Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Monday | Main | He's Back »

Hockey Moms Against Palin

What, she doesn't know the difference between icing and offside?





 

Comments

Here in Las Cruces, New Mexico, our local paper, the Las Cruces Sun News, this was the politcal headline of the day: (An Associated Press article, which was nineteen- or twenty-paragraghs long, but here is an excerpt which I found rather "interesting".

"Palin on familiar ground in the West"

The next stop was Colorado, where Palin planned a rall Monday at an indoor riding center in the Denver Suburbs.

These are places full of voters who need no explanation on the nuanced difference between a hockey man and a soccer mom.

So now there is a divide between "hockey moms" and "soccer moms"?

How sad and how pathetic.

user-pic

Cruces? My best friend from High School went to school there (he said it sucked except for the awesome cheap food at Chile Time ;).

That puts you in Steve Pierce's district, right? So you've been pretty much hosed since forever, but maybe you have a chance this year...

Since everybody's too busy buying Obama's frantic backpedaling on the 'comprehensive sex ed' bill that he did vote for, and ridiculing Palin for having a family, I guess this bombshell won't make as many waves.

I'm talking about the recent accusation that Obama attempted to sabotage troop level negotiations between Iraq and the US (or that he incorrectly thinks our presence in the region is 'illegal'):

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/09/15/during-his-july-tour-of-iraq-obama-tried-to-undermine-negotiations-between-the-us-and-iraq-for-troop-drawdown.php

Seems like something that should be on the front pages. You know, in a perfect world where the media isn't openly rooting for Obama.

Seems this blog is doing a nice job of spreading a trend article. Any actual sources for the interview? Noone can seem to find them; perhaps you know a link to a video or transcript, of which there is bound to be one (IF the interview happened).

Calligraph, a New York Post editorial, eh? That's some mighty strong sourcing, pardner.

Hilarious Video. Check out the Youtube comments. The best ones are from the people who actually think this video is REAL... hahaha

Yes, Palin sucks, but its not a real video guys...

But it's still fun-knee.

The juice was sooo heavy!!

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html?bl&ex=1221278400&en=139555dd265b8c71&ei=5087%0A]

It is a misstatement of the bill’s purpose therefore, to maintain, as the McCain campaign advertisement does, that Mr. Obama favored conventional sex education as a policy for 5-year-olds. Under the Illinois proposal, “medically accurate” education about more complicated topics, including intercourse, contraception and homosexuality, would have been reserved for older students in higher grades.)

Mr. Obama voted for the bill in committee, where it passed, but it never came to a full and final vote. The proposal called for “age and developmentally appropriate” sex education and also allowed parents the option of withdrawing their children from such classroom instruction if they felt that it clashed with their beliefs or values.

Once again, this bill allowed parents the option of withdrawing their children from such classroom instruction

The parents had a choice and this bill had nothing whatsoever to do with teaching young children in Kindergarten "sex education".

Those who distort this fact know that it is a distortion, but they don't give a shit because they don't care about truth. McCain and his surrogates/followers are dishing out trash and lies and distortions and yet they don't even blush. They're shameless.

Once again, this bill allowed parents the option of withdrawing their children from such classroom instruction

Once again, that doesn't change the concept the bill set forth.

If I introduce a bill to teach creationism in classrooms, but then say "oh, you can withdraw your children if you want!" - is that bill still about teaching creationism?

this bill had nothing whatsoever to do with teaching young children in Kindergarten "sex education".

Funny, even factcheck.org disagrees with you on that one:

It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten.

The site that claims to have debunked the accusation asserts that exact accusation. It even states:

It mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases.

So, a 'fact check':

  • The bill proposes comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners
  • The bill proposes teaching kindergarteners about STDs
  • The bill proposes teaching kindergarteners about impregnation, pregnancy, and birthing
  • The bill also proposes teaching kindergarteners about predators and unwanted sexual advances

The rest is a bunch of equivocal language, including the red herring of "parents can remove their kids", and backpedaling statements from the Obama campaign.

