Comments on: Angry Johnny

By: Rick Taylor

Rick Taylor — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:06:46 +0000

“What a ridiculous man for a major political party to have nominated.”

I confess, at the time I thought McCain was their best choice among a host of awful options. I never expected him to be so erratic.

By: Bruce Henry

Bruce Henry — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:14:15 +0000

The ad is more than wrong. It’s a lie, and McCain repeats the lie every time he claims it’s not.
So does Jay, but it’s hard to tell if he’s a fucking liar, like McCain, or is just stupid.

By: Duros Hussein 62

Duros Hussein 62 — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:41:22 +0000

The ad is wrong. McCain is wrong about the ad, and you’re wrong about the legislation, Jay.

Own it.

By: Duros Hussein 62

Duros Hussein 62 — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:28:47 +0000

Are you going to argue that this is “don’t let them touch you there” education? Seems to me the provision is aimed more at protecting kids from each other. And that's a problem because why? 1 in 4 girls are sexually assaulted in this country, Jay. 1 in 4. If some little snot-nosed bully in my daughter's class made a move on her, I would want her to know it is not okay. And again, if the bill was geared more towards showing young children how to thwart the advances of sexual predators, where is that language in the bill? Right here where you quoted, Jay.

Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment.

Your straw man is gonna make Burning Man feel inadequate.

By: fafaroo

fafaroo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:24:53 +0000

“fafaroo, I heard “rocket surgeon” in a movie or something. Maybe it’s just me, but it cracks me up.”

I think it’s funny, too, just thought maybe I missed some Bush program to develop cyborg rockets, part human, part machine.

By: Bruce Henry

Bruce Henry — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:04:24 +0000

fafaroo, I heard “rocket surgeon” in a movie or something. Maybe it’s just me, but it cracks me up.

By: Bruce Henry

Bruce Henry — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:01:39 +0000

Jay thinks if he more and more narrowly parses his words he’ll be correct.
Kind of like when there were WMDs in Iraq, then there were “programs” and then there were “attempts to obtain knowledge of programs.”
Or when “anybody who leaked information will be punished” became “anybody who has broken the law will be dealt with” and then became “Libby’s being punished enough.”
Or when experience was the only thing that mattered in a President until it didn’t matter in a vice president.
The ad accused Obama of supporting teaching kindergarteners about sex before teaching them to read. It’s not true, but Jay will swear it is until he’s blue in the face. He’ll even provide links to shit that flat contradict his point, but if he can latch onto a word, OR THE ABSENCE OF A WORD, that he can cling to, he will, for dear life.
This motherfucker is pathetic.

By: fafaroo

fafaroo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:44:14 +0000

“The bill does not require parental consent. It leaves open the option for parents to opt out.”

(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
pupil’s his parent or guardian submits written objection
thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
such pupil.

(d) An opportunity shall be afforded to parents or
guardians to examine the instructional materials to be used
in such class or course.

Come on, Jay. Did you even go to elementary school or were you home schooled? The way these things are handled is that students bring permission slips home to parents to get signed. Schools also mail or email notices to parents that sex ed classes will be a part of curriculum and that parents can opt their children out if they want.

You can spin it any way you want but giving parents the right opt their out means those parents that don’t opt out are giving their consent to the material and instruction. Parents that have questions can review the instructional material.

To suggest that both of there’s anything suspect or inappropriate about these clauses is just ridiculous.

Right here: “(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.”

Where??

And dude, the phrase “age and developmentally appropriate” appears in the document three times. If you don’t know how to search a web page for keywords, I really don’t know what to say.

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:04:06 +0000

So in other words, it is just barely conceivable that some idiot kindergarten teacher could attempt to teach their kids about vulvas without getting prosecuted for it under any number of extant laws. In other words altogether, not only have you no interest in arguing in good faith, you also CANNOT CRITICISE MCCAIN OR ANYTHING HE DOES. If he went on television and shot Sean Hannity in the head you would defend him because you are entirely without the ability to do anything else.

You’re acting like a three-year-old. You would have more dignity if you actually posted in babyspeak. Fuck off, come back, and then fuck off again.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:18:23 +0000

Do you really think that Obama is FOR teaching 5-year-olds about the ins and outs of genitalia, sexually transmitted diseases, condom use, etc?

No, but would the bill allow for that?

Answer: Yes.

Yeah I know. AGE APPROPRIATE. Except, age appropriate is not defined. It’s left open to interpretation.

Does the bill provide ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners? Yes or no.

Does it provide it? No. Does it allow for it? Yes.

It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that instruction about STDs is inappropriate for kindergarteners. IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN. No local school board would allow it.

And if you went back 25-30 years ago, they would have said the same thing about teaching kids about how to use condoms and schools providing condoms.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:02:45 +0000

Because, as has been pointed out a number of times already, the bill requires “age and developmentally appropriate” instruction while requiring parental consent before children can participate and parental review of course material. Ok: A. The bill does not define what "age appropriate" is and there is nothing in that bill that I read that would even be applicable to five year old kids, so why include that age range? Why? B. You're repeating again something that is false. The bill does not require parental consent. It leaves open the option for parents to opt out. Those are two different things.It also does not "require" parental review of course materials. It only says that course materials "shall" be provided. What that means is, if parents ask, they can review the materials. This is a blatant falsehood. There is no way in which that bill could be read to justify such a claim. None. The text of the bill says the following:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 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.

