On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right

On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right
What was that Illinois sex-education bill really about?

In recent days, a consensus has developed among the Obama campaign and commentators in the press that John McCain has decided to lie his way to the White House. Exhibit A in this new consensus is McCain’s ad, released last week, claiming that Barack Obama’s “one accomplishment” in the field of education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners.” Within moments of the ad’s appearance, the Obama campaign called it “shameful and downright perverse.” The legislation in question, a bill in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, “written to protect young children from sexual predators” and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. In a stinging final shot, Burton added, “Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.” Newspaper, magazine, and television commentators quickly piled on. “The kindergarten ad flat-out lies,” wrote the New York Times, arguing that “at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators.” The Washington Postwrote that “McCain’s ‘Education’ Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive.” And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot “a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison.”  The condemnation has been so widespread that the Obama campaign has begun to sense success in placing the “McCain-is-a-liar” storyline in the press. But before accepting the story at face value, it might first be a good idea to examine the bill in question, look at the statements made by its supporters at the time it was introduced, talk to its sponsors today (at least the ones who will consent to speak), and find answers to a few basic questions. What were the bill’s provisions? Why was it written? Was it really just, or even mostly, about inappropriate advances? And the bottom-line question: Is McCain’s characterization of it unfair? 21ST-CENTURY SEX EDUCATION The bill in question was Senate Bill 99, introduced in the Senate in February 2003. Its broad purpose was to change and update portions of Illinois’s existing laws concerning sex education. (The text of the bill is here, and everyone interested in the issue should take a look at it.)  When the bill was introduced, a coalition of groups including the Illinois Public Health Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Cook County Department of Public Health, the Chicago Department of Public Health, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council and others issued a press releaseheadlined “Coalition of Legislators, Physicians and Organizations Bring Illinois Into the 21st Century with Omnibus Healthcare Package.” It was a three-part campaign; Senate Bill 99, covering “medically accurate sex education,” was the first part, with two other bills addressing “funding for family planning services for women in need” and “contraceptive equity in health insurance.”  According to the press release, Senate Bill 99 required that “if a public school teaches sex education, family life education, and comprehensive health education courses, all materials and instruction must be medically and factually accurate.” The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen, was quoted saying, “It teaches students about the advantages of abstinence, while also giving them the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” The release contained no mention of sexual predators or inappropriate touching. What, specifically, was the bill designed to do? It appears to have had three major purposes: The first, as Ronen indicated, was to mandate that information presented in sex-ed classes be “factual,” “medically accurate,” and “objective.”  The second purpose was to increase the number of children receiving sex education. Illinois’ existing law required the teaching of sex education and AIDS prevention in grades six through twelve. The old law read: Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS. After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told Martinez that reading the bill, I just didn’t see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. “I didn’t see it that way, either,” Martinez said. “It’s just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.” So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching? “Absolutely not.” “THAT WASN’T WHAT I HAD IN MIND” The controversy over the McCain sex-ed ad is a rerun of a similar controversy that erupted in the 2004 Illinois Senate race, when Obama’s opponent, the Republican transplant Alan Keyes, brought up the same issue. In a debate that year, when Keyes accused Obama of supporting sex education for kindergartners, Obama answered, “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.” Obama’s explanation for his vote has been accepted by nearly all commentators. And perhaps that is indeed why he voted for Senate Bill 99, although we don’t know for sure. But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. 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.  Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is. After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told Martinez that reading the bill, I just didn’t see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. “I didn’t see it that way, either,” Martinez said. “It’s just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.” So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching? “Absolutely not.” “THAT WASN’T WHAT I HAD IN MIND” The controversy over the McCain sex-ed ad is a rerun of a similar controversy that erupted in the 2004 Illinois Senate race, when Obama’s opponent, the Republican transplant Alan Keyes, brought up the same issue. In a debate that year, when Keyes accused Obama of supporting sex education for kindergartners, Obama answered, “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.” Obama’s explanation for his vote has been accepted by nearly all commentators. And perhaps that is indeed why he voted for Senate Bill 99, although we don’t know for sure. But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. 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.  Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read: 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. The bill’s third purpose was to remove value-laden language in the old law. For example, the old law contained passages like this: Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage. Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage… [Classes] shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy [and] sexually transmitted diseases… The proposed bill eliminated all those passages and replaced them with wording like this: Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV… The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of sex-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that “all sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior…be age and developmentally appropriate.” And, after covering a number of other provisions, the bill addressed the issue of inappropriate advances: Course material and instruction shall teach pupils 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. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961. The wording of that provision suggests lawmakers were at least as concerned with protecting children from each other as from adults, and it doesn’t seem directed toward the youngest children, as Obama maintained. But there is no doubt that the bill did address the question of inappropriate touching. On the other hand, there is also no doubt that, looking at the overall bill, the “touching” provision did not have the prominence that Team Obama has suggested it had, and it certainly wasn’t the bill’s main purpose. TOUCHY SUBJECT After the ad controversy erupted, I asked the Obama campaign to suggest who I might interview for more information. I particularly wanted some sort of contemporaneous account showing that Obama voted for the bill because of its inappropriate-touching provision. The campaign suggested I call Ken Swanson, who is head of the Illinois Education Association and a 20-year veteran of teaching sixth-graders.  “The intent of the language and inclusion of kindergarten was simply to make it possible to offer age-appropriate, not comprehensive, information for kindergartners so that those young children could be given basic information so that they would be aware of inappropriate behavior by adults,” Swanson told me. “Certainly, it was never intended to be some sort of inappropriate information that might be appropriate for junior high or high school students.” McCain’s accusation, Swanson told me, was “bogus.” I suggested to Swanson that the bill seemed to provide for HIV education for youngsters before the sixth grade, and perhaps as early as kindergarten. “As I recall the discussion, there was a conversation where in different places in the state — that was something that should be left to local circumstances,” Swanson told me. “What might be appropriate in an urban inner city might not be appropriate in a rural community. I don’t recall anybody, from our perspective, having a one-rule-fits-all vision.” Swanson suggested that if I wanted to know more I should get in touch with the bill’s sponsors. There were five — State Senator Ronen, as well as Sens. M. Maggie Crotty, Susan Garrett, Iris Martinez, and Jeffrey Schoenberg. All were from the greater Chicago area. But getting in touch with them was easier said than done. Ronen has left the Illinois state senate. When I called her home, I reached a woman who did not give me her name but told me she knew how to reach Ronen. I gave her my information, but there has been no call back, nor has Ronen answered a number of follow-up calls.  An assistant in Garrett’s office helpfully gave me the senator’s cell-phone number, so I was able to have a few brief conversations with her. In one, she said she couldn’t talk and asked me to call back in a few minutes. I did, and then did again, and ended up doing so several times over an extended period, all without an answer. The next day, I reached Garrett again, who told me that since the debate took place five years ago, she couldn’t speak about it “unless I have the bill in front of me . . . I’d be happy to do that if I could just print out the bill . . . I just want to be sure I get it right.” We agreed that I would email her the bill, but after I did, she didn’t answer the phone. She still hasn’t. I’ve gotten no response from Crotty or Schoenberg. That leaves Sen. Martinez, who was kind enough to speak to me by phone Monday afternoon. Martinez began by saying that the bill was indeed about inappropriate touching. “We know that young children, very, very young, have things happen to them that they don’t speak about,” Martinez told me. “It’s important that we teach our young kids very, very young to speak up.” When I asked Martinez the rationale for changing grade six to kindergarten, she said that groups like Planned Parenthood and the Cook County Department of Health — both major contributors to the bill — “were finding that there were children younger than the sixth grade that were being inappropriately touched or molested.” When I asked about the elimination of references to marriage and the contraception passages, Martinez said that the changes were “based on some of the information we got from Planned Parenthood.” Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.