Here's the thing: I don't actually find the concept of this bill offensive. If you can make a claim that teaching kindergarten kids about STDs and the basics of sex & reproduction is the right thing to do, then fine.

What offends me is the way the media has bent over backwards to pretend the bill isn't what it clearly is. What offends me is that the guy who voted for it doesn't even have the sack to stand up and say "I support this" when the chips are down: he backpedals and hides behind the skirts of a bunch of yes-men in the media who are anxiously whitewashing his public image.

As for the Iraq withdrawal issue:

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July

That's a pretty severe accusation. Yet, strangely, it has yet to be picked up by the major media, except for one article that stressed the Obama campaign's 'vehement denial' of the accusation. There's more coverage of the 'lipstick' issue than Obama allegedly meddling with foreign policy.

But the media isn't biased. Oh, no.

So, a 'fact check':

All of the so called "facts" you list are speculative, all based on the fact that you think that comprehensive sex education, STD education, and birthing are "age Appropriate" for kindergartners.

It's listed several times in the bill, that any sex education is most importantly, AGE Appropriate, and secondly, Opt Out.

For some reason, you think that comprehensive sex education and STD's are age appropriate for Kindergartners.

Is it a poorly written bill? You bet. But that's not the issue here. The issue is claiming that Obama wants to teach kids sex education is Misleading at best.

All of the so called "facts" you list are speculative, all based on the fact that you think

No, all of the facts I list are sourced from factcheck.org's article on the matter, which was supposedly debunking the claim that Obama supported comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners. And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, both factcheck.org and the bill they cite actually show this accusation to be true.

For the final proof, let's just quote the bill itself, using the link helpfully provided by Jo Ann (which she apparently didn't bother reading herself):

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

Just admit you're wrong. The longer you delay it, the more foolish you appear.

Senate Bill 0099

Instead of listening to trolls and pundits, read the full bill.

(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's parent or guardian submits written objection thereto,

This is how you stick it to lying Republican hacks

What comes to mind is when Joycelyn Elders thought that masturbation was a reasonable alternative to teen sex, but the Republican idiots couldn't deal with reality, and the Democrats assumed the fetal position.

And Bill Clinton was such a weany wimp that he fired Ms Elders. I fear that Obama may be ever bit the wimp that Clinton was. Republicans are pitbulls, and, yes, some of those pitbulls do wear lipstick. HIllary Clinton knew this and this is the major reason why I regret that she is not the candidate. Obama, because he's a Black man, has to attempt to prove that he's not an "angry black man". But Democrats have historically been afraid to appear to be angry. Democrats want to prove that they're taking the moral high ground. But the swing-voter Americans don't vote based up "moral high ground". The swing voters just grasp on to some ad or meme and go with that.

And considering all of that, it's about time that Obama realized that he's going to have to take out the fucking boxing gloves damn it.

And Hillary had the same dilemma. Éither she was an angry woman or a wimp. Hillary had to deal with the same shit that Barack has to deal with and in that vein the two of them should be soul mates as concerns these difficult political issues. The Republicans, however, have done a much better job of inoculating Sarah Palin by over exagerating sexisn... HIllary never had the benefit of the Democrats sticking up for her because the primary season was a Black vs Woman bullshit contest...

sigh..

End of rant..

End of rant..

puff, puff... I'm sure that now that you have amply refuted our "classical conservative" man of honor, he'll turn his attention to the serious matters facing our financial system and will reassure us that people are still shopping at the mall.

Right Tim. I'm sure that he'll turn his attention to serious matters. As long as we continue to discuss lipstick on a pig and this "sex education vote for kindergartners", we won't be discussing health care and which countries we should wage war against in the upcoming years. Instead, let's discuss who is a "real American".

Pisses me off.

The questions I want answered by Palin are to do with her religion: she is 44 years old, and when she was 4 her family joined the Wassila Assembly of God, a Pentecostal congregation. She was a member of that church until she was 38.

Actually, calling it Pentecostal doesn't do it justice: the beliefs of the Assemblies of God include the second coming of Christ and the "rapture" (official wmv video explaining that the rapture is immanent).

