A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From babbleman's workspace   

There is no distortion whatsoever in sex ed ad

All we've heard in the last two days from people like the NY Times and Paul Krugman is that the McCain ad on sex ed is a distortion of facts.

Here are the facts.

The specific part of the ad in question is this:

Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners.

Illinois senate bill 99 reads:

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. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

B. Hussein Obama voted FOR IL SB 99.

So what is it that is distorted? The ad is completely correct. Let's break it down.

1) Comprehensive sex ed? YES

2) To Kindergartners? YES

3) B. Hussein Obama voted for it? YES

What's more, the bill was originally written for only 6th grade through 12th grade - but Illinois Democrats including Obama had the bill changed to push the age back to kindergarten.

On Wednesday the NY Times, in its Check Point series claimed that the ad "...seriously distort[s] the record...". But that's all the Times does - it just makes the statement. It does not reference the text of the ad and the text of the bill to show the alleged distortion.

Instead, the Times points out that the bill was supported by a coalition of education and public health organizations. Ok, fine. But what does that have to do with the facts and how they were distorted? Comprehensive - Kindergarten - Obama support.

The Times then states that Obama voted for the bill in committee but it never came to a final vote. Ok, fine. But what does that have to do with distorted facts? Did he support it? YES.

I can't find anywhere in the McCain ad that says he supported the bill in a final vote.

Then the Times says that the bill called for "age and developmentally appropriate" sex education. So what? The age appropriate language in the bill did not replace the definition of comprehensive education.

There is no distortion whatsover. The ad is completely truthful and the point it correctly makes is this:

B. Hussein Obama is an extreme leftist who supports any and every liberal policy that has come down the pike. He has not strayed from the liberal line even 1 degree. There is no change whatsover in his approach.

created by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 09:49:05 am     Comments: 56

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

posted by pink_slip on Sep 13, 2008 at 09:55:32 am     #



posted by pink_slip on Sep 13, 2008 at 09:56:36 am     #



pink - I have pointed out the EXACT text of the ad and the EXACT text of the bill.

Can you articulate, in your own words, what is distorted?

I actually used the factcheck.org article you posted when I was researching this. It makes the same statement as the NY Times and then uses the same peripheral arguments to give the implication that something was wrong.

And by the way, did you notice the passages in the factcheck article that are verbatim copies of passages in the Times article? Factcheck literally copied and pasted from the Times.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:00:23 am     #



So, pink, with the video, you are now arguing the value of sex education in Kindergarten. That is a different debate.

There is no distortion in the ad.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:02:24 am     #



That's how it works when libs are placed in close proximity to facts, Babbleman. The room goes silent. One can hear the crickets.

posted by AirTrainer on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:07:17 am     #



Quite an emotional issue isn't it?

What are truly concerned people letting their kids go to public school for? Especially if they deem them so immoral, scary, and awful.

posted by charlatan on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:43:19 am     #



What are truly concerned people letting their kids go to public school for? Especially if they deem them so immoral, scary, and awful.

Among the truly concerned:

Those who can afford to pay for two tuitions (both public and private school) for their kids will send them to private school.

Those who can only afford one tuition have to send their children to public school because they are forced to pay for that tuition by gunpoint.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:53:45 am     #



Any attempt to break the monopoly of government run education is quickly beaten down by liberals and the unions that bribe them.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:55:29 am     #



It's a distortion, it's a smear, and worst of all, it's a complete distraction from the real issues our country is facing.

The Republicans have driven us into a brick wall and they are trying to reignite the culture wars to distract from their massive failure to lead this nation.

That's how Republicans play politics.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:55:42 am     #



And that is why liberals, having a lock on the childhood education of such a large portion of the population, can use it as a cudgel to undermine the moral and religious preferences of the that population.

This is exactly how Dewey wanted it.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:57:04 am     #



It's a distortion, it's a smear

Notice again the use of statements without backup or explanation.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:58:10 am     #



factcheck.org

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 13, 2008 at 11:03:01 am     #



Ok , now how show us a single 5 year old who is being taught how to fuk in Indiana at a public school. "Age appropriate" is the big clue in the bill. In K-5 they are probably learning about the stork.

posted by prime3end on Sep 13, 2008 at 11:06:16 am     #



I heard Obama personally screened pornos for 6-year-olds while on a Meth binge.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 13, 2008 at 11:10:21 am     #



no distortion at all...

