Oh my gosh! They're talking about educating our children. How dare they? They're going to teach our 5 year olds to have SEX! I bet they give condoms away in the classrooms in kindergarten as well... Damn those liberals!!!

Why the hell would 5 year olds need condoms? I mean, the earliest pregnancy I think was at 11.

Dawuss-

I agree.  Since 5-year-olds are in absolutely no danger of being exposed to sex in any way, shape, or form, we should keep them in the dark about it as much as possible.

Of course, we all know that you can't be hurt by something you know nothing about!!!  Right???

And all Republicans know that girls can't get pregnant before the age of 18.  I mean, how could they, if they're not allowed to have sex!  That's why I support abstinence-only education.  It's the only method that's proven to be 100% effective, all the time.  And by that, I mean that every child that has ever been told not to have sex has listened and obeyed.

11 AM or PM?

According to an entry on The Huffington Post, in a statement about the ad, the Obama campaign said: "It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls."

Very true and good job by the Huffington Post. The McCain campaign need to pull this ad and apologize for running it. Shameful and no one should be remotely suprised that Garrett is being a cheerleader for it.

Senator McCain is a former POW, he need not apologize.

What does his POW Status have to do with his current smearing of Obama?

I was pretending what it might be like inside McCain's skull.  Even the echo is in third person.

Right on Gov. Don't forget that McCain is also a maverick, and that's another reason not to apologize.

No Governor he does need to apologize but I would not expect that stubborn old man to apologize.

Senator McCain most certainly will not apologize.  Senator McCain is a former POW.

No need for the old' boy to apologize...

He's going to win the war on unwanted pregnancy.

How, you ask?

Well, um, um, um, uh...uh...uh...Do you hate children?

All that blather about protecting kids against sexual predators looks to me as simply a smokescreen to push their sex-ed agenda.

 

"blather about protecting kids against sexual predators"

 

The creepy meter just reach 8.3.  Please stop typing creepy thing, CreepyAmerican.

looks to me

Don't worry, Gov. Like all of BarneyAmerican's creepy and inane comments, this is just another unsolicited view of reality as seen through his creepy and warped eyes.I don't think he's actually a child molester. Not because I doubt the tendencies in him, I just don't get the impression that he's the type to take the initiative to  successfully accomplish his goals.

I'm being good.

I've been sitting here reading Barn's comments for a few days with a big metal ruler in my left hand. Whenever I get the urge to reply to one of his posts, I hit my typing hand as hard as I can with the ruler.

I figure it's a lot less painful than arguing with him.

All your blather about the 'sex-ed agenda' looks to me as simply a smokescreen to protect sexual predators?

He and Sarah Palin are two peas in a pod. She wants to give rapists the right to violently impregnate women and AA doesn't want children to know how to tell on child molesters.

Are you talking about the blather that's actually in the bill and is printed above by MMFA right in front of your face?

There's no possibility that protecting kids from sexual predators is part of comprehensive sex education?

John McCain is one sick SOB...

He's disgraced himself to a level I didn't think possible.

He needs to explain himself on this one, I would agree.

Maybe Obama should hold a news conference...

Waste another day of trying to get his message out because he has to deal with the filth of Sen. George McCain.  I say, get right in the sewer with Grampy, he's got no choice.

Sex education for kindergartners?  Next Obama will want to teach sex education in preschool. 

Who decides what is age and developmentally appropriate? It is simply another example of the government usurping parental responsibility.

Sex education for kindergartners?  Next Obama will want to teach sex education in preschool. 

Sex ed should be taught as young as possible.

Should that not be the parent's decision?

AA, it is the parent's decision in most communities, even when schools offer sex ed, because the parent can require the school to exclude his or her child from that education, but you're missing the point: This issue is not about sex ed (even though that's what McCain's commercial wants you to think), but about a shameful misleading claim meant to score political points at the expense of issues that matter to most people.

Mr,

I think McCain's ad is dead on. He shows that behind Obama's urbane manner and great speeches, Obama pushes a radical left agenda. 