So Matt Damon's question about the dinosaurs is one thing, but does Sarah Palin believe she is mobilized? Would she follow a course of action that she thought might bring the End Times closer?

Can she really be trusted with the nuclear football?

I realy don't think she was veted on this.

'immanent' should be 'imminent'.

Can she really be trusted with the nuclear football?

I believe she intends to take control of our nucular football.

HIllary never had the benefit of the Democrats sticking up for her because the primary season was a Black vs Woman bullshit contest...

go, JoAnn!

Obama is doing the right things. The "lipstick on a pig" fiasco is a great example. The Republicans are wound up so tight that all Obama had to do was graze one of their buttons and they erupted into paroxysms of hysterical outrage. Obama, meanwhile, stood calmly out of harm's way until the seizure passed.

He and Biden are both doing a great job smacking down McCain on his monumental blunders (and largely ignoring the banal and un-newsworthy Palin), and quickly redirecting their attention to the issues at hand.

The latest Reuters/Zogby poll, released today, has Obama in the lead and climbing again.

There will be more speedbumps, but Obama is almost certain to win this thing unless something "happens" to him -- in which case Hillary will. This possibility, by the way, is a great reason for Clinton to have entered her name for nomination at the DNC, and also for Obama to have picked Biden as his VP (so that in such an event the Democratic ticket will not have to scramble to have two strong, well-known & vetted candidates).

I'm looking forward to President Obama and AG Clinton.

You cut that section from the very first part, discussing how Parents can Opt Out of any "comprehensive sex education". Ok, Let's go down further in the bill to read what "comprehesive sex education" ACTUALLY IS..

Sec. 3. Comprehensive Health Education Program. (a) The program established under this Act shall include, but not be limited to, the following major educational areas as a basis for curricula in all elementary and secondary schools in this State: human ecology and health, human growth and development, the emotional, psychological, physiological, hygienic and social responsibilities of family life, including sexual abstinence and prevention of unintended pregnancy, prevention and control of disease, including age appropriate instruction in grades K through 12 on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV, public and environmental health, consumer health, safety education and disaster survival, mental health and illness, personal health habits, alcohol, drug use, and abuse including the medical and legal ramifications of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, abuse during pregnancy, sexual abstinence, tobacco, nutrition, and dental health. ...

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

So, comprehensive sex education is all comparative to what age group you are talking to, according to the bill. (the age appropriate section).

Like I said before. You are cutting out the part that explicitally says "teach about std's" and saying that it applies to everyone equally, when the bill Explicitally lays out, in several places, that the comprehensive sex education must be Age Appropriate.

You are cutting out the part that explicitally says "teach about std's" and saying that it applies to everyone equally, when the bill Explicitally lays out, in several places, that the comprehensive sex education must be Age Appropriate.

And, as I've said before, this is irrelevant.

McCain's ad says that Obama supports "comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners". After days and days of people here explicitly denying this fact, referring you to the source now has you finally admitting the bill provides for "comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners." Know why? Because someone actually bothered to cite that exact phrase from the bill.

So now you have to throw out a new argument - after losing the "you can opt out" red herring, after losing the "it's not about comprehensive sex ed" lie, after losing the "it's about rejecting predators" bit of misdirection. The new diversionary tactic: it would be "age appropriate!"

I'm really curious to know how you kindergarten-ize talk about transmission of STDs. Little Johnny put his no-no in Jane's woo-hoo, and she got an uh-oh!

What's so funny about it is that everybody focused on this one clearly provable part of the ad when there are a lot of other issues with it. You can make very strong cases that the argumentation against Obama's education record is weak, or that McCain's record on education is weak. Instead everyone decided to engage in a form of mass self-delusion and pretend Obama didn't vote for something that he did, shove their fingers in their ears, and repeat "nah nah nah nah" all the way to the polls. It's the most explicit and shameful case of media bias I've yet to see. And it shows no sign of stopping.

Isn't the bottom line on this ridicuolously lame argument the following:

1) Obama didn't propose the bill;

2) It didn't pass.

