Rush: Obama using segregationist tactics
Barack Obama miscalculated when he took Rush Limbaugh out of context for a Spanish-language ad
that attempted to paint John McCain as a racist, for about the sixth
time in this campaign. Not only was the……

The Rachel Maddow Show, she’s Olbermann but with a penis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnlad9fRbGg

Please, hold your applause until the end, the display of idiocy you just watched only gets better.
In airing this ad, McCain has done somethi…

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.

Come on, you’re smarter than this.

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education 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.

It only applies if the kids are already receiving comprehensive sex education.

McCain ad:

Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergardeners.

Wrong. The legislation was to teach about STDs to any student already receiving comprehensive sex education. The ad makes it sound like the legislation introduces comprehensive sex education to kindergardeners. That’s a distortion.

Byron:

The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten.

Only if the classes were already being taught to such children. The bill didn’t address who should receive comprehensive sex education.

Consider a law that requires that children between the ages of 5 and 18 be required to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Now imagine the McCain camp arguing that Obama wants to force kindergartners to ride motorcycles.

I would go one step further. I do not believe that sex education has any place, in public schools. Sex education is the sole responsibility of parents, as parents have values, standards, principles and morals associated with sexual behavior, which they want to instill, in their own children.

Some children may not have good parents but that is a matter for Social Services.

We cannot sacrifice our children to social experimentation and, in many cases, to pedophiles. What do parents know about the sexual thoughts of strangers, simply because they are so-called educators?

Planned Parenthood and organizations like Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN)should be banned from public schools. Both organizations appear to have agendas and the main goals may very well be to disrupt the family and unnaturally sexualize and indoctrinate children.

Parents who would permit a stranger to teach their children about sex is putting them in harms-way.

sinsing on September 16, 2008 at 9:19 PM

Agree 100%. Well said.

Besides what DrSteve mentioned, appropriate HIV education for five year olds might include how you *can* catch HIV: by exchanging blood. E.g., if your playmate gets a cut, don’t mess with it, go get her mommy.

There used to be a custom among British schoolboys of proving friendship by exchanging blood: both boys would cut the palm of their hands with a pocket knife, press their cut hands together, and swear eternal friendship. This is a bad idea in the age of retroviruses, and it’s worthwhile to warn kids not to do this.

Bartrams_Garden on September 16, 2008 at 9:30 PM

I think teachers can admonish children not to cut themselves or get other people’s blood on them without an act of Congress.

And the schoolboys you’re talking about were kids in their teens not kindergarteners.

Age-appropriate discussions of HIV infection in a K-5 setting might include letting kids know they can’t catch HIV from casual contact with classmates.

Marybel:

Exactly how does one teach a FIVE year old about how to avoid HIV without basically explaining about anatomy and sexual intercourse?

Besides what DrSteve mentioned, appropriate HIV education for five year olds might include how you *can* catch HIV: by exchanging blood. E.g., if your playmate gets a cut, don’t mess with it, go get her mommy.

There used to be a custom among British schoolboys of proving friendship by exchanging blood: both boys would cut the palm of their hands with a pocket knife, press their cut hands together, and swear eternal friendship. This is a bad idea in the age of retroviruses, and it’s worthwhile to warn kids not to do this.

Call me extremely old fashioned but I don’t think there should be any sex ed in schools until the kids can read and write and cipher. Unless the main goals are to disrupt the family and unnaturally sexualize children, this is a major misuse of resources.

snaggletoothie on September 16, 2008 at 5:06 PM

I would go one step further. I do not believe that sex education has any place, in public schools. Sex education is the sole responsibility of parents, as parents have values, standards, principles and morals associated with sexual behavior, which they want to instill, in their own children.

Some children may not have good parents but that is a matter for Social Services.

We cannot sacrifice our children to social experimentation and, in many cases, to pedophiles. What do parents know about the sexual thoughts of strangers, simply because they are so-called educators?

Planned Parenthood and organizations like Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN)should be banned from public schools. Both organizations appear to have agendas and the main goals may very well be to disrupt the family and unnaturally sexualize and indoctrinate children.

Parents who would permit a stranger to teach their children about sex is putting them in harms-way.

Unless the main goals are to disrupt the family and unnaturally sexualize children, this is a major misuse of resources.

snaggletoothie on September 16, 2008 at 5:06 PM

I would say its a major misuse of resources if it is the goal also, and I think it is.

Abstinence as one of many methods to prevent pregnancy isn’t the same thing as teaching abstinence until marriage and respect for marriage. Only a fool would not teach that abstinence is a way to prevent pregnancy, but the law had previously said to teach respect for marriage, with heterosexual marriage as the best context for sex and with there being emotional consequences for sex outside of marriage.

It’s a totally different view of sex and of what constitutes the most healthy, risk-free sexual lifestyle.

(3) Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent
unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections,
including HIV.

The press is just printing Obama’s talking points without doing any fact-checking.

Any alternate theories?

I don’t even want to go there. Too disturbing…

Any alternate theories?

Just one. Age-appropriate discussions of HIV infection in a K-5 setting might include letting kids know they can’t catch HIV from casual contact with classmates. There are elementary school children with HIV — more and more, in fact, as therapies and treatment protocols improve.