If you want some teacher, whom you have no idea either shares your beliefs or not teaching your kindergartner about sex, go ahead. To me you might as well be asking some stranger to teach them. I think any sex ed at age five can be handled quite easily by the child's parents.

"Obama pushes a radical left agenda."

There's nothing radical about Obama.  There just isn't.  "Radical" need not be tossed around.  Here's an apt usage in my view: Governor Palin's belief that a woman impregnated as a result of rape or incest must bring the pregnancy to term is considered by many to be batshit freakin' nuts and radical. 

Boy, that's some projecting there. How does teaching kindergartners "stranger danger" sex education? Is it telling them to wear protection? To practice the rythm method when they get abducted? To just say no? Please explain how "if a stranger approaches, run like hell and tell someone you trust" sex education?

I think John McCain's support of sexual predators' rights is evidence of his radical right-wing agenda.

In our school district parents can opt their kids out of the sex ed portion of health class...parents had numerous opportunties to provide input on the curriculum as well. I'm sure its similar in most school districts.

Should that not be the parent's decision?

- ANOTHERAMERICAN / Wednesday September 10, 2008 4:57:35 PM EDT

Well, actually, NO.

By all means, give parents an opt-out form if they really feel strongly about it (which the vast majority of school districts do anyway).

BUT, not teaching kids/teens about sex is DANGEROUS--kids (even as young as 11 or 12) are at risk for pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, and young kids DO need to know about not talking to strangers or what to do when someone touches them inappropriately. Parents might have hang-ups about teaching this stuff, and their shyness or stodginess only puts their kids in danger. Even parents who want their kids to be well-informed might feel awkward talking to their kids about this stuff, or don't know how to start the conversation. We can't trust ALL parents to talk with their kids about these things, and ALL kids need to know this!

So, yeah, let them opt their kids out if they have strong religious or other convictions, but society needs to establish the norm that kids should be informed at an appropriate level is best for EVERYBODY, especially the kids!

AA prefers the ostrich position - ignorance is bliss and he's blissfully rolling through life.

You should try doing something age appropriate AA...

Like using your brain.

You're being opposed to warning children about sexual predators is creepy.

Governor,

I am not opposed to educating children about predators. I feel the education should be done by parents. Who knows what some teacher will say or do?  

AA, school districts carefully train, provide direction to, and monitor teachers in terms of what they say. The more sensitive the subject matter, the more careful the district's direction. And school boards are elected by voters within their borders. So in other words, YOU, the citizen, set the tone for "what some teacher will say." It is as disrespectful and wrong to characterize teachers as irresponsible loose cannons as it is to negatively stereotype any group of Americans.

MrH,

I am married to a teacher so spare me the lecture. I have also sent my older children through a highly praised school system and have first hand experience of some of the crazy things that have been taught by well regarded teachers that were way beyond what is age appropriate. 

Well, then feel free to advocate different policies in your school district. It sounds as though the rest of the community is in favor of allowing these crazy teachers to operate with academic freedom.  Perhaps you're simply in the minority on this issue.

George Bush is married to a librarian, but that doesn't exactly make him exempt from criticism on his attitude toward the sharing of information.

I agree with AA, only parents should be allowed to teach their children about sex.  If we got rid of sex education from all public schools, then the rate of pre-marital pregnancy would go down significantly. 

The Palin-McCain administration knows more about this, first-hand, than any of you people do.  In fact, the only reason Sarah Palin and her daughter got knocked up before they got married was because of evil liberals and their radical-left sex-ed agenda.  Now we need to fight those evil liberal ideas, and protect our children!

I think AA envisions someone like Mr. Garrison teaching kindergartners about the Filthy Sanchez.

"Who knows what some teacher will say or do?"

You should contact the school district and the teachers to request a copy of course materials and the syllabus.

Better yet, you should opt to have your kids placed in the alternative program that, to my knowledge, is normally offered to accomodate parents who want to deprive their children of sex education in school. 

My parents were always informed and asked to sign a permission form in order for me to receive sex ed.  I don't know for sure if that's how it is everywhere though.