...except that it is important to know that no school district in illinois teaches sex-education until 5th grade and most do it in 7th and 8th. without expanding it to "all students" conservative school boards would have attempted to move their archaic flat-world theories to 5th grade students to get around this law - therefore the clause was added that said, in effect, when this is taught, it will be taught in this manner.

it is not a black and white world - lots of shades in between.

posted by enjoyeverysandwich on Sep 13, 2008 at 11:29:19 am     #



enjoy -

It is completely and utterly black and white.

The left is always on the side of expanding the use of sex education in public schools regardless of the moral or religious desires of the students' parents.

The right is always on the side of limiting the use of sex education in public schools in respect of the fact that it is a family function that should be driven by each family's moral and religious point of view.

It is very clearly black and white. If you can't see it, you need better glasses.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 11:50:05 am     #



What's more - I think it is clear that a great deal of people on the left have no real interest in the sex education of kids. What they have an interest in is destroying Christian morality in the society and capitalism.

Those are the two enemies - and sex ed in public education, along with abortion, gay marriage and the environment are all convenient weapons they can use against their enemies.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 11:53:51 am     #



Wait a minute here, Babbleman. You are against Abortion and simultaneously against Sex Education, a program designed to curb teen pregnancy and abortion.

This is more than I can process. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revoke your right to form and express opinions.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 13, 2008 at 12:27:49 pm     #



<i>This is more than I can process. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revoke your right to form and express opinions.</i>

That's another tactic of the so called "liberals". If they don't like what you say, they want to shut you up. If they can't shut you up, they find a willing lawmaker to make sure you do.

posted by SillyWabbit on Sep 13, 2008 at 12:46:19 pm     #



babbleman---of course the ad is a distortion of the facts.

Just because you dismiss the facts does not prove your argument. To wit:

Then the Times says that the bill called for "age and developmentally appropriate" sex education. So what? The age appropriate language in the bill did not replace the definition of comprehensive education.

Great answer ("so what"). "Age appropriate" material does NOT equal "comprehensive" education.

Let's break down your fallacies:

1) Comprehensive sex ed? YES

NO. "Age appropriate" does not "comprehensive" education

2) To Kindergartners? YES

Bravo, you got this one.

3) B. Hussein Obama voted for it? YES

Voting for a bill does NOT equal Obama's "one accomplishment". This is a distortion.

posted by pink_slip on Sep 13, 2008 at 12:48:41 pm     #



You are against Abortion and simultaneously against Sex Education

thetoledowire - you don't understand the issues - but I am here to help you.

I am not against abortion or sex education.

I believe that abortion is an issue that should be decided by the states - not the fed. And I think that sex education is an issue that should be decided by and carried out by the family - not public schools.

In both cases, I a want to move moral lighting rod decisions closer to the individual in recognition of the fact that we are a free country that has broad diversity of moral and religious beliefs.

The side that opposes me is never on the side of individual choice, but rather wishes to force a single moral code on everyone with ham-fisted policies carried out by a single, central government force.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 12:53:21 pm     #



<i>That's another tactic of the so called "liberals". If they don't like what you say, they want to shut you up. If they can't shut you up, they find a willing lawmaker to make sure you do.</i>

You misunderstood. I was making a joke highlighting Babbleman's inconsistent views. So, shut up.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 13, 2008 at 12:54:43 pm     #



NO. "Age appropriate" does not "comprehensive" education

YES, IT DOES. Read the bill pink. I've provided a link to the entire text above.

That is the language directly from the bill. COMPREHENSIVE is the EXACT specification from the bill. READ IT.

Age appropriate is mentioned later as a manner in which the COMPREHENSIVE education should take place.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 12:56:54 pm     #



You misunderstood. I was making a joke highlighting Babbleman's inconsistent views. So, shut up.

And I have pointed out how my views are solidly consistent and your understanding of them is lacking.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 12:58:15 pm     #



It's like being against fire and for abundant gasoline-soaked rags.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:02:55 pm     #



Voting for a bill does NOT equal Obama's "one accomplishment". This is a distortion.

Ok, then if there were other accomplishments, list them and provide backup. Just making statements is not good enough. We've already seen that statements alone cannot be trusted.

Prove it.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:03:01 pm     #



Distortions and lies from a bunch of batshit crazy liars. The bill was for teaching kindergarten children about inappropriate touching. Get real!

posted by toledolen on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:03:54 pm     #



It's like being against fire and for abundant gasoline-soaked rags.

So you are saying that you don't understand the ideas of local control versus central control? Or do you just choose to ignore them?

