not, the connection is there. Obama was a part of the Annenberg foundation. That’s far more of a direct link than ANY supposed link that the Left has accused the Bush administration of in a variety of circumstances.
I don’t think that link PROVES that Factcheck.org is biased.
But I do think it means you should be careful to accept what they say on the subject.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..They just can’t help themselves?
jrogge: Classy, real classy.
LOL! Sorry my sense of humor is quite crass.
Seriously though, you don’t find this just a little hard to believe? Computers have opened up a world of jobs for the disabled, not the other way around. It’s okay to be computer illiterate. Most people are anyhow. I would imagine it makes him more like most people, not less.
Transcript where it says anything remotely like that in the ad, please. If you’re going to accuse Senator McCain’s ad of exaggerating Senator Obama’s record, it would be more convincing if you could do so without your own exaggerations.
Okay then, tell me why sex education in elementary school is such a big deal then. It’s been being taught for quite some time now. You’re right, the ad does not outright say it, so I guess this whole discussion is over because we can all agree that the ad does not say Obama is teaching kids inappropriate things in school and we’re aware that the guidelines are already being taught in schools. So this whole bill is a non-issue.
However, discussions of approving things that "make parents cringe", as stated in the article, and a number of other hot-under-the-collar protests would have me believe that some of the folks here are interpreting the ad in a way it wasn’t intended to be interpreted and you should direct your little comment at everyone then. Or, join the current discussion going on it’s your choice.
Go watch the ad again. If you cannot see it, then no number of screen captures will convince you.
Translation: you got nothin’, and you know it, and you’re too much of a schmuck to admit it.
Screen caps, or admit you’re making up allegations.
You’re right, the ad does not outright say it, so I guess this whole discussion is over because we can all agree that the ad does not say Obama is teaching kids inappropriate things in school and we’re aware that the guidelines are already being taught in schools. So this whole bill is a non-issue.
So then the whole claim that the ad is a lie — a claim based on just the sort of overheated rhetoric you’re slinging, and the imaginary images that mikeca the pervert sees — is itself false. Thank you.
It has been known for many years now that John McCain can’t raise his arms above his shoulders and cannot tie his own shoes or comb his own hair. Whether he can wipe his ass is not a question I particularly want to ask him, do you JRogge? Come on man.
By the way, I’m not a right-wing radical, but I don’t see how anyone can look at the available data set and NOT admit that in general the university environment skews pretty far left. It’s usually in university towns you find the most radical political groups like Code Pink and such. Surveys of how college teachers vote show better than an 80% skew toward Democrats (yes, I’ll find you references if you don’t believe it). And all you have to do is be an undergrad at a big 4-year university and look around you to see it, common sense will show it to you. I even saw it frequently at the University of Phoenix, which surprised me since it’s so geared toward returning adults in the 25-50 year old range and is proudly a FOR-PROFIT institution.
I have heard the argument before that the leftish skew means less because schools of law and business and Economics and such have plenty of conservatives/Republicans. Yeah, but the schools of Education and Philosophy skew the other way. But even that’s beyond the point!
Most people never go to grad school. In fact, most people don’t even graduate, and of those who do, most do not go to grad school. You have to look at what the Undergrads see and experience. And once again, you only have to look at surveys of what the ACTUAL VOTING PATTERNS OF MOST COLLEGE TEACHERS IS. It’s overwhelmingly Democratic, and in some colleges, the freakin’ GREEN PARTY gets more votes than the Republicans. There is no way to spin that as anything other than a tilt leftward.
The only other excuse I’ve heard is that well, SMART PEOPLE are left-wing, and righties are dumb. Yeah, okay….
A more charitable explanation may be that conservatives are more interested in making money, so they don’t stick around the universities, and then it gets exacerbated by the fact that those who are conservative just generally don’t feel welcome on campus anyway. Make of that what you will.
I will say that, oddly enough, I’ve seen the least political skew in Community Colleges that only offer 2-year degrees, and I’ve been to a few of those. For whatever that’s worth.
CC,
lol, when was obama part of the annenberg foundation? he worked as part of a board that received an annenberg grant. i currently am funded by an nsf grant, i must be part of the government! when do i get my pension?
Translation: you got nothin’, and you know it, and you’re too much of a schmuck to admit it.