I am not opposed to educating children about predators. I feel the education should be done by parents.- anotheramerican

AA, You do realize that a pretty good amount of child molesting is done by parents don't you? Why are you so worried about your children being told how to avoid being abused? It seems you're protesting too much. Put your kids on-line right now, I think they may want to tell us all about "Daddy's secret".

Ouch, damn.  I'm all for rebuttals, but, holy cow. 

What part of "All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate" is confusing to you?

Maybe you should read the bill in question, rather than let McCain and the professional right-wing liars make up your mind for you. 

McCain needs to explain himself and apologize, and the media should call him on it.  Sadly, the media's usual response is simply to show the ad, over and over, giving it free airtime.  At most, they might say that Obama says it is untrue.

Not holding my breath, but maybe this one is far enough over the line even the "liberal media" can't stomach it.

MAD LIBS: On ______(Date), ______ (Fox News Talking Head) _____(quoted or played)  a McCain campaign _______(ad or spokesperson) uncritically, even though the claim is false.

You know, TBH, sexual awareness might not be that bad a thing to teach at that age - I mean, nowadays seeing sexually charged content is so commonplace, it might actually be a good idea to tell the little kiddies what it is.

 

Do we teach them how to have sex and teach them how to have sexual relationships? No. We save that for once they start to develop a knowledge of sex appeal.

 

I'm all for letting people have sex with whoever they want for whatever they want, however many times they want. If you wanna' use contraceptives, that's fine too, but once you've conceived a child, you're either raising that child or you're adopting that child. Abortion is not an option. (I know, this is about sex, not abortion, but I had to dabble into that to set the line somewhere)

All this was debunked long ago during the primaries.  I can't believe McCain is trying to make an issue of it again.  As I recall Obama's position is "age appropriate" sex education which in the case of a kindergartener is "it's not OK for a grown-up to touch your HooHoo."

Shaggles,

I must have missed it that in the description. 

Obviously the devil is in the details. What worries me is if some teacher has some outlandish views regarding sex and feels that much more show and tell is appropriate at that age.

Get real, AA. Communities dictate the standards of what will be taught in their sex-education programs. Quit worrying about "some teacher."

MrH

If communities dictate what is taught in sex ed why did Obama sponsor this bill? 

because a) Illinois is a community whose elected officials encode community standards through the legislative process, and
b) Obama and the other representatives of the state meant to give guidance to the smaller communities within the state in matters of educational policy.

Is that what's bothering you? Would all these highly regarded teachers in your district not have gotten away with their crazy teachings if only the state hadn't interfered in your district's collective desire to restrict their purview? Nah, I think you just don't agree with the majority, even in your district. Which is fine. But don't pretend like President Obama would pursue "radical" policies. There's nothing radical about that bill.

I'm sure a lot of parents have that concern.  I'm sure a lot of parents would prefer to teach their children themselves.  There's a lot of room for discussion on that.

Yes, homeschooling, private school, and opting out of sex-ed programs are just a few of the effective ways to reclaim control of your child's sexual education. Unfortunately, railing against policies adopted by other communities, or even by the majority decisions of legislatures or school boards in one's own community, in a futile attempt to override the public's decision about what to teach a majority of students (with parental permission, of course), is remarkably ineffective.

MrH,

Since why does free speech need to be curtailed simply because you think it is ineffective? 

A tragedy occoured today as a member of the republican hivemind was found drowned on the bank of a river of truth. The emergency services are suspecting that the strawman he was clutching wasn't strong enough to keep him afloat after all the manure keeping it together failed to keep it intact due to the fast flow of truth river.

 

A spokesman said "It must have been terrible. The horror he must have felt as his arguement fell apart and the remains he was left clutching in his fists failed to keep him afloat."

 

This isn't the first such incident, and sadly, as things get closer to November, more and more bodies will be found said authorities. " It can't be helped", said a spokesman, "Things will get more desperate and outlandish and as the waters rise previous strawmen that were thought good enough will be found to be inadequate. We can only hope that we don't lose too many to this folly." 

