Comments (13) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   charliekane said, about 1 year ago

   From what I read and hear, Johnny’s got the bigger mudbombs.

2. 

   TheGreatSatan said, about 1 year ago

   Oh please if you think it’s only McCain doing the mudslinging you guys are either blind bias followers or idiots….or both!

3. 

   rowdie said, about 1 year ago

   That’s cute, GS. Find one example that rivals the McC camp’s accusing Obama of teaching sex to kindergarteners.

4. 

   danTheForth said, about 1 year ago

   I assume you’re referring to his support of the bill that said, “any of grades K-12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”

5. 

   LateToTheGame said, about 1 year ago

   Hey Dan, I just spent an hour scouring the bill records from www.ilga.gov (Illinois General Assembly) and cannot locate your “quote” anywhere in any legislation. You got a link to back it up with?

6. 

   danTheForth said, about 1 year ago

   Yup. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session
   Line 14 – right up near the top. It changed the previous requirement from 6-12 to K-12. It uses the word “through” instead of a ‘-‘.
   I originally copied and pasted from someone else who had omitted the beginning of the sentence.

7. 

   LateToTheGame said, about 1 year ago

   Dan, thank you for the link. I apparently could not locate it since your quote said “K-12” and the text reads “6 through 12” and was later amended to read “K through 12”. Do we know when this amendment occurred in relation to the vote?

   Also, did you notice that the first line reads “No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil’s parent or guardian submits written objection thereto”? I feel that’s important to mention.

   How about this quote: “(2) All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”

   What about this facet of the proposed law: “the following areas may also be included as a basis for curricula in all elementary and secondary schools in this State: basic first aid (including, but not limited to, cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the Heimlich maneuver), early prevention and detection of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and the prevention of child abuse, neglect, and suicide.”

   I think it’s an amazing leap of hyperbole to even suggest that condoms will be put on bananas in any kindergarten classroom. It sounds more like to me that kids at that level will be instructed that they should tell adults if someone tries to pull funny business with them. Personally, I want my daughter to learn that rule.

8. 

   danTheForth said, about 1 year ago

   One of the main purposes of the bill was to change the existing 6-12 requirement to K-12. So that change was an integral part of the bill from the beginning (the crossed out sections were parts from the existing statute to be phased out with the bill).

   The inclusion of things like first aid, CPR, and how to avoid abuse is good, but it doesn’t cancel out other things in the bill. Nor does it change the fact that McCain’s claim that the bill would provide comprehensive sex-ed to kindergarten kids was true.

   What is the age-appropriate way to instruct 5-year-olds in “the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV?”

9. 

   dukster45 said, about 1 year ago

   mud slinging is expected to a degree.But out and out lies that you get from Obama,makes me sick to my stomach.

10. 

    LateToTheGame said, about 1 year ago

    Dan said, “Nor does it change the fact that McCain’s claim that [sic] the bill would provide comprehensive sex-ed to kindergarten kids was true.

    “What is the age-appropriate way to instruct 5-year-olds in ‘the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV?’”

    —-

    There is an incorrect assumption buried in the “fact/McCain’s claim” above. Obviously, no K-5 will receive sex-ed. The original text of the bill says that both “course material” and “instruction” will be age-appropriate, not just the instruction. If only the methodology of instruction were to change, it would have read differently. So far as youngsters are concerned, it would probably be limited to “tell an adult if you get touched here or here” and “don’t get into a car with a stranger.”

11. 

    danTheForth said, about 1 year ago

    If, as you say, “no K-5 will receive sex-ed,” then children will not be taught, “‘tell an adult if you get touched here or here’ and ‘don’t get into a car with a stranger.’” The bill mandates that ANY course in sex-ed in “ANY of grades K-12 SHALL include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV” (emphasis mine). Even if the only age-appropriate material for grades K-5 would be material dealing with good touch/bad touch issues, such course material would constitute comprehensive sex-ed for the age group and therefore must also include instruction on prevention of STDs, according to the bill.

    The sole purpose of that sentence was to mandate that STD prevention be taught. By changing 6-12 to K-12 in this sentence, the only thing that was accomplished was mandating that STD prevention be taught to more kids, i.e. kindergarten through grade 5.

12. 

    LateToTheGame said, about 1 year ago

    I disagree. As I search through the proposed bill for the phrase “shall include”, I find that it is just about always prefaced with a conditional. For example, early in the document I find “Course material and instruction SHALL INCLUDE [emph mine] a discussion of sexual abstinence…” but if you notice, the list in which the quote is found is prefaced with “All sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior intercourse shall satisfy the following criteria:”.

    I’m no lawyer, but to me this says that IF a course is going to discuss sex-ed, then it WILL discuss prevention of STDs. This by no means mandates that all courses need discuss it, or even that there must be a course that discusses sex-ed at all. To me, it simply reads that IF ANY course in ANY grade (hence the “K-12”) is going to attempt to discuss sex-ed, then THEY WILL include age-appropriate discussions of prevention, etc. Any class can completely avoid this legislation by simply not discussing the reproductive system.

    I apologize for the cramped format of my arguments here, but a comment posting is simply ill-suited for a well-illustrated essay.

13. 

    LateToTheGame said, about 1 year ago

    Hark, be that a cricket chirping?