Right here: “(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.” Where?? This bill was a comprehensive sex education bill, meant to address the needs of 12th graders as well as kindergarteners and everything in between. And where exactly is the relevant information for children in kindergarten? Where is it? The bill does not provide anything of the kind. What the hell does, "shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections" mean to you then? I don’t really understand what the problem is here, unless it is you just being argumentative and intellectually dishonest. The problem is, the ad as it ran, is entirely accurate. It appears that Obama voted for a shitty bill (as this one did not become law), and he didn't even know what was in it (which is inexcusable on his part), but it is what it is.

By: fafaroo

fafaroo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:48:59 +0000

“You know, one of them egghead smartypants liberals trying to tell godfearin folks how to raise their younguns.”

Which is, of course, also a lie because parents can review the curriculum and opt their children out if they want to. So the bill would not force sex education on children against parents’ wishes anyway.

By: fafaroo

fafaroo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:47:29 +0000

rocket surgeon?

By: Bruce Henry

Bruce Henry — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:43:05 +0000

Jay, look. Where in the bill does it say what specifically will be taught to 1st-graders? 2nd-graders? 3rd-graders? 4th-graders?
IT DOESN’T, because it states that all instruction shall be “age-appropriate.”
It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that instruction about STDs is inappropriate for kindergarteners. IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN. No local school board would allow it.
Even a McCain conservative should be able to grasp this point. But perhaps they are more interested in portraying Obama as someone to be feared and mistrusted. You know, one of them egghead smartypants liberals trying to tell godfearin folks how to raise their younguns.

By: mambochicken23

mambochicken23 — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:41:57 +0000

Jay, please. The ad states that Obama is advocating comprehensive sex ed for kindergartners. In reality, he is advocating age-appropriate sex education for children pre-middle school. Do you really think that Obama is FOR teaching 5-year-olds about the ins and outs of genitalia, sexually transmitted diseases, condom use, etc? You’re a fucking idiot if you think that.

Yeah, the ad isn’t deceptive. What a load of shit.

By: fafaroo

fafaroo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:38:35 +0000

Jay, maybe you can answer a question, as well.

Does the bill provide ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners? Yes or no.

By: fafaroo

fafaroo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:37:03 +0000

“Ok, I it was wrong to include the word ‘mandated’ when I wrote that. I’ll change it to ‘provided.’”

So you’re amended statement would read like this:

“the bill provided that such issues like contraception and STD’s be included in sex ed classes for kids before the sixth grade and perhaps as early as kindergarten.”

Nice weasel move, Jay. You’re still wrong. The bill does not provide anything of the kind.

By: Enlightened Liberal

Enlightened Liberal — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:36:32 +0000

“The problem I have, is that many of those who repeat the “It’s all about child predators” line have never even read the text of the bill to learn more about it. They just hear it and then go out and repeat it.”

Burn that strawman down Jay!

“And again, if the bill was geared more towards showing young children how to thwart the advances of sexual predators, where is that language in the bill?”

Right here:
“(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.”

This bill was a comprehensive sex education bill, meant to address the needs of 12th graders as well as kindergarteners and everything in between. Age appropriate sorts out which subjects are taught to which students. Age appropriate will be defined by local school boards in practice, who as we know from conservatives, are the best to administer the needs of the local community. I don’t really understand what the problem is here, unless it is you just being argumentative and intellectually dishonest.

By: fafaroo

fafaroo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:34:15 +0000

“Does the bill, as written, allow for the possibility that children in kindergarten could be taught sex education outside of “good touches/bad touches” yes or no?”

No. Because, as has been pointed out a number of times already, the bill requires “age and developmentally appropriate” instruction while requiring parental consent before children can participate and parental review of course material. No school board or teacher would ever think that discussing STDs or intercourse with kindergarteners was age appropriate. Are you suggesting otherwise?

The real point here, however, as Bruce says, is that the McCain ad specifically said:

“Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners. Learning about sex before learning to read?”

This is a blatant falsehood. There is no way in which that bill could be read to justify such a claim. None.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:28:05 +0000

Ok, you can now explain how the bill provided that Std’s and contraception be taught in kindegarten. Since it doesn’t fall under any accepted definition of “age appropriate”.

EL, the problem is, “age appropriate” is not defined. It’s a subjective term.

The problem with the bill is that it leaves the issue open to interpretation and while the possibility that some local schools would talk about STD’s to kids in kindergarten would be (very) slim, that possibility still exists. Therefore, it is not deceptive and it is not lying as the Obama campaign and others have asserted with regard to that ad. The problem I have, is that many of those who repeat the “It’s all about child predators” line have never even read the text of the bill to learn more about it. They just hear it and then go out and repeat it. It’s not all that different from all the, “Jesus was a community organizer, Pilate was a Governor” drivel spouted by Obama supporters who took umbrage when community organizing was made fun of.

And again, if the bill was geared more towards showing young children how to thwart the advances of sexual predators, where is that language in the bill?