Comments on: Obama: Sex Before Reading? http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:16:14 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: SJC http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-513439 SJC Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:01:05 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-513439 Obama's argument in defense of his voting to pass this bill as he states it was simply to open up the teaching of what was appropriate and inappropriate touching to children specifically kindergartners, to protect them from predators and molestation. Does anyone realize that the argument set forth by Obama and the Obama campaign to counter the McCain campaign ad, belies and undermines the very argument Obama sets forth? This is the argument being repeated by Obama’s defenders and parroted by his surrogates and the media [CNN, MSNBC, and most disappointing the alleged non-partisan group factcheck.org], (add-infinitum). On their website factcheck.org covers this issue in the article “Off Base on Sex Ed”. In the article factcheck.org spends the bulk of its discussion misdirecting the reader and misrepresenting the ad by filling their article with the defense that Obama has previously put forth and leveling the strongest charge against the ad for its claim that this bill was “Obama’s one accomplishment”. Granted this statement is a bit of dramatic license open to subjective interpretation by those viewing Obama’s record. However what is not open to interpretation is the degree to which factcheck.org misrepresents the ad and misdirects the reader in it’s zealous defense of Obama by stating that Obama “does not support elicit sex education to kindergartners” a charge one would assume by the statement was presented in the ad but when viewed was never stated nor leveled by the McCain campaign! This is a talking point put forth by Obama and his campaign and parroted by factcheck.org in deliberate defense of Obama. And since when did factcheck.org employ mind readers and individuals that are able to divine the inner motives of Senator Obama to what he does or does not support in his heart. It’s in his actions that he needs to be held accountable not his statements of defense after the fact. Let his actions speak for themselves. Factcheck.org needs to stick to the facts of candidates actions not what they say were or were not their motives in defense of their voting record. Did Obama vote for this bill or did he not and did it or did it not contain a “Comprehensive Sex Education Program” for Kindergartners. Regardless of whether it was to be age appropriate or not and regardless of what Obama’s intentions are or are not is not relevant in coming to this fact. Defenses on behalf of Obama where also reiterated by Viveca Novak of factcheck.org when she appeared on CNN. Viveca Novak states: “What he (Obama) wanted to do was to increase the range of some form of sex education, K-12”. This is a clear admission yet minimized and obviously parsed by Viveca that Obama wanted to expand sex education to kindergarten when it was previously only available to grades 6-12. The parsing comes in when she minimizes using the words “some form” because she knows this is a comprehensive sex education bill. Viveca Novak continues, “But the thing he (Obama) was interested in having kids at a young age learn about was inappropriate sexual advances that might be made against them”. This is clearly the talking points of the Obama campaign reiterated by a so called non-partisan group factcheck.org, voiced by Viveca Novak! Going back to the “Off Base On Sex Ed” article factcheck.org goes on to concede under the heading “A Factual Failure” that the words “Comprehensive Sex Education” “does appear in the bill”. Factcheck’s wording would lead us to believe that this is simply an insignificant phrase in the bill. Only after reading the actual bill one can come to no other conclusion than that this bill is the very definition of the words “Comprehensive Sex Education”. It contains no less than 46 imperatives using the emphatic word “Shall” to command that all individual criteria particulars be taught and met in this Comprehensive Sex Education Program. No less than 46 because the counting was ceased after starting into the top of page 5 with 3 more pages not counted! Granted there is some repeating of the articles in the bill but no one can conclude after reading it that it isn’t truly comprehensive and all particular sections must be met and taught and it gives no allowance for leaving any particular untaught. The factcheck article continues ending this statement with the strong claim that “little else in the McCain claim (commercial) is accurate”. There is a major problem with this statement! First off Factcheck misdirects by going after the issue of “Cherry-Picking Quotes” that are placed at the beginning of the ad and are not substantive to the ad’s overarching claim. Secondly factcheck abdicates its responsibility to impartiality by a direct attempt of burying the reader in an avalanche of misdirecting issues never addressing the fact that (Obama is for comprehensive sex education to kindergartners according to his vote on this bill)! The article throws Allen Keys and Mitt Romney in the mix who have also laid these charges at the doorstep of Obama’s voting record but factcheck.org now refers to the charges in the ad and those made by Keys and Romney as "allegations" but never goes on to disprove the charges against Obama. These are subtle tactics thrown in to subconsciously sway the reader into thinking that the charges are unfounded without actually having to state that fact. However no matter how minimized or obscured factcheck.org has tried to make it, according to Viveca Novak “Obama wanted to … increase the range … of sex education for Kindergarten” when he signed the bill for “Comprehensive Sex Education”. Viveca Novak confirms and agrees that the main claim of the McCain ad is accurate! Reviewing Obama’s defense argument it is obvious from his statement that he has the desire to disparage and dispel his detractors. For what enlightened individual would wish ill will on a 5yr old by withholding the knowledge granted by Obama's wisdom that would save them from a pedophile! The only problem is that this is a spurious argument at best and an outright deception at worst because Senator Obama knows that this bill gives no allowance for the teaching of only that limited part of the curriculum, for there is no provision in this bill that allows the teaching of only one portion of the whole. Read the bill, it states as previously mentioned, X, Y, Z “Shall” be taught. All listed elements “shall” be taught in an age appropriate manner, whatever that means (completely subjective, open to interpretation by whatever political, social, sexual, and religious leanings you may or may not subscribe to). Ergo Obama knows that this bill allows for a back-door entree and necessity of the whole curriculum being taught to k-12 if any part of it were to be taught, hence the word comprehensive as in “Comprehensive Sex Education Bill”. His argument that he was only looking at the need for these little ones to be protected by teaching them only that paticular part of this "Comprehensive Sex Education Bill" does not hold water for that part can not be taught in an isolated manner according to this bill! This was an obvious attempt by an liberal legislator to slip this pernicious leftist agenda bill under the radar of an unwatchful public (I do not exclude myself from this group). This was a bad bill, badly written and signed by an even more convoluted Senator Obama who needs to be held accountable for his voting record. It goes to the judgment of a man who at best is deceiving himself and at worst is trying to deceive us! Keep that Kool-Aid away from your lips, No matter how enticing and sophisticated it’s allure! Next time I’ll tell you how I really feel! Obama's argument in defense of his voting to pass this bill as he states it was simply to open up the teaching of what was appropriate and inappropriate touching to children specifically kindergartners, to protect them from predators and molestation. Does anyone realize that the argument set forth by Obama and the Obama campaign to counter the McCain campaign ad, belies and undermines the very argument Obama sets forth? This is the argument being repeated by Obama’s defenders and parroted by his surrogates and the media [CNN, MSNBC, and most disappointing the alleged non-partisan group factcheck.org], (add-infinitum).