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:04:10 pm     #



Prove you have an IQ above an ant.

posted by toledolen on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:04:33 pm     #



The bill was for teaching kindergarten children about inappropriate touching. Get real!

Stick to the claim toledolen. The claim is that the ad was a distortion - there was nothing distorted.

Like other attempts above, instead of supporting the claim of distortion, you are now arguing for the value of having sex ed in kindergarting.

Ironically, you are supporting the idea that the ad was correct.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:05:57 pm     #



Prove you have an IQ above an ant.

My proof: I am able to follow logic and present coherently the issues that underlie popular banter.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:07:07 pm     #



Whereas my opponents resort to name calling and personal attacks like questioning one's IQ, arguing for the value of sex education as opposed to facing the argument of whether or not there was a distortion and, finally, thinking the issue has to do with the value of sex education when in fact it has to do with needs of the group versus the needs of the individual.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:11:23 pm     #



Now Babbleman, 1)earlier in this thread, you were arguing for eliminating sex ed in public schools, not for leaving the decision up to the individual school.

2) the bill left the decision when to teach the information up to the individual school.

3) It allowed parents to have their children excluded from these lessons.

4) For the record, I am an ant.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:15:53 pm     #



Compulsory education which is allegedly necessary for free and advanced societies originates from the Prussians who were tired of losing wars and needed more willing obedient soldiers... more militant.

Carnegie and Rockerfeller also helped shape schools via "philanthropy." They wanted obedient unquestioning factory and office workers.

Dewey was irrelevant.

posted by charlatan on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:24:10 pm     #



1)earlier in this thread, you were arguing for eliminating sex ed in public schools, not for leaving the decision up to the individual school.

2) the bill left the decision when to teach the information up to the individual school.

wire - public schools are not a choice - they are a mandate unless you can afford to pay two tuitions. Therefore, when it comes to sensitive moral and religious issues, the schools should be completely hands off. Pushing the decisions down to individual schools does not equal pushing the decision down to the family.

3) It allowed parents to have their children excluded from these lessons.

Correct. So the default is that there will be sex ed by the public school unless the parent takes action to seperate their child from the rest of the students, thus setting them apart and bringing even more attention to the sex education among the students.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:24:56 pm     #



Dewey was irrelevant.

John Dewey is very relavant given that he is the father of American public education. This is what he said:

You can't make Socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:28:54 pm     #



John Dewey was also the co-author of the Humanist Manifesto.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:29:54 pm     #



We had to have our parents sign a waiver to be taught the sex ed class back in my day. I have no idea which of my classmates opted out.

I think the lessons were effective. I would want my children to be taught the same. You are telling me that my kids can't have this education if I want them to. No one is saying your kids need to see it.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:30:28 pm     #



Carnegie and Rockerfeller also helped shape schools via "philanthropy." They wanted obedient unquestioning factory and office workers.

Please provide a quote to backup this statement.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:31:45 pm     #



Yeah, I doubt he said that:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Dewey

He made a lot of noise about education, but he was like Rush Limbaugh... a blowhard nobody with nothing really consequential to say.

posted by charlatan on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:32:15 pm     #



YES, IT DOES. Read the bill pink. I've provided a link to the entire text above

Look at the course materials and instruction. It is obvious that this "comprehensive" material is not the same info that would be used for K classes. This is what is meant by distortion.

Ok, then if there were other accomplishments, list them and provide backup. Just making statements is not good enough. We've already seen that statements alone cannot be trusted. Prove it.

There doesn't have to be "other" accomplishments to prove that the ad was a distortion. This bill was NOT Obama's to "accomplish". He didn't craft the bill, nor did he co-sign it. And it didn't even get out of the Senate. Therefore, it's not his and it's not an accomplishment. This is what is meant by distortion.

I realize you have strong feelings about this babbleman, but try to be rational.

posted by pink_slip on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:32:36 pm     #



You are telling me that my kids can't have this education if I want them to. No one is saying your kids need to see it.

If the government requires me to pay tuition but doesn't allow me to take that tuition to any school I want - then they are requiring my child to see it. Your anecdote about having no idea which of your classmates opted out is a) ridiculous and b) not likely to have happened in kindergarten.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:36:54 pm     #



There doesn't have to be "other" accomplishments to prove that the ad was a distortion. This bill was NOT Obama's to "accomplish".

Ok, fine - he doesn't have any accomplishments in education then. In that case, the ad was being generous.

I realize you have strong feelings about this babbleman, but try to be rational.