Barack Obama's sorry record of double-dealing on Iraq

Amir Taheri lays out Barack Obama's sorry record of double-dealing on Iraq:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

This is shocking, although, coming from Obama, not surprising. It's not just that he has tried, in private, to achieve the exact opposite result from the one he has advocated in public. Worse, Obama has in effect tried to conduct his own foreign policy as a President-in-waiting, thereby undermining the actual foreign policy of the United States:

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

For Obama to engage in this kind of politically-motivated backstabbing of the United States government is deeply dishonorable. Moreover, as Taheri notes, Obama has a conflict of interest here: the United States wants our efforts in Iraq to succeed, but Obama wants--needs--for them to fail:

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

So, if what Taheri says is right, Obama is carrying out his own foreign policy, in opposition not only to his own stated position on Iraq, but in opposition to the foreign policy of the United States, with a view toward bringing about failure, not success, in Iraq. Nice.

UPDATE: McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann commented on this story:

At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation.

Yesterday, the Obama campaign weighed in:

Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

Which I guess must be different from what Taheri said. Somehow.

FORM SF 180

/*
Count up from any date script-
By JavaScript Kit (www.javascriptkit.com)
Over 200+ free scripts here!
*/

var montharray=new Array("Jan","Feb","Mar","Apr","May","Jun","Jul","Aug","Sep","Oct","Nov","Dec")

function countup(yr,m,d){
var today=new Date()
var todayy=today.getYear()
if (todayy < 1000)
todayy+=1900
var todaym=today.getMonth()
var todayd=today.getDate()
var todaystring=montharray[todaym]+" "+todayd+", "+todayy
var paststring=montharray[m-1]+" "+d+", "+yr
var difference=(Math.round((Date.parse(todaystring)-Date.parse(paststring))/(24*60*60*1000))*1)
document.write("" + difference + " days ago, John Kerry promised, on national TV, to sign form SF-180 and release his military records. He has yet to do so.")
}
//enter the count up date using the format year/month/day
countup(2005,01,30)

The Titanic

Interesting information about the Titanic.