On their website factcheck.org covers this issue in the article “Off Base on Sex Ed”. In the article factcheck.org spends the bulk of its discussion misdirecting the reader and misrepresenting the ad by filling their article with the defense that Obama has previously put forth and leveling the strongest charge against the ad for its claim that this bill was “Obama’s one accomplishment”. Granted this statement is a bit of dramatic license open to subjective interpretation by those viewing Obama’s record. However what is not open to interpretation is the degree to which factcheck.org misrepresents the ad and misdirects the reader in it’s zealous defense of Obama by stating that Obama “does not support elicit sex education to kindergartners” a charge one would assume by the statement was presented in the ad but when viewed was never stated nor leveled by the McCain campaign! This is a talking point put forth by Obama and his campaign and parroted by factcheck.org in deliberate defense of Obama. And since when did factcheck.org employ mind readers and individuals that are able to divine the inner motives of Senator Obama to what he does or does not support in his heart. It’s in his actions that he needs to be held accountable not his statements of defense after the fact. Let his actions speak for themselves. Factcheck.org needs to stick to the facts of candidates actions not what they say were or were not their motives in defense of their voting record. Did Obama vote for this bill or did he not and did it or did it not contain a “Comprehensive Sex Education Program” for Kindergartners. Regardless of whether it was to be age appropriate or not and regardless of what Obama’s intentions are or are not is not relevant in coming to this fact.