I feel strongly about being rational. That's why I don't understand how a claim that Obama supported a bill that expanded comprehensive sex ed to kindergarten is in any way a distortion. It is dead on accurate.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:42:29 pm     #



That said, do you have a hundred ways to further qualify and the value for sex ed? I'm sure you do - and that's fine. But it doesn't make the statement of fact a distortion.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:49:14 pm     #



Do you think that there is a school in Illinois teaching Sex Ed to kindergardeners? Really, do you think that exists?

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:50:32 pm     #



Oh Babbs... always argumentative never one to actually "win."

It's nice you refuse to answer any of my questions, but then want me to answer yours (if only refelexive if not reactionary). How lame.

So here's you go because I'm nice;)

From: An Interview with John Taylor Gatto on the Origins of Compulsory Education, in Flatland Magazine #11 � Jim Martin, 9/94.

"....The next step came in 1890, when Andrew Carnegie wrote eleven essays, called The Gospel of Wealth. In it he said that capitalism (free enterprise) was stone cold dead in the United States. It had been killed by its own success. That men like himself, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Rockefeller now owned everything. They owned the government. Competition was impossible unless they allowed it. Which, human nature being what it is, was a problematical thing.

Carnegie said that this was a very dangerous situation, because eventually young people will become aware of this and form clandestine organizations to work against it. Ultimately they'll bring down this edifice. You've got to read all eleven essays, sometimes several times, and only then the majesty of the design emerges. Carnegie proposed that men of wealth re-establish a synthetic free enterprise system (since the real one was no longer possible) based on cradle-to-grave schooling. The people who advanced most successfully in the schooling that was available to everyone would be given licenses to lead profitable lives, they would be given jobs and promotions and that a large part of the economy had to be tied directly to schooling."

posted by charlatan on Sep 13, 2008 at 02:05:26 pm     #



Do you think that there is a school in Illinois teaching Sex Ed to kindergardeners? Really, do you think that exists?

I have no idea and I don't care. Toledowire, the ad didn't assert that there was a school in Illinois teaching sex ed to kindergartners.

It said that Obama supported Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners.

And that is exactly what he did.

Whether or not:

- the bill passed

- there are, in practice, kindergartners being taught sex ed

- you think sex ed is good

- the sex ed is done age appropriately

- the purpose of the sex ed is to prevent child abuse

- the purpose of the sex ed is to save the whales

- the color of grass is green

- factcheck.org copies and pastes from NY Times articles

is completely, and totally irrelevant.

There were three points proposed in the ad:

1) There was legislation for comprehensive sex education

2) It included kindergaten level

3) B. Hussein Obama supported it

And every single one of those is an indisputable fact.

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:44:14 pm     #



But here's the real kicker that I don't understand.

Everyone of you liberals in this post have, at one point or another, slipped into a defense of not only sex ed, but of the ways in which sex ed should be expanded for kindergatners (eg. if it is age appropriate or if its purpose is to ward off child molesters).

So if you all actually support this the way B. Hussein Obama does, then why are you falling all over yourselves trying to say that the ad was a distortion?

The ad is exactly what you all defend!! But your defense is half assed. One minute you're for it, the next minute you deny it.

Can't you pussies stand up for anything? Why do you deny the very things you stand for?

Is it because you know that it won't sell at the polls, so you can't have it packaged too nakedly?

Or is it because you are fundamentally incapable of any stable moral foundation or the ability to make a durable, resolute decision one way or the other on anything?

posted by babbleman on Sep 13, 2008 at 11:12:43 pm     #



Well the bill passed half a decade ago. It was an "accomplishment" after all.

So, if there isn't a school in Illinois teaching sex ed to kindergartners (which obviously there isn't), then the ad was purposefully misleading. You can try to disect to phasing, but the implication of the ad was that next to the "Barney learns the ABC's" poster, B. Hussein Obama is hanging a graphic cut-away drawing of a penis. If you argue otherwise you are only kidding yourself.

You can go and think what you want about sex ed generally. Remember your kid doesn't need to see it. You can teach them whatever you want. However, you might want your daughter's trashy manipulative teen-rebellion boyfriend to know what a condom is. But, free country so make your own judgment. More power to you.

By the way, when you call him, B. Hussein Obama it make you look like a racist.

Good night.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 14, 2008 at 08:48:38 am     #



OH FFS

this is stupid.