The RMS Titanic was built in Belfast, Ireland, by Harland and Wolff Shipbuilders. Nearly the length of three football fields or 885 feet in length Titanic was, at the time, the largest moving object ever created by man. Titanic was also one of the most lavishly appointed ships ever built.

It all began in the early 1900s when J. Bruce Ismay, Managing Director of the White Star Line, met with Lord James Pirrie, a partner in Harland and Wolff. They decided at the time to build three ships that would be the largest ships the world had seen thus far. In fact, size was of such importance that even though Titanic only required three smokestacks, a dummy fourth would be added, since it was feared the public might perceive ships like Cunard's four stack ships Mauritania and Lusitania to be more powerful. They would also be so lavish in their appointments that they would rival the worlds' finest hotels. Work would begin on the first two ships and upon their completion the third would be built.

Work began on Olympic and Titanic during 1908-1909. On October 20, 1910 Olympic is successfully launched. Titanic's hull is launched on May 31, 1911 and ten months of fitting out begin. Less than one month later Olympic leaves on her maiden voyage. On September 20, 1911 Olympic, under the command of Captain Edward J. Smith, collides with HMS Hawke, a Royal Navy cruiser. Olympic suffers major damage and is returned to Harland and Wolff for repairs. These repairs delay Titanic's fitting out by one month. In January, 1912 Titanic was fitted out with her lifeboats. British Board of Trade regulations at the time required sixteen lifeboats for ships of 10,000 tons or more. Written in the late 1800's, the authors of the regulations never envisioned a ship larger than that. One must remember that at the same time that these mammoth iron steamers were appearing on the scene, many ships were still made of wood and powered by sail.

The 46,000 ton Titanic actually had twenty lifeboats on board; fourteen regular wooden lifeboats, two smaller wooden boats which were kept swung out on either side of the bridge so they could be launched quickly for rescue work, and four collapsible boats, which were stored on top of the officer's quarters. So, Titanic actually had four more boats than the law required.

On March 31 Titanic's outfitting is complete and she undergoes her sea trails in Belfast on April 2. Titanic's sea trials, perfunctory at best, lasted only half a day. Only one test was conducted to see how fast the huge ship could stop. At 18 knots, with both engines in reverse, it took three minutes and fifteen seconds and covered a distance of 3,000 feet.

More than just a ship, Titanic was a virtual floating palace; more of a hotel than an ocean liner. White Star did not give the job of building ships to the lowest bidder. In fact, Titanic and her sisters were built on a cost plus arrangement. Harland and Wolff would build the ships and charge White Star their cost plus an agreed upon mark-up. And no expense was spared when it came to Titanic's appointments. The first class smoking room, for instance, with its hand carved mahogany woodwork with inlaid mother of pearl and dark green leather upholstery on the furniture, could make one forget they were on a ship at all. The palm courts, with their white wicker furniture and vine covered trellises, and the Cafe´ Parisian, a replica of a French sidewalk cafe, all served to complete the illusion.

Titanic was thought to be unsinkable by some, though she was never actually advertised that way by either Harland and Wolff or White Star. In fact, White Star advertised Titanic and Olympic simply as the "largest and finest steamers in the world". Titanic was divided into sixteen watertight compartments by means of fifteen watertight bulkheads which contained electric doors that could be closed from the bridge. In June 1911 this system of bulkheads and doors was described in Shipbuilder magazine as making the ship "practically unsinkable". In truth, only twelve doors (about a third) could be closed that way. The rest had to be closed by hand. The night Titanic sank not all of the doors were closed. Many of the electric doors, which were in the very bottom of the ship, were reopened to make it easier to rig the pumps. It probably wouldn't have mattered if all the doors had been closed. Titanic was designed so that she would float with any two adjoining compartments flooded. She would even float with any three of the first five or all of the first four compartments flooded. The problem was that the first five compartments flooded. As they filled with water the bow of the ship sank deeper and deeper, allowing the water to spill from one compartment into the next. This eventually sank the ship.

Titanic today lies in two main sections more than 12,000 feet below the surface of the North Atlantic. She was discovered in 1985 by an expedition led by Dr. Robert Ballard. Since then the ship has been visited numerous times to be explored and photographed.

Titanic is slowly disintegrating. Many scientists predict that within a few years the hull will begin to collapse in upon itself. The wreck shows a slow, but steady, progression of deterioration since she was discovered in 1985. Soon, the ship, like many of the passengers and crew who went down with her, will exist only in our hearts and minds ...

Length of the Titanic was 885 feet. Width was 92 feet. Height was 102 feet. Gross tonnage was 46,328 tons. Number of watertight compartments 16. Number of ships engines 3. Combined horsepower 76,000 HP. Number of boilers 29. Number of propellers 3. Number of lifeboats 20. People on board April 14th, 1912 approx. 2,228 People rescued 705.

May The Memory of the Titanic Live On !!