Defenses on behalf of Obama where also reiterated by Viveca Novak of factcheck.org when she appeared on CNN. Viveca Novak states: “What he (Obama) wanted to do was to increase the range of some form of sex education, K-12”. This is a clear admission yet minimized and obviously parsed by Viveca that Obama wanted to expand sex education to kindergarten when it was previously only available to grades 6-12. The parsing comes in when she minimizes using the words “some form” because she knows this is a comprehensive sex education bill. Viveca Novak continues, “But the thing he (Obama) was interested in having kids at a young age learn about was inappropriate sexual advances that might be made against them”. This is clearly the talking points of the Obama campaign reiterated by a so called non-partisan group factcheck.org, voiced by Viveca Novak!

Going back to the “Off Base On Sex Ed” article factcheck.org goes on to concede under the heading “A Factual Failure” that the words “Comprehensive Sex Education” “does appear in the bill”. Factcheck’s wording would lead us to believe that this is simply an insignificant phrase in the bill. Only after reading the actual bill one can come to no other conclusion than that this bill is the very definition of the words “Comprehensive Sex Education”. It contains no less than 46 imperatives using the emphatic word “Shall” to command that all individual criteria particulars be taught and met in this Comprehensive Sex Education Program. No less than 46 because the counting was ceased after starting into the top of page 5 with 3 more pages not counted! Granted there is some repeating of the articles in the bill but no one can conclude after reading it that it isn’t truly comprehensive and all particular sections must be met and taught and it gives no allowance for leaving any particular untaught. The factcheck article continues ending this statement with the strong claim that “little else in the McCain claim (commercial) is accurate”. There is a major problem with this statement! First off Factcheck misdirects by going after the issue of “Cherry-Picking Quotes” that are placed at the beginning of the ad and are not substantive to the ad’s overarching claim. Secondly factcheck abdicates its responsibility to impartiality by a direct attempt of burying the reader in an avalanche of misdirecting issues never addressing the fact that (Obama is for comprehensive sex education to kindergartners according to his vote on this bill)! The article throws Allen Keys and Mitt Romney in the mix who have also laid these charges at the doorstep of Obama’s voting record but factcheck.org now refers to the charges in the ad and those made by Keys and Romney as "allegations" but never goes on to disprove the charges against Obama. These are subtle tactics thrown in to subconsciously sway the reader into thinking that the charges are unfounded without actually having to state that fact. However no matter how minimized or obscured factcheck.org has tried to make it, according to Viveca Novak “Obama wanted to … increase the range … of sex education for Kindergarten” when he signed the bill for “Comprehensive Sex Education”. Viveca Novak confirms and agrees that the main claim of the McCain ad is accurate!

Reviewing Obama’s defense argument it is obvious from his statement that he has the desire to disparage and dispel his detractors. For what enlightened individual would wish ill will on a 5yr old by withholding the knowledge granted by Obama's wisdom that would save them from a pedophile! The only problem is that this is a spurious argument at best and an outright deception at worst because Senator Obama knows that this bill gives no allowance for the teaching of only that limited part of the curriculum, for there is no provision in this bill that allows the teaching of only one portion of the whole. Read the bill, it states as previously mentioned, X, Y, Z “Shall” be taught. All listed elements “shall” be taught in an age appropriate manner, whatever that means (completely subjective, open to interpretation by whatever political, social, sexual, and religious leanings you may or may not subscribe to). Ergo Obama knows that this bill allows for a back-door entree and necessity of the whole curriculum being taught to k-12 if any part of it were to be taught, hence the word comprehensive as in “Comprehensive Sex Education Bill”. His argument that he was only looking at the need for these little ones to be protected by teaching them only that paticular part of this "Comprehensive Sex Education Bill" does not hold water for that part can not be taught in an isolated manner according to this bill! This was an obvious attempt by an liberal legislator to slip this pernicious leftist agenda bill under the radar of an unwatchful public (I do not exclude myself from this group). This was a bad bill, badly written and signed by an even more convoluted Senator Obama who needs to be held accountable for his voting record. It goes to the judgment of a man who at best is deceiving himself and at worst is trying to deceive us!

