Distortion

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Distortion
9
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 12:57pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
In reply to: sistah_w
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 3:13pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
In reply to: sistah_w
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 3:37pm

Ok point by point...You might not want to use snippets on YouTube to get a point across.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2006
In reply to: sistah_w
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 8:24pm

I'm just going to address one of the distortions. You wrote or someone you may have been quoting said:

<>

The elementary school I worked at and where my kids attended began a "sex education program" starting in kindergarten that included the following elements:

private areas of your body (those covered by underwear)
appropriate touching (washing and dr. visits)
the difference between surprises and secrets
what families looked like

That's the whole kindergarten curriculum. These things were taught by the 2 school counselors.

Lots of families do not believe that this is appropriate and are welcome to opt-out. I personally believe it is important because in many families these things are not being taught and sometimes the family is the abuser.

Here is an article I read today explaining the position Obama took.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-c.html
from Jake Tapper:

<<

The bill was updating Illinois law on health and sex education, addressing sex education classes that already existed at the time, and offering guidelines to instructors as to what should be in those classes.

This is important because the question arises about the use of the word “comprehensive” in McCain’s ad describing the classes.

McCain’s ad makes it sound as if Obama was mandating that kindergartners receive the same information as a sexually active high school senior.

Not so.

The word “comprehensive” appears just once in the bill as applied to kindergartners, it the section saying that "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" -- in other words, the word was focused on pre-existing classes that may exist.

McDowell points out that the bill states “All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”

So what does “comprehensive sex education” mean in terms of kindergartners?

“It means teaching kids about families,” McDowell says.

Is McCain right when he says Obama wanted kids to learn about sex before they learned how to read?

“If by 'sex' he meant that there are boys and girls and mothers and fathers, yes," McDowell says.

But that's clearly not what McCain is suggesting.

"No reasonable person would believe we’re talking about teaching kindergartners about sexual intercourse," McDowell says. "I don’t think Sen. McCain believes that.”

Says Brown, “things for freshmen in high school and for 7th and 8th graders are not the kind of curriculum you would have for a student in kindergarten."

Obama’s opponent during his run for the US Senate in 2004, former Ambassador Alan Keyes, charged that Obama was proposing teaching sexually explicit material to kindergartners.

During a Senate debate in October 2004, Obama said, “Actually, that wasn't what I had in mind. We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.”

McDowell says that Obama was correct, and says that the Illinois PTA had been active for a long time in encouraging schools to educate children about improper touching.

“A lot of people don’t have people trained to explain that kind of thing to students without scaring them,” she says.

The bill said students should learn – in an age-appropriate way -- 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. ...teach male pupils about male accountability for sexual violence and shall teach female students about reducing vulnerability for sexual violence…”

McDowell says this part of the bill would be taught in an “age- and developmentally-appropriate way. Kindergartners need to be taught that there are places – ‘private parts’ - where nobody should touch you. Obviously we’re not going to be talking about rape in kindergarten.”

Brown agrees, saying that part of the bill as applied to young students was “specifically for inappropriate touching and sexual predators. Making sure kids know what’s appropriate and not appropriate. As far as HIV and condoms, you wouldn’t teach that kind of information to students that young.”

McDowell points out that bill clearly states that no student has to receive the information if his or her parent or guardian objects:

"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,” the bill says.

“Any parent could opt out,” McDowell says.

I suppose one could twist this stuff any way you want if your only point is to make an inflammatory charge. And win an election.

One could say that if McCain opposes this bill he supports students in kindergarten making unwanted sexual advances towards each other, that he opposes ensuring that 5-year-old girls aren’t vulnerable to sexual violence.

It wouldn’t be true, but Obama could say that -- if his only point was to throw a rhetorical Molotov cocktail at McCain.

The New York Times’ “Checkpoint” (“Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy “), Factcheck.org (“Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners”) and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker ("McCain's 'Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive") say the ad is a gross distortion.
I agree -- in both senses of the word "gross." >>>

Sorry this is so long but I don't see anything wrong with giving this information to children to protect them. The Boy Scouts of America have been including age appropriate information in their scout handbooks starting with Tiger Cubs in first grade. Surely John McCain will not condemn them for their stance.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
In reply to: sistah_w
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 9:03pm

Really?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
In reply to: sistah_w
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 10:27pm
Tons of distortions!
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
In reply to: sistah_w
Fri, 09-12-2008 - 1:57pm

Yep.


It will keep going unless WE the people say ENOUGH!

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
In reply to: sistah_w
Fri, 09-12-2008 - 2:27pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
In reply to: sistah_w
Sun, 09-14-2008 - 7:40am

The text below, on immigration comes from this link:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/13/campaign.wrap/index.html

"Meanwhile, McCain's campaign said a new Spanish language ad set to air in battleground states blames Obama and Senate Democrats for the failure of attempts to overhaul the nation's immigration laws.

"Obama and his congressional allies say they are on the side of immigrants. But are they?" asks the announcer in the 30-second spot, "Which Side Are They On?"

"The press reports that their efforts were 'poison pills' that made immigration reform fail," he continues. "The result: No guest worker program. No path to citizenship. No secure borders. No reform. Is that being on our side? Obama and his congressional allies ready to block immigration reform, but not ready to lead." Watch the ad

But Obama and McCain cast identical votes in the major congressional showdowns on the issue last year.

Both men cast votes in favor of an unsuccessful early June effort to end a filibuster. Later that month, they voted again to end debate on the issue -- but again failed to shut down the filibuster effort, led for the most part by Republican senators.

The ad is set to air in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, all crucial states in November with significant Hispanic voting populations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyKGHvRL2_U&eurl=http://www.google.com/reader/view/

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
In reply to: sistah_w
Sun, 09-14-2008 - 4:57pm
Obama will probably have an ad addressing immigration in those same states as well.