Geraghty looks at the details and says McCain has it right.
"I’m sure it’s a lot easier to scream that McCain is a shameless liar and that those who deemed the ad valid are hacks than to concede that one’s preferred candidate backed a bill with an unwise provision."
Comments? Still outraged?
UPDATE: Having read the bill, I think I see a possible "innocent" explanantion. They were revising a statute that dealt with sex ed for grades 6 through 12. When they revised it and extended it to Kindergarten, they neglected to take into account that all the explicit language about transmission of STDs and avoiding pregnancy also now applied to Kindergarten. It is possible that this was inadvertant, but with many eyes looking at this you would think someone would have caught it if that wasn't their intent.
UPDATE 2: Geraghty updates his post with the following : "Okay, I think McCain's ad is wrong in one respect. As the bill never passed, it's wrong to call it an Obama 'accomplishment.'"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
at all times the bill calls for "age-appropriate" info. No one was suggesting that gory details be provided to kindergartners.
1.. I see nothing in the bill that suports Barrys' currnet claim that "bad taouch" is all Kindergarteners were going to get. 2. How does one talk about transmission of STDs and prevention of pregnancy to Kindergarteners in an age appropriate manner unless the sex act is explained? Isn't a resonable conclusion that the authors thought that that explanantion was age appropriate for Kindergarteners? Do you see anything in the bill that suggests otherewise?
It's true that there's nothing on the face of the bill that restricts the info kindergartners would get to appropriate touch. I'm not sure Obama has claimed the face of the bill accomplishes this. Did he? "Age appropriate" for kindergartners would clearly mean "none" for some of the topics. I think the legislature would have wanted to avoid spelling out exactly what belongs at what ages, and so leaves that determination for the local school boards. Isn't that the kinds of local control you'd be in favor of? But I think you're right, that the bill was sloppy in expanding to lower grades without modifying the text of the bill to more clearly deal with the little ones.
Obama has said that means warning young children about sexual predators and explaining concepts like "good touch and bad touch."
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/09/10/20080910mcccain-ad0910.html
Also, you read statutes more than I do but doesn't "shall" have a particular meaning? "The course shall include a,b, and c." Don't all three have to be in the course, or you've broken the law??
So "none" doens't appear to be an option as the bill is written. that's the problem.
the fact that it requires that info be age-appropriate would include the possibility that if "none" is what's appropriate for the age, than none is shall be.
The statement from Bill Burton doesn't say that's the only thing the bill provides for.
"the fact that it requires that info be age-appropriate would include the possibility that if "none" is what's appropriate for the age, than none is shall be."
I'm sorry that's a stretch. it would have been simple to say that if that's what they meant.
"I'm not sure Obama has claimed the face of the bill accomplishes this."
And I showed you he did. What does it matter what someone else says now?
1) You didn't show me he said this; Bill Burton's statement only notes that the bill does provide for this; 2) The bill says very simply that all info "shall" be age-appropriate. SEriously, you don't think it'd be better if the legislature decided and spelled out exactly what belongs in the curriculum for each age group? Isn't it better to require that it be "age-appropriate" and leave it to schools to decide what is age appropriate?
I've been assuming I don't need to point out that the bill provides for parents to opt out.
Obama has said that means warning young children about sexual predators and explaining concepts like "good touch and bad touch."
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/09/10/20080910mcccain-ad0910.html
Not debating public policy of sex ed bc that's not the point. You called the ad "despicable garbage." I'm showing you it wasn't.
BTW, here's Rush's discussion where he also conveniently leaves out the requirement that info be age-appropriate and leaves out that parents can opt out:RUSH: I have here in my formally nicotine-stained fingers (shuffling papers) a copy of a page of the actual bill in Illinois that Obama voted for that proscribes "comprehensive sex education" taught in grades K, six through 12. Here is the excerpt: "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K, six through 12; shall include instructions on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections including the prevention, transmission, and spread of HIV. Nothing in this section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene, or traditional courses in biology." So, it's there. This was Senate bill 0099, and this is the Bill that Obama voted for -- and all the McCain ad says is exactly that, that Obama supported legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners. It's right here. K, six through 12. He voted for the bill. Now, he can go out there and try to revise history all he wants, but we have (shuffling papers) the legislation.
No you don't have to point out the opt out. and Rush often leaves out or glosses over inconvenient facts.
I'll update my post
What I didn't say is the obvious: someone decides what is age appropriate since the bill doesn't address that. A teacher could decide that describing the sex act is age-appropriate and do so under the bill. That's the problem with the bill.
Maybe that's a problem with the bill; or maybe leaving it up to local authorities is the kind of local control over education that's a good idea.
School boards serve at the discretion of local voters, so there's a check in place against wacky interpretations of the statute or wacky decisions about what's age-appropriate.
Byron York has a long article.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=
Obama shills are ignoring the STD clause while Team Maverick’s ignoring the age-appropriate clause, the better to make it seem like The One endorses interrupting sandbox time for show-and-tell sessions involving rolling condoms onto a banana. Alas, they’re both in the bill, leaving us to wonder what sort of information on AIDS and syphilis is “developmentally appropriate” for five-year-olds. The most charitable explanation I can come up with it is that the lessons on inappropriate touching are themselves a form of STD prevention: E.g., “Don’t let the bad man make you touch him down there. Not only is it wrong, but you could get sick.” Any alternate theories?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/byron-york-mccains-sex-ed-attack-ad-is-accurate/
Post a Comment