Conservatives have always had a real problem talking about sex but they always seem to end up with the most deviant of sexual trysts of their own. So, in classic fashion, Rush Limbaugh continues that blatant distortion that a sex ed group, started by Kevin Jennings, distributed explicit sexual material to children.
Of course, coming from the man that is an alleged sex tourist, I find his moral indignation a bit hard to believe. That aside, anything more than abstinence only education to children of appropriate age and conservatives have a collective seizure.
Showing posts with label Sex Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sex Education. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Some Thoughts For Your Day
- I'm never shocked and occasionally satisfied ( as it verifies the stereotype surrounding them ) when I see the conservative movement continually show itself as an isolationist movement. So when former governor and garage band enthusiast Mike Huckabee continues this strain of thought, it makes one wonder if he says things like this to get back into the good graces of those within the fringe after the revival of his clemency affair.
- It's one thing to show that children are adversely affected by unaffordable healthcare, but when you completely distort the reality of sex education and portray children as the victims of deviant sexual indoctrination, that's a whole new level of pathetic. For anyone that has gone through sex education in schools in the late 80s like I did ( in grade school mind you ) there really wasn't such an outcry when children learned about oral sex and "ass-to-mouth" from C. Everitt Coop.
- I live in a part of the country that thinks Reagan was the second coming of Christ, that believes that Obama is a secret Muslim, and honestly believes that "teh gay" can be cured. So it was with great interest that I watch Rachel Maddow interview the man that claims that a good hug-and-cuddle will keep you straight and narrow.
- It's one thing to show that children are adversely affected by unaffordable healthcare, but when you completely distort the reality of sex education and portray children as the victims of deviant sexual indoctrination, that's a whole new level of pathetic. For anyone that has gone through sex education in schools in the late 80s like I did ( in grade school mind you ) there really wasn't such an outcry when children learned about oral sex and "ass-to-mouth" from C. Everitt Coop.
- I live in a part of the country that thinks Reagan was the second coming of Christ, that believes that Obama is a secret Muslim, and honestly believes that "teh gay" can be cured. So it was with great interest that I watch Rachel Maddow interview the man that claims that a good hug-and-cuddle will keep you straight and narrow.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Because Nothing Says Sex Ed.....
.....like a portyly man balancing a ladder on his chin.
From Media Czech and the fabulous blog Barefoot And Progressive:
Derek The Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed Clown
From Media Czech and the fabulous blog Barefoot And Progressive:
Derek The Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed Clown
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Is The Bush Administration Advocating "Sex Ed For Kindergartners"?
Yes, They are.
( ht to ChiGuy @ DailyKos for this one )
In a previous blog, I talked about how Michelle Malkin and Byron York had their knickers in a twist over legislation - supported by Barack Obama - that advocated teaching comprehensive, age appropriate, sex education to children in grades K - 12.
Well, it appears that this is not a new concept.
If you take a look at the CDCs funding of The National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), you'll find this:
This is also not a new practice. It's been going on since 2003 in Tennessee.
A press release, dated February of this year reads in part:
Even Wyoming has had this policy in place - for 10 years.
Be sure and read ChiGuys diary for the rest of the info.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was any remaining question in the minds of voters ( likely or not ) as to whether McCain and his campaign have been honest with the American public, you've got your answer now.
Apparently, Mitt Romney was continuing this lie and did so on morning Joe today:
( ht to ChiGuy @ DailyKos for this one )
In a previous blog, I talked about how Michelle Malkin and Byron York had their knickers in a twist over legislation - supported by Barack Obama - that advocated teaching comprehensive, age appropriate, sex education to children in grades K - 12.
Well, it appears that this is not a new concept.
The "sex ed for kindergartners" policy for which McCain has been bashing Obama is in fact a policy currently funded by the Bush administration and is a policy that has been recommended by state boards of education in conservative states such as Tennessee and Wyoming.
If you take a look at the CDCs funding of The National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), you'll find this:
Providing HIV-related information and guidance to state boards of
education and other education stakeholders on policies that promote
effective HIV prevention for kindergarten through 12th grade students in
schools across the nation.
This is also not a new practice. It's been going on since 2003 in Tennessee.
A press release, dated February of this year reads in part:
The National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) has
made grants to three state boards of education to promote more
effective instruction to K-12 students about HIV prevention. The
$13,000 grants are being made to the North Carolina, Oregon, and
Tennessee State Boards of Education.
...
The grants are part of NASBE's HIV Prevention Policy and Program
Improvement Initiative, a facet of the Center for Safe and Healthy
Schools, which is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's Division of Adolescent and School Health (CDC-DASH).
Even Wyoming has had this policy in place - for 10 years.
Be sure and read ChiGuys diary for the rest of the info.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was any remaining question in the minds of voters ( likely or not ) as to whether McCain and his campaign have been honest with the American public, you've got your answer now.
Apparently, Mitt Romney was continuing this lie and did so on morning Joe today:
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Playlist Of Doom