This is LAST WEEK's right-wing media machine hysterical talking point.

You know, the economy is crumbling right before our eyes, Calligraph. Why are you harping on some b.s. Illinois state legislation that didn't pass?

Let's talk about the economy.

That's rich. Fancy Writing Boy is schooling us on "explicit and shameful" bias that "shows no sign of stopping."

Instead everyone decided to engage in a form of mass self-delusion and pretend Obama didn't vote for something that he did, shove their fingers in their ears, and repeat "nah nah nah nah" all the way to the polls.

Exactly. Obama voted on a bill intended to provide age-appropriate education to school chil--NAH NAH NAH NAH! The language was never cleaned up because the bill never left the State Sen--NAH NAH NAH NAH!

Grow up, fool child. Your own failed morality disqualifies you from meaningful comment on anybody else's.

Holy Shit. John McCain (and his state) wants to teach kindergartners about STDS!!! BREAKING.

From Arizona Curriculum

ARS 15-716 says that school districts may provide HIV/AIDS instruction in K-12 so long as parents can request that their children be excused (an "opt-out" policy). At the same time, R7-2-303 (1989) requires written parent or guardian permission for participation in any course covering sex education for grades K-8 (an "opt-in" policy).

Holy Shit again! Bush wants to teach Kindergartners about Aids too!

From the CDC, they run a program that includes...

Providing HIV-related information and guidance to state boards of education and other education stakeholders on policies that promote effective HIV prevention for kindergarten through 12th grade students in schools across the nation.

Holy shit! Mitt Romney (who denounced Obama this morning for his "sex ed" policy) Want to teach PRE-kindergartners!!!OMG OMG OMG about HIV!

Romney may have never heard that because Massachusetts -- the state where he served as governor from 2003 to 2007 -- has a decidedly progressive sex education curriculum. Under the state's non-binding framework, school districts can begin working towards the state's sex education goals as early as pre-kindergarten. By the end of the fifth grade, it not only encourages schools to teach children the basics about puberty and the reproductive system, it also encourages them to know how to define "sexual orientation using the correct terminology (such as heterosexual, and gay and lesbian)." Before the end of fifth grade, the Massachusetts framework also aims to teach children about inappropriate touching.

Please. Save your moral outrage. Similar language is in bills all across the nation, and nobody is teaching Kindergartners how to make babies (which is what McCain's Ad Implies).

I don't so much disagree with Calli as much as I am sick of his 'holier than thou' attitude. be honest. All commentators are biased. Some are centrists, some are left leaning and others (like FOX) are right leaning.

So, Calli, you never answer my otehr questions, but I keep asking,

1) Is the Media biased because they are ignoring these other bills, reflecting conservative leaders' attitudes, with the same language?

2) Did McCain pick Palin for political leverage or ability to assume the Presidency?

3) Given a 25% historical average of VP's assuming the Presidency, and McCain's age, ex-POW status and bill of health (odds are 1 in 3 that she will need to assume command), do you think she is qualified to lead the nation?

4) Does it bother you when a person cite's God as a reason for the Iraq War?

And I really do want to hear your honest answers to these questions, whatever they may be.

Maybe we'll both learn something (isn't that the point?).

Whats so great about fact check? I have google, I like to read the actual bill in question. When you rely on fact check, and other sights doing the same, it's still some one else making up your mind for you. I think that with all available resources we should be more responsible then that. Go to the sights to get an idea and then do the fact checking yourself.

So now you have to throw out a new argument - after losing the "you can opt out" red herring, after losing the "it's not about comprehensive sex ed" lie, after losing the "it's about rejecting predators" bit of misdirection. The new diversionary tactic: it would be "age appropriate!"

You do realize that these are all the same point, right? Comprehensive sex education for Kindergartners (which can be opted out of) includes teaching them about sexual predators and age appropriate knowledge about their bodies (and probably aids/diseases).

These are interconnected arguements and the reason you seem to be missing the point. You read "comprehensive sex education" and think about no-no's and wa-hoos and babies. Grow up.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives