Dirt and Dumping on Palin and McCain.

[AYHJA]

"It takes a real compassionate conservative to charge rape victims to find out who raped them..."

Sarah's on a roll man...

[raum]

ok, I'm thinkin' McCain was brain-damaged in 'Nam after seeing that.

YO! that is great. love the fact we just gonna roast him without looking to see if even though he is saying some harsh and weird stuff, if there is some modicum of truth.
but did you actually look at what was passed on this? hmm?

http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/imag ... elines.pdf

Page 24 begins the outlines of the program. it is in levels, applicable by age.

At the kindergarten level you are taught appreciation of your own body, recognition of sexual organs and sexual orientation, and learn to respect not all sexual orientations are reporductive. At the age of 5-8 you establish your gender identity and sexual orientation. The first topic is how the body has the ability to experience sexual pleasure and reproduce.

level 1 is age 5-8. and I quote:

Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.

This is directly in the same outline of anatomical gentalia with enough detail to detail the difference between vulva, vagina, and clitoris, uterus, ovaries, breasts that develop for women and nipples.

Obama's people can claim 'it was to protect the chirrin from pedobear." but the friggin guide for teaching it is online.

I will shoot this fucker if her tries to do anythign but teach my kids to read, write, add, multiply, divide, or subtract! that is the most fucked up thing i have heard in a while. i don't disagree with this, but i certainly do not want someone talking to my kid about it who is not in my family!

[AYHJA]

I'm a parent...Got a kid that just graduated Kindergarten...I also have a wife that is a state licensed social worker (you know, a community organizer w/no responsibility) that has spent time teaching children my son's age and older about proper, and improper touching...That's not sex-ed like McCain's ad suggested...That's called common sense...Read the bill, and you'd know that's not what it suggests...Again, that's tasteless...Period...

I have a 5 year old nephew...He told my mom this summer after he got done playing in the sprinkler, "MeeMaw, when I don't have on underwears and dance around, my penis flops around like this [flops hand around]"...Kids are smarter and smarter, but still kids...

I am very involved in my Son's life...I teach him at home, but I also send him to a school to learn...I'm at every PTA and open house, meeting his teachers...He will naturally develop relationships with these teachers and others...Why would I trust these people to do what's in the best interest of my son academically, but frown upon the idea of them or someone like my wife reinforcing the idea that they aren't supposed to let people touch their privates..? As a parent, I don't have a logical reason to be against it...

Considering the fact that most touching probably occurs in the home or w/a relative-family member, your kid could go to school, go over to uncle Bucks and be molested the entire time, and not think twice that something was wrong...

Not the idea I have for my kid...

[blixa]

it takes a village to raise a child.........

and both boys and girls do have body parts that feel good when touched

[raum]

I can now tell neither of you have read the contents of this document.

You support it pretty much without looking. I tracked this shit down through senate bills to see if McCain was lying. HE AIN'T.

I know they are saying "it was children's prevention of sexual abuse, and awareness of that.

bUT seriously - they are taught that in section 7 which is on page 67. after needle sharing causes aids, gay people should be able to adopt, and masturbation should be done in private. All of that is true, but I don;t even want my 5 year old anywhere near that socialist drivel.

WTF? I am not saying the idea was bad,.. but the implementation was FAR too much like programming for liberal agendas.

[blixa]

I did actually ...I liked the document and have no problem with it, at the moment i am studying stuff like this, so I was keen to read it.....I quite like how it dealt with gender identity issues, is it perfect ? ...of course not...but thats where decent teachers play their part...

socialist drivel lol
I have no problem with the way and at what age the different subjects are aimed/approached, although I think at time kids are going to find it boring and not listen lol.

[AYHJA]

No, I didn't read it...For what..?

The actual legislation is online...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltex ... s=&Session

Which includes:

course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.

How does one gather from that, 'Teach my 5 year old about sex..?'

Furthermore, that wasn't what my post was about...Here's the gist:

What happened: A new 30-second TV ad attacks Barack Obama's record on education, saying that Obama backed legislation to teach " 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." The announcer then says, "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."

Unless that document provides some sort of evidence to contradict this fact:

As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.

But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach "age-appropriate" sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators.

Forgive my not reading, but where in that document, which must have been written or explicitly sponsored by Senator Obama to have any relevancy to being posted here, does it contradict that..? I missed it...Is that document a part of curriculum or syllabus handed to every teacher in Illinois or what..? In other words, what connects that document to Senator Obama..? C'mon now...The ad was trash, 100%...

There's no good reason at all that a man, not a politician, but a man who has sired 2 daughters to even suggest that he wants kids to learn birds and bees at that age...That's not what he said or meant, and is not on record saying such...

The ad is ridiculous and misguiding, hands down...And even so, the book was written as a guide, seemingly to develop curriculum from...

For over a decade, SIECUS has published the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education:
Kindergarten-12th Grade to help educators create new sexuality education programs and evaluate
already existing curricula. The Guidelines, developed by a national task force of experts in the fields
of adolescent development, health care, and education, provide a framework of the key concepts,
topics, and messages that all sexuality education programs would ideally include.

"Republican Alan Keyes tried to use Obama's vote against him in the 2004 U.S. Senate race. At the time, Obama spoke about wanting to protect young children from abuse. He made clear then that he was not supporting teaching kindergartners about explicit details of sex."

[raum]

No, I didn't read it...For what..?

Because that is the EXACT FUCKiNG GUIDE obama's camp sent that document i posted link to out to Hardball when asked for more details on what "age-appropriate sex education" was. He may not have done anything more than google it, but he consented to it being sent to explain his position or put someone in a position to make that choice for him, but it is adopted frequently across the country as the standard for "comprehensive age appropriate sex education."

THAT was McCain's basis in using that document against him. It was sent to MSNBC to explain Obama's position. Easy to say you don't mean it after the ruckus. easy to just grab it off the net and fwd it to msnbc. not politically valuable, though.

but if he is a humble and intellectually flexible, he should come out - state if he endorses the use of this document, and if not - apologize for confusing the american public by sending out documents that he has either not reviewed or endorsed. This document that he sent to the media in support of proof of effective age-appropriate sex ed is his to bear. No way anyone at his camp could make an official press release without his approval. This is the kind of thing that really screws with those of us who are looking with scrutiny at both sides.

Two things

1- in defense of sex ed for all kids at planned parenthood, he neVeR once mentioned this was about preventing child abuse. he cited sTD's, and a focus on teaching abstinence.

2 - prevent STD's is the main temperature of this bill. if that is to attach AiDS research dollars to this program, that is really low. if the main focus is preventing kids from getting abused, (which i learned at home), the Law should be redacted to really bring that up from the back pages.

[AYHJA]

Wow, OK...Lets put this in a nutshell then, shall we..?

Because that is the EXACT FUCKiNG GUIDE obama's camp sent that document i posted link to out to Hardball when asked for more details on what "age-appropriate sex education" was

Did the the McCain ad say, "Age Appropriate" or did it say, "Learning about sex before learning to read?

Can that seriously be defended..? Is supporting age appropriate sex (which doesn't just imply the act) education the same as saying 'learn about sex'..?

And to further the semantics, is this what is being argued:

1. Somewhere, in that document, there is explicit information that educators should teach children about sex..? In that document meant as a guide to educators about to how to base curriculum about said subject, there is a section that says something to the effect of "You have a penis, it goes into a vagina"..?

Yes or No..?

2. Barak Obama has said he believes that schools should be teaching kids, like his daughters, about sex..?

1- in defense of sex ed for all kids at planned parenthood, he neVeR once mentioned this was about preventing child abuse. he cited sTD's, and a focus on teaching abstinence.

That only makes sense if he was asked, "What do you think about teaching sex education to kindergardners..?" Obviously, a 7 year old getting pregnant or catching an STD from an 8 year old isn't what comes to mind when someone is talking about STD's or Abstinence...

And again, if nothing else is said:

This document that he sent to the media in support of proof of effective age-appropriate sex ed is his to bear.

Where in the document is it ineffective in doing so, and where in the document does it condone teaching children in Kindergarten about sex..?

Here's a hint, past the table of contents, the word "Kindergarten" doesn't even appear in the document, and even still, its said mostly in reference to the name of the book....................

I'll do you one better, this what the document says about the age group...

Code: Select all

Level 1
middle childhood,
ages 5 through 8;
early elementary school

Code: Select all

Developmental Messages:
Level 1
• 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.

Just to be clear now, one can gather from that, which says, "Developmental messages" and is not age specific, says, Let's teach kids about sex before they learn to read..? Seriously..? Even then that's not what this is about...

Did the ad say, Age appropriate, or did it say, "Learning about sex before learning to read"..? Simple question...

[raum]

Did the the McCain ad say, "Age Appropriate" or did it say, "Learning about sex before learning to read?

It instructs kids in Developmental stages along metrics. you only quoted the first metric. Most of the 12 metrics have a level 1, which is age 5-8, which is arguably inclusive of Kindergarten to second grade. Some start later. Regardless of word recognition, vocabulary, and comprehension. Reading is a skill that is defined in the First grade by Language skills. This program includes knowledge of sex and anotomy from level 1 topic 1 key concept 1. That is age 5-8. The program was delivered to the media (Hardball) by Barak Obama, through delegates he assigned to help him represent himself and his opinions. This was an official press release, and thus needed his approval. I suspect he didn't read it in its entriety.

Can that seriously be defended..? Is supporting age appropriate sex (which doesn't just imply the act) education the same as saying 'learn about sex'..?

You can hate McCain, and you can say "it's not fair, he didn't say parents can opt their kids out." but no way you can say his ad is false.... even if it draws some extreme case rhetoric from the guidelines submitted by Obama. Better believe some teacher somewhere will decide to take this to extremes, and will possibly have the law on their side, depending on the quality of their lawyer.

How do you teach a 5-8 year old about the different parts of a woman or man's genitalia without pictures of diagrams. I mean scrotum and clitoris? really... *shudder*

The bill directly said comprehensive sex education from grades K - 12, and the prevention of STDs is mentioned before prevention of sexual abuse. This SCREAMS special interest.

The ad specifically says

"Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.

Learning about sex before learning to read? "

Reading comprehension analysis begins in the second grade. This program begins in grade K. If you feel the need to criticize the ad, at least make it a solid criticism, like they fail to mention, per the bill, a parent can opt their kid out of this, and they will not suffer academically. (If they even know about it. Many teachers hide the fact they start teaching sex ed. Some teachers are even teaching kids "organic" food is better for you... WTF, there is no proof.)

And to further the semantics, is this what is being argued:

1. Somewhere, in that document, there is explicit information that educators should teach children about sex..? In that document meant as a guide to educators about to how to base curriculum about said subject, there is a section that says something to the effect of "You have a penis, it goes into a vagina"..?

Yes or No..?

YES. READ THE DAMN THING. FROM COVER TO COVER - ALL THE INTRODUCTION AND ALL THE Level 1 of the 6 Key Concepts. Each one has several topics and they have introduction to everything from choice to reproduce to gender identity and sexual preference in there. I am not saying these are bad things, not at all. I think there should be sex ed. In Junior High. Parents can CHOOSE to teach their kids before then, and should, and there should a non-profit that will educate them (in guidelines like this) so they can be comprehensive. But not at the burden of tax dollars, and not as public education.

2. Barak Obama has said he believes that schools should be teaching kids, like his daughters, about sex..?

1- in defense of sex ed for all kids at planned parenthood, he neVeR once mentioned this was about preventing child abuse. he cited sTD's, and a focus on teaching abstinence.

That only makes sense if he was asked, "What do you think about teaching sex education to kindergardners..?" Obviously, a 7 year old getting pregnant or catching an STD from an 8 year old isn't what comes to mind when someone is talking about STD's or Abstinence...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xgl5NyI3s4

HE ENDORSED THIS PROGRAM. It is the "standard guidlines" for SB 99, and SIECUS was heard by the committee before voting and the guidelines were presented. He voted yes. He needs to stand up and say "I didn't know what was going on, and voted on a high level. But this is too extreme and thus we need better guidelines." or he has to say "I do endorse SIECUS and that's why by my written order, their guide that includes visceral (i.e. physical and anatomical and sophisticated sexual and social dynamics) should be introduced as early as possible into a public education cirriculum, as I affirmed in Planned Parenthood conference." Either way, it won't win him votes. He flubbed.

This document that he sent to the media in support of proof of effective age-appropriate sex ed is his to bear.

Where in the document is it ineffective in doing so, and where in the document does it condone teaching children in Kindergarten about sex..?[/quote]

Level 1 includes children from Ages 5-8. Thus is COULD APPLY TO (and is) inclusive of the age most children are in Kindergarten.

Level 1
• 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.

Level 1
Level 1
• Men and women have reproductive organs that enable them to have a child.
• Men and women have specific cells in their bodies (sperm cells and egg cells) that enable them to
reproduce.
• Reproduction requires that a sperm and egg join.
• Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm
and egg to join.
• When a woman is pregnant, the fetus grows inside her body in her uterus.
• A woman can be pregnant with more than one fetus at a time.
• Babies usually come out of a woman’s body through an opening called a vagina.
• Some babies are born by an operation called a Caesarian Section.
• A woman’s breasts can provide milk for a baby.
• Not all men and women have children.
• People who cannot have children may choose to adopt.

Loot at every topic, in the dynamic of the key concepts, and view the level 1 guidlines. That is what they define as "Age appropriate" for ages 5-8. And Obama not only should have reviewed in in council, HE RELEASED IT AS ENDORSING IT and a reference to defining age appropriate comprehensive sex education.

For the record "bad touching" has its introduction in "Level 3, which by development is age 12-15; about six years after your kid learns people get aids from sharing needles.

Here's a hint, past the table of contents, the word "Kindergarten" doesn't even appear in the document, and even still, its said mostly in reference to the name of the book....................

I'll do you one better, this what the document says about the age group...

Code: Select all

Level 1
middle childhood,
ages 5 through 8;
early elementary school

Code: Select all

Developmental Messages:
Level 1
• 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.

Just to be clear now, one can gather from that, which says, "Developmental messages" and is not age specific, says, Let's teach kids about sex before they learn to read..? Seriously..? Even then that's not what this is about...

Did the ad say, Age appropriate, or did it say, "Learning about sex before learning to read"..? Simple question...

I am not saying it is wrong to teach children about life and love and family and fun. but drawing all those into one specific component of sex is just too soon. If this SAME exact guidline was used to demonstrate sex ed from grades 6-12 (like the bill said before 6 was struckout and K was added, I would support it.)