Let's See What Non-Voters Have To Say

You can start to see Drudge's propaganda showing more and more when he chooses the Nickelodeon "Kids Poll" in order to show that McCain just might still have a chance.

Drudge and National Review's Campaign Spot -- with a measure of conscious self-parody -- link the Nickelodeon Kids poll, which has Obama up only two points.

It's an online poll. Of kids.

"The Nickelodeon Kids' Poll is one of those polls that is always interesting to keep an eye on," writes NR's Geraghty.

Kinda.

via Ben Smith @ Politico

If you really wanted to stretch for some rationalization, for all the "realiability" you can get from this poll, this just might reflect something positive that mommy or daddy had to say about McCain or Obama at dinner one night.

Be sure to keep an eye out for Drudge and NRO's new poll of likely Marvel Superhero voters.

Wost In The World v3.1 and 3.2

Sean Hannity

Bill O'Reilly

Rupert Murdock




G. Gordon Liddy

Eddie Burke of KBYR Radio

Kevin D. Williamson of NRO

Proof That Michelle Malkin And Byron York Can't Understand Written English

Michelle Malkin has a blog up on her page today about the "sex education" ( SB0099 ) and Barack Obama.

Both the Obama campaign and many media commentators claim that McCain’s recent sex-education ad is a sleazy, dishonorable, blatant, clear-cut lie.

Do these critics have a point?

First, read the bill, especially line 14, and judge for yourself.

OK.

Let's take Mrs. Malkin's challenge.

As Malkin's party is the party of "context" lets look at the entire
section, even though the line that Malkin points out we should start with is clear enough:

6 (105 ILCS 5/27-9.1) (from Ch. 122, par. 27-9.1)
7 Sec. 27-9.1. Sex Education.
8 (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
19 (b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high
20 school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual
21 activity or behavior intercourse shall emphasize that
22 abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended is
23 the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse
24 is the only protection that is 100% effective against
25 unwanted teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases,
26 and HIV acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when
27 transmitted sexually.
28 (c) In this subsection (c):
29 "Factual information" includes without limitation
30 medical, psychiatric, psychological, empirical, and
31 statistical statements.

It should be noted that nowhere within the text does it state that ANY sex ed ( comprehensive or otherwise ) HAS to be taught in Kindergarden. The text clearly states that schools that already teach sex-ed will do so in a comprehensive fashion that is "age appropriate.

But, what is "age appropriate" to one won't be to another. Here, we see another instance where Malkin's droogies are more thinking that "the government" is going to tell them what to teach their children.

This is patently ridiculous.

The party that is more than willing to give up many of their individual rights all in the name of "national security" is suddenly affraid that the government - that they helped create - is going to tell them what your children are or aren't going to know.

No one is suggesting that children in Kindergarden be taught about sexually transmitted diseases, reproductions, and safe sex. It is easy to read a bill, filled with beauracratic legalese, and spin it's intended meaning in order to have it fit neatly against your poorly constructed theories.

Byron York, of the NRO, had this to say:

[T]he bill’s intention was to mandate sex education, especially concerning contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases, for children before the sixth grade and as early as kindergarten. Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.

The bill, had York actually read it without already having the preconcieved notions as to what it said, is designed to education children and not indoctrinate them. It is a comprehensive form of teaching that is intended to provide balance against "abstenence-only" programs.


The bill goes on to state that no child HAS to take part, as their parents have the option to remove them from the program should they disagree with any portion of it.

If you scan through the comments section on Malkin's site, you'll see that this is simply tossed-aside. Their reasoning for this, is that children will "make fun of" the kids that don't take part in sex-ed. This doesn't give the children of today much credit. Sure, there are some bad seeds at school, but kids have come a long way since York and Malkin were young. Perhaps they teach their kids that divisiveness is acceptable. I wouldn't put it past them.


Malkin and York, as educated as they likes to pretend they are, should be able to not only read the written word but comprehend it.

Bi-Lingualism Must Be Anti-American, Or Something, Right?

Everyone in the land-of-the-willfully-ignorant ( also known as the conservative Republican media )seem to have this problem with Barack Obama's speech about learning other languages.

Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], “Merci beaucoup.” Right?

You know, no, I’m serious about this. We should understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool to get ajob. You are so much more employable. You can be part of international business. So we should be emphasizing foreign languages in our schools from an early age, because children will actually learn a foreign language easier when they’re 5, or 6, or 7 than when they’re 46, like me.

I took two years of Spanish in high-school and two years of Russian in college. The only phrases I've managed to retain have to do with ordering a beer and asking where the restroom is.

John Derbyshire @ NRO seems to think that Americans are just too dumb to learn.

The cold fact is that absent exceptional circumstances — the most common of which is, total immersion at a receptive age — not many human beings can learn another language. Oh, you can learn enough to stumble along and get by on a trip abroad, but if you can attain fluency in a language not your own, without those exceptional circumstances, you are an unusually smart and gifted person.

Is it really that Americans - or anyone - are incapable of learning or that Mr. Derbyshire wasn't able to?

The Weekly Standard went to that faithful fallback position and called Obama a 'snob'. I mean, come on, only elitist assholes speak anything except English.

I've spoken with several parents who have kids that are in kindergarden thru 3rd grade about this issue. It seems that they are against it based exclusively on the fact that they did poorly in foreign language classes in school. Isn't the point of being a parent making sure that your children have better opportunities than you did?


John Amato @ CrooksandLiars sums this up well:

What, my good pal John Derbyshire had a tough time learning another language? Well, that’s not surprising. And since most Europeans speak many languages, are they just smarter? I don’t think so. It’s because all the countries do so much business together and are so close in proximity that it makes sense all around.