Keep that Kool-Aid away from your lips, No matter how enticing and sophisticated it’s allure!

Next time I’ll tell you how I really feel!

]]> By: unspun http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-513076 unspun Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:33:37 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-513076 HARD EVIDENCE: OBAMA supports SEX ED for Children Ages 5-8 -- advertising and instructing - without saying "dont' do it." http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2017 Actual Illinois State Senate bill here: http://www.ilga.gov/legislat ion/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session And the "age appropriate" guidelines which accompany these bills are thus: http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf Developmental Messages: Level 1 (ages 5-8) • Each body part has a correct name and a specific function. • A person’s genitals, reproductive organs, and genes determine whether the person is male or female. • A boy/man has nipples, a penis, a scrotum, and testicles. • A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries. • Some sexual or reproductive organs, such as penises and vulvas, are external or on the outside of the body while others, such as ovaries and testicles, are internal or inside the body. • Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.• Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join. (Page 26) Developmental Messages, Level 1 (ages 5-8) • Most children are curious about their bodies. • Bodies can feel good when touched. (Page 51. Interesting language, "Most children are...." Wouldn't be any peer pressure there, now would there?) Topic 2:Masturbation Subconcept: Masturbation is one way human beings express their sexuality. Developmental Messages: Level 1 • Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation. • Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not. • Masturbation should be done in a private place. (Pages 51-52) Topic 3:Shared Sexual Behavior Subconcept: Individuals express their sexuality with a partner in diverse ways. Developmental Messages: Level 1 • People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good.(Page 52) Topic 5:Human Sexual Response Subconcept: Female and male bodies respond both similarly and differently to sexual stimulation. Developmental Messages: Level 1 • Both girls and boys may discover that their bodies feel good when touched. (Page 54) HARD EVIDENCE: OBAMA supports SEX ED for Children Ages 5-8 -- advertising and instructing - without saying "dont' do it."

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2017

Actual Illinois State Senate bill here:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislat ion/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session

And the "age appropriate" guidelines which accompany these bills are thus:
http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf

Developmental Messages: Level 1 (ages 5-8)

• Each body part has a correct name and a specific function.
• A person’s genitals, reproductive organs, and genes determine whether the person is male or female.
• A boy/man has nipples, a penis, a scrotum, and testicles.
• A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries.
• Some sexual or reproductive organs, such as penises and vulvas, are external or on the outside of the body while others, such as ovaries and testicles, are internal or inside the body.
• Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.• Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
(Page 26)

Developmental Messages, Level 1 (ages 5-8)
• Most children are curious about their bodies.
• Bodies can feel good when touched.
(Page 51. Interesting language, "Most children are...." Wouldn't be any peer pressure there, now would there?)

Topic 2:Masturbation

Subconcept: Masturbation is one way human beings express their sexuality.
Developmental Messages:
Level 1

• Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
• Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
• Masturbation should be done in a private place.
(Pages 51-52)

Topic 3:Shared Sexual Behavior

Subconcept: Individuals express their sexuality with a partner in diverse ways.
Developmental Messages:
Level 1
• People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good.(Page 52) Topic 5:Human Sexual Response Subconcept: Female and male bodies respond both similarly and differently to sexual stimulation.
Developmental Messages:
Level 1
• Both girls and boys may discover that their bodies feel good when touched.
(Page 54)

]]> By: Neo http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512539 Neo Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:11:34 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512539 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB0099lv.pdf 13 ... Each class or course in comprehensive sex 14 education offered in any of grades K -6 through 12 shall 15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted 16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread 17 of HIV. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB0099lv.pdf