Screen caps, or admit you’re making up allegations.
Martin, are you totally computer illiterate? Dean has kindly linked to the video of the ad. I watched it, and I have my opinion of what the graphics mean. You can watch it and form your own opinion. I’m not trying to prove anything to you. I assume you are capable of forming your own opinion.
It has been known for many years now that John McCain can’t raise his arms above his shoulders and cannot tie his own shoes or comb his own hair. Whether he can wipe his ass or not is not a question I particularly want to ask him, do you JRogge? Come on man.
I imagine he can still type. Like I said I don’t particularly care if he can use a computer or not. He’s in his 70’s and I don’t know very many 70’s age people that use computers with alacrity. However I find it funny that no matter what criticism is put forth of the man someone find some unreasonably noble retort that barely borders on common sense. I am sure he could use a computer, it is not strenuous. For the record I am sure he can wipe his own ass too, just in case my sarcasm was taken as literal curiosity.
Most people never go to grad school. In fact, most people don’t even graduate, and of those who do, most do not go to grad school. You have to look at what the Undergrads see and experience.
I do and what I typed is what I am experiencing now. I see plenty of left-wing people and plenty of right-wing people. There are young Republican organizations on campus and plenty for Republicans to do. The only thing is, when they take their required Philosophy course for their gen-ed requirements, they have to put up with their professor’s "left-wing bullshit".
Honestly in the classes I have taken I always had to encounter my professor directly to get ANY political opinion from them. You act as if they are just shoving this stuff down people’s throats and this just isn’t the case. Maybe in some universities this goes on, but not in mine and not in all of them. I highly doubt The Wharton Business School is a liberal think tank, but Berkley just may be.
Actually, if you look at public school voting records there is a large Democratic constituency there as well. However our public schools turn out a lot of Republicans so the voting demographic means little. The young adult population has a lot to do with it as well. The 18-30 demographic is your primary source for Liberals and always has been. What happened to the Old Hippies? Some remained hippies but other went centrist or conservative and got jobs. Today we see the same thing. People act as if the Professors rub their hands and organize liberal takeovers of campuses and this just isn’t happening. In fact the Liberals on campus have caused problems for our administration from time to time, hardly something I think is being encouraged. BTW what happened to YOUR views after leaving the 18-30 age bracket? Weren’t you a Democrat at one point? But you aren’t anymore… see?
I get to hear religious fanatics scream at me that I’m going to hell because I am wearing a Nirvana shirt, but no one reports these little protests and activities. Nope they’re all liberals. I see my University everyday and I can tell you the “liberal bias/brainwashing” idea is a load of crap.
Telling me someone can’t use a computer because if injuries is immediately going to make me skeptical because Stephen Hawking was able to use a computer with an even more crippling illness due to voice activated software. I think he’s finally reached the point to where he can no longer do a lot of things and needs full assistance, but back when he wasn’t that way, and still more crippled than McCain, he found a way to use technology. So sorry, I don’t buy it.
jrogge:
McCain’s injuries make it difficult for him to use a computer for ANY CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME. Sure he can sit down and type out one or two emails without too much trouble I’d guess.
But he gets HUNDREDS of emails and he tries to answer as many as he can. According to stories I’ve seen he dictates his replies to his wife because she can type for hours without the discomfort or pain that John himself endures.
Nobody is saying that McCain can’t type his name on a keyboard. We, and the stories I’ve seen on the subject, are saying that his injuries prevent him from using the computer for the lengths of time that would be necessary for him to answer dozens of emails at a time.
Do you understand that? Can you understand that?
Let me try it this way, if he was a union communication worker who filed a workers comp suit for carpal tunnel syndrome, would you understand it then?
Think carpal tunnel syndrome times, say, 500. Does that help?
By the way, Steven Hawking’s “computer” is a a highly specialized device that can hardly be called a “computer”. Hawking cannot communicate without his. I would be willing to bet you dollars to donuts that if all Hawking needed to do to communicate is dictate to his wife, he would be one hell of a happy dude.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Tennessee State Representative’s son targeted in Palin email hack probe
By the way, Steven Hawking’s “computer” is a a highly specialized device that can hardly be called a “computer”. Hawking cannot communicate without his.
I am referring to normal computers, Hawki