Maobama did endorse a bill to "teach sex ed" to kindergartners, but it isn't to discuss g-spots and sexual positions, it was to inform kids to be aware of the diaper snipers out there touching kids inappropriately (or worse).

it's a good thing when done properly.

the whole "nobody is allowed to touch you here, here, or here" shit. there's nothing wrong with teaching that at any age.

both sides are blowing this way out of proportion.

there are much better issues to discuss.

like Maobamas affiliation with a terrorist, a racist segregationist preacher, a communist party leader, a slum lord, and all sorts of Marxist, communist and socialist ties.

trying to make kids aware of what is and isn't appropriate, and what to do "if" is the least of our concerns.

you guys are splitting hairs, concentrate on the issues. Maobama is a nightmare for many other reasons, pick a valid one and rant about it.

posted by ST1DinOH on Sep 14, 2008 at 09:00:12 am     #



Good God, I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with ST. This is ridiculous.

Moreover, the ad is a distortion. The bill does not endorse or promote teaching sex ed to kindergartners. What it says is that IF sex ed is being taught to ANY grade level in Illinois schools, that education shall include certain components. It is a broad bill designed to reach any sex education class that was being taught. It never talks about expanding the offering to younger students. It only required certain information to be passed along if a school system had chosen to teach sex ed - regardless of the target audience.

The ad is a clear attempt at a smear and is disgusting because of the subject matter. If you want to go after Obama for legitimate policy complaints, fine, but any attempt to make him look like some sort of pedophile is unbelievable.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Sep 14, 2008 at 11:08:36 am     #



The bill would have been an expansion of sex ed becuase it would have added requirements for what must be taught and also significantly dropped the age range for who would have to be taught it.

Whether or not that is good or bad or you agree with it or not is beside the point.

The only message that matters (and the only one that I took from the ad) was that Obama supported an expansion of sex ed despite the fact that a large part of the population really doesn't like it because they want to keep it at home. So he clearly is only listening to the far side of one half of the constituancy.

And that's fine - I have no bones with that. He is a far left liberal socialist. Good for him. However, it is important that that message get through. I just don't want anyone walking away thinking that the guy is moderate.

This is all people need to take from this ad: That if you lean towards the school sticking to basic curriculum and the family sticking to family matters - you will not have a friend in Obama. He sees the role of the public school differently than you do.

But instead, if anyone actually listens to the NY Times or factcheck - you might walk away with the perception that the McCain ad is a lie and Obama is actually moderate on the issue.

That's all I am trying to bring light to: the McCain is not a lie and Obama will cater to the furthest left constituents.

The media and bloggers (even here) have been working overtime to cover up and softening Obama's extremism - I just don't think they should get a free pass.

posted by babbleman on Sep 14, 2008 at 01:45:25 pm     #



That's all I am trying to bring light to: the McCain is not a lie and Obama will cater to the furthest left constituents

No, you said "There is no distortion whatsoever in sex ed ad". But it was a distortion.

posted by pink_slip on Sep 14, 2008 at 02:07:01 pm     #



The bill in no way 'dropped the age range' for those who would receive the information. There is no language in the bill that expanded which students received sex education. Period.

The ad doesn't talk about Obama as a moderate versus an extreme liberal - it tries to imply that he promotes sex ed for kindergartners because he authored a bill that mentions the topic. The bill did not extend sex ed to lower ages. It merely required certain topics to be discussed IF LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS CHOSE TO PROVIDE SUCH EDUCATION TO THEIR STUDENTS. Essentially, the bill left the decision whether to teach sex ed up to the schools. But, if they chose to do so, they had to include certain information.

That's a far cry from the message the McCain ad is trying to push. The bill does not promote expansion of ex ed (see above). Nor does it pander to the far left - it specifically requires abstinence education (a favorite position of the right). Finally, the bill specifically indicates that parents may withdraw their child from the class (and they are given access to all educational materials used in the course).

Just once I wish people would actually look past what they are being spoon-fed by the candidates. Read the bill - the language is clear. The ad is a distortion and, babbleman, your interpretation is incorrect.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Sep 14, 2008 at 05:14:15 pm     #



Babbleman. I love you, but I'm sorry you are wrong on this one. KARL ROVE say so.

"Well, McCain has gone in some of his ads- similarly gone one step too far, and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100 percent truth test." -Karl Rove, on "Fox News Sunday."

Come on, Babble, disinvest from this fight. You've just be PWNED by Karl Rove.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 14, 2008 at 06:36:02 pm     #



Forget anything Babs says---he still carries the torch for the likes of Joe McCarthy.

posted by McCaskey on Sep 14, 2008 at 07:18:24 pm     #