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

]]> By: Mark Jaquith http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512502 Mark Jaquith Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:11:04 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512502 It's a non-issue. It just says that if any class has a comprehensive sex education component, it has to discuss X, Y and Z. It doesn't prescribe the teaching of X, Y and Z to kindergartners unless there had been an independent effort to teach "comprehensive sex education" to them. Which is absurd, and doesn't exist. Saying "K-12" is just a way of deferring the decision on when to give kids "comprehensive sex education." That's totally appropriate. The ad is extremely dishonest. It's a non-issue. It just says that if any class has a comprehensive sex education component, it has to discuss X, Y and Z. It doesn't prescribe the teaching of X, Y and Z to kindergartners unless there had been an independent effort to teach "comprehensive sex education" to them. Which is absurd, and doesn't exist. Saying "K-12" is just a way of deferring the decision on when to give kids "comprehensive sex education." That's totally appropriate.

The ad is extremely dishonest.

]]> By: Adam http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512499 Adam Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:10:14 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512499 Well hey, come on now, you can't actually criticize McCain for this ad, that wouldn't come off as fair and balanced. I mean, we shouldn't inject common sense or logic into politics because then we might actually elect someone running a campaign that is actually based upon substance rather than fear of sex. Great job, James. You really were fair and balanced, way to help the machine. Well hey, come on now, you can't actually criticize McCain for this ad, that wouldn't come off as fair and balanced.

I mean, we shouldn't inject common sense or logic into politics because then we might actually elect someone running a campaign that is actually based upon substance rather than fear of sex.

Great job, James. You really were fair and balanced, way to help the machine.

]]> By: Anderson http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512468 Anderson Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:55:57 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512468 <em>Nobody would find your body for weeks because your myriad dysfunctions and infantile preoccupations have driven away anyone who would ever care about you.</em> Now I'm worried -- where is Bithead on this thread? Nobody would find your body for weeks because your myriad dysfunctions and infantile preoccupations have driven away anyone who would ever care about you.

Now I'm worried -- where is Bithead on this thread?

]]> By: Billy http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512451 Billy Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:57:12 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512451 To those who think that Obama did anything wrong with this bill, or that McCain or his campaign are at all justified in their tactics here: you're a friendless, fat piece of crap manchild who prefers to constantly distract himself by obsessing over childish bull#!&% rather than affecting any real, meaningful change in your pathetic trainwreck of a life. You're emotionally stunted human garbage who will die alone of chronic food overdose. Nobody would find your body for weeks because your myriad dysfunctions and infantile preoccupations have driven away anyone who would ever care about you. To those who think that Obama did anything wrong with this bill, or that McCain or his campaign are at all justified in their tactics here: you're a friendless, fat piece of crap manchild who prefers to constantly distract himself by obsessing over childish bull#!&% rather than affecting any real, meaningful change in your pathetic trainwreck of a life. You're emotionally stunted human garbage who will die alone of chronic food overdose. Nobody would find your body for weeks because your myriad dysfunctions and infantile preoccupations have driven away anyone who would ever care about you.

]]> By: PD Shaw http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512433 PD Shaw Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:34:55 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512433 <blockquote>If grade K has no sex ed, then the legislation does not apply.</blockquote> Yes, but the change is what is odd. Without the amendatory bill, sex ed for grade K was not contemplated and probably not authorized. If the bill had passed, sex ed would be an option for schools teaching grade K.

If grade K has no sex ed, then the legislation does not apply.

Yes, but the change is what is odd. Without the amendatory bill, sex ed for grade K was not contemplated and probably not authorized. If the bill had passed, sex ed would be an option for schools teaching grade K.

]]> By: Steve Verdon http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512406 Steve Verdon Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:39:09 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512406 <blockquote>How do you read the sentence, “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV" without concluding that he intended teaching kindergartners (i.e., "K") about STDs?</blockquote> I read it exactly as it is worded. If grade K has no sex ed, then the legislation does not apply. If grade 1 has no sex ed, then the legislation does not apply. ... If grade 9 has sex ed, then the legislation applies. ... If grade 12 has sex ed, then the legislation applies. Nothing shocking really. I agree taking things out of context is common, but it is a bit distasteful in this case IMO.

How do you read the sentence, “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV" without concluding that he intended teaching kindergartners (i.e., "K") about STDs?