Nice one, UK. Har!

Well, you know to be honest there was this one teacher who I wouldn't have complained about if she did that... ;)

 ...if some teacher has some outlandish views regarding sex...

AA, I know you've decided that responding to me isn't in your best interest, and I appreciate the honor of being on your ignore list. The compliment doesn't go unnoticed, so thank you. I'll just put this out to you as something to answer to yourself, in your inside voice;

What is an outlandish view regarding sex?

Maybe other posters can help. What do you think, in the mind of Anutteramerican , is an "outlandish view of sex"?

I'd bet some money that outlandish to AA, is talking about homosexual sex. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I'm thinking that's what he's thinking... Can't have those darn liberal teachers teaching my kids how to be gay after all.

I have to agree with AA on this one, after all who knows what kind of radical leftist crazy ideas these teachers might push on the poor little children under the guise of "sex education."  You all know how evil teachers are, that's why they hide behind a union while practicing their agenda to destroy young minds.

In fact, I'm kind of concerned over what perverted ideas these so called teachers might be spreading under the cloak of supposedly teaching other liberal topics like "math" and "english."  If a parent wants their child to know about things like that they can teach it themselves.  Why involve the government in sponsoring these twisted deviants poisoning young minds that don't know any better.

 

Exactly, Moonbat. And what's gone unnoticed here is that through sponsorship of this bill, Obama is telegraphing his hidden radical agenda of allowing all the "some teacher" types out there to teach their crazy teachings (unless the parents review the materials they are legally required to be notified of, allowed to view, and decide about on their own child's behalf). Wheras, of course, McCain is against letting teachers teach just any crazy notion considered acceptable by the state and school district in which they work (and the people thereof, who have the power to influence the firing of a teacher whose actions are considered beyond the pale by a majority of the locally-elected school board) and for the sensible policy of not allowing teachers to teach anything other than what Another American deems "not outlandish." What's called for here is a preemptive censure of the teaching profession as a whole, so no more innocents have to be subjected to the "crazy" inappropriate things some of the so-called well-respected teachers in Another American's district have apparently taught (not that we know what Another American considers crazy and age-inappropriate). And if there's one ticket we know is against academic freedom, it's McCain-Palin. After all, if they take away our freedoms, the terrorists will have no reason to hate us! USA! USA!

MrH,

I recognize that teachers are professionals. That is not the point. The point is that that well meaning bills like this open a pandora's box of unintended consequences while at the same time taking away the rights of the parents to educate their children the way they see fit.

I would hope that the teaching would be age appropriate. In principle I have problems with the term "age appropriate". I have two children that are two months apart. What is appropriate for one is clearly not appropriate for the other even though they are in the same class in school. 

I have also known teachers who are so biased they don't even recognize that they inculcate their bias into their students. I have seen certain teachers recommend guidelines for certain students that were disasterous for that student but were based on what was supposed to be "age appropriate".  

As for the opt-out or opt-in teaching. At the kindergarten and first grade level, it would be pointless as the kids will know something is going on and the youthful interpretations will immediately be transmitted to the non-attending children and most undoubtedly result in misinformation.

I am of the opinion that this sort of education reform is another step down the slippery slope of well meaning "progressive" ideas that when faced with reality do not work. Having schools teach those progressive policies to your children is great if you are a progressive but not so great if you believe there is a better way.  It is big brother deciding arbitrarily what is best for the child rather than the parent. 

 

After all you've seen can you really not believe McCain would do this? His campaign knows it doesn't matter whether a claim is true or false, accurate or debunked.

It's above his pay-grade :)

 

Give him a raise and he might do it ;)

Nothing is above the paygrade of a POW.  Being a former POW gives you absolute moral authority on all ethical questions.

So if John McCain wants to protect sexual predators, then sexual predators must be protected from these children.

No.  Not really.

HUME: Major, thank you. Don't know what you'd do without your BlackBerry and without your microphone. Thanks, buddy.