I read it exactly as it is worded.

If grade K has no sex ed, then the legislation does not apply.

If grade 1 has no sex ed, then the legislation does not apply.

...

If grade 9 has sex ed, then the legislation applies.

...

If grade 12 has sex ed, then the legislation applies.

Nothing shocking really. I agree taking things out of context is common, but it is a bit distasteful in this case IMO.

]]> By: carpeicthus http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512404 carpeicthus Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:27:18 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512404 I guess it's sort of obligatory to note that McCain apparently hasn't learned to read by age 72, but I hoped he's learned some sex ed by now. I guess it's sort of obligatory to note that McCain apparently hasn't learned to read by age 72, but I hoped he's learned some sex ed by now.

]]> By: Chris http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512400 Chris Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:14:30 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512400 In fact, teaching children the proper words for body parts, Vagina, Penis, Anus, etc is very important. Has anyone seen what defense attorneys do to abused children wo can't give distinct and clear testimony? Also it is much easier to diagnose medical issues when a child can be concise. So yes, some sex education before reading is absolutely necessary. In fact, teaching children the proper words for body parts, Vagina, Penis, Anus, etc is very important. Has anyone seen what defense attorneys do to abused children wo can't give distinct and clear testimony? Also it is much easier to diagnose medical issues when a child can be concise. So yes, some sex education before reading is absolutely necessary.

]]> By: Rick DeMent http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512395 Rick DeMent Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:06:38 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512395 James, I would read further ... James,

I would read further ...

]]> By: Michael http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512394 Michael Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:03:11 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512394 PD Shaw, I'm not sure anybody would construe teaching about sexual predators with "comprehensive sexual education". Schools may be required to teach evolution as part of any "comprehensive biology curriculum", but nobody(*) says they'll have to teach it to kindergartners who are learning the names of farm animals. (*) An absolute statement, I know, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there claimed such a thing, but I'm being optimistic here so don't burst my bubble. PD Shaw, I'm not sure anybody would construe teaching about sexual predators with "comprehensive sexual education". Schools may be required to teach evolution as part of any "comprehensive biology curriculum", but nobody(*) says they'll have to teach it to kindergartners who are learning the names of farm animals.

(*) An absolute statement, I know, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there claimed such a thing, but I'm being optimistic here so don't burst my bubble.

]]> By: PD Shaw http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512388 PD Shaw Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:49:07 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512388 I am more inclined to believe it is a poorly written bill. My read of the bill is that if a school taught kindergartners about sexual predators, they would also be required to teach about STDs, discussion of sexual abstinence, all forms of contraception with their pros and cons, financial responsibilities for out-of-wedlock children, laws against sex with a minor, male accountability, etc. It's true that the bill would require the materials need to be age appropriate, but you have to teach all of these mandates too. I am more inclined to believe it is a poorly written bill. My read of the bill is that if a school taught kindergartners about sexual predators, they would also be required to teach about STDs, discussion of sexual abstinence, all forms of contraception with their pros and cons, financial responsibilities for out-of-wedlock children, laws against sex with a minor, male accountability, etc.

It's true that the bill would require the materials need to be age appropriate, but you have to teach all of these mandates too.

]]> By: DMan http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_sex_before_reading/comment-page-1/#comment-512375 DMan Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:11:25 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=25126#comment-512375 Like many of the commentators have pointed out, JJ is acting like the McCain campaign and missing the the distinguishing feature in the bill that requires all courses be "age appropriate". If you read the bill you'll see this fundamentally obvious point declared numerous times. Once example: <blockquote>All course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.</blockquote> I guess when you are so quick to accept that lying about your opponent's record is just politics as usual, you are probably just not all that interested in the truth anyway. Like many of the commentators have pointed out, JJ is acting like the McCain campaign and missing the the distinguishing feature in the bill that requires all courses be "age appropriate". If you read the bill you'll see this fundamentally obvious point declared numerous times.

Once example:

All course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.

I guess when you are so quick to accept that lying about your opponent's record is just politics as usual, you are probably just not all that interested in the truth anyway.

]]>