Sarah Palin has a WitchHunter? Look out, Hillary!

This post by Hannah Strange (and the name ought to be a clue) seems to have difficulty being tolerant of Sarah Palin's faith, but uses as a vehicle to criticize it the words and actions of a visiting pastor who prayed for her success.

I'll see your Pastor Muthee, and raise you a Wright and a Pfleger. The difference being that Pastor Muthee was engaged in seeking the blessings of Diety in assisting Sarah Palin, and in fighting a perceived evil, while Reverend Wright's published vitriol was directed at tearing down the country that I love, and Father Pfleger's mean-spirited and personal attacks against Hillary Clinton (in black-voice, no less - he must have forgotten his face paint) can hardly be construed as charitable. Some man of the cloth!

Sure, I find Pastor Muthee's actions hunting witches quite foreign to my own experience. Then again, where is Ms. Strange's tolerance for cultural diversity? I've heard a lot of stories about African spiritual beliefs (and admit it - from every other corner of the world as well). But it's so condescending of Ms. Strange to fill us in on the minutae of Pastor Muthee's quest to rid the village of a witch. I'll withdraw the "condescending" remark when Ms. Strange inspects ANY of Obama's associates - Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, Dorne, Rezko, Alinsky, etc - as closely as she has Pastor Muthee.

Obama kindergarten sex ed

I had a great discussion at work the other day, which should provide fodder for more than one post. One of the issues that came up was the release this week of an ad by John McCain that accused Obama of supporting comprehensive sex education for kindergartners; one of my coworkers stated that the intention was only to educate them about sexual predators so that they could protect themselves better.

So yesterday, Sean Hannity spent perhaps five minutes discussing the kindergarten sex education issue, and I had a little more basis to do some research and thought I’d share what I found with you.

To summarize: the McCain camp made the statement about Obama being in favor of kindergarten-age sex education. I’m not sure where there’s any current Obama camp response; I did find one from 15 months ago that echoed what was said in the office that "You can teach a kid about what's appropriate and not appropriate to protect them from predators out there", which I found here, among other places. According to that piece (and others), Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued a document “showing” that the Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States has a curriculum for those in kindergarten, as does the Oregon State Board of Education. FWIW, the OSBOE document (you can find a link here) is a pretty sensible document, and they seem to have a reasonable handle on the concept of “age-appropriate”. HOWEVER: according to the guy writing the article (Daniel Brody, never heard of him before, so I can't vouch for his credibility but things do seem to fit together), he was referred to the OSBOE document by Obama’s people in 2007; that same year, they sent the SIECUS guidelines to MSNBC.

You can find the SIECUS document here. They divide the curriculum up by age; “Level 1” is defined on page 50 as ages 5-8. It then describes several different areas of the curriculum, with an accompanying educational objective by target level. Some of the material there is completely reasonable, IMHO. Other topics are completely insane to even be mentioning to any child in the Level 1 age group:
· Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation. (page 51)
· Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not. (page 51)
· Masturbation should be done in a private place. (page 51)
· People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good (page 52 – do we really need a reference to “sexual behavior”? “What’s sexual behavior, mommy?”)
· Like other body parts, the genitals need care.(page 58 – what does Susie and Billy’s kindergarten teacher do – show pictures? Describe things? Hopefully, mommy and/or daddy have already taught them how to wash themselves. I don’t remember any particular need for any other care for me, my siblings, or my own kids at that age).
· Sexually Transmitted Diseases (page 63 – the last point excepted about picking up needles found on the ground, do we REALLY need to start teaching kids at this age about STDs?
· HIV/AIDS (page 64 contains 11 new points focused on HIV/AIDS. I’m a little torn here, but my general feeling is that it’s too much information for “Level 1” children
· Sexual abuse (page 67 – yes, it’s true – one portion of the curriculum focuses on abuse and predation. As you can plainly see, though, predation is not the only topic covered)

Part of the problem here is one of resources and time allocation: if we’re teaching this stuff, it takes repetition to sink in – you can’t just mention it once so what do we do about all the other legitimate diseases (cancer, diabetes, mental illness, Downs syndrome, tuberculosis, etc etc etc). The guideline acknowledges this on page 81, though they do state that ideally, all programs would cover all topics. OTOH, page 82 says that you can’t just present the bullet points to consider the job done; you’ve got a responsibility to fill in the information when necessary. What do you say when Johnny asks teacher how masturbation feels good, when he went home yesterday and tried it in a private place and didn’t feel good, is there something wrong with me?

More directly relevant to my discussion of the other day, however, is the Obama campaign’s denial that Obama’s comments supported anything EXCEPT warning them about predators. In thinking about this, “unwanted touching” doesn’t even have anything directly to do with sex education. It’s the same as finding a needle on the ground, or being exposed to another person’s blood – don’t touch it. In the case of predators, I believe that general guidelines are sufficient: don’t let strangers touch you, don’t touch strangers, run away, private parts are private, even when it’s mommy or daddy unless you’re hurting and need their help. There is no requirement that this be couched at this age level in any kind of sexual context.

We all know that there’s spin on both sides. But in this case, Obama’s spokesman apparently refers to a document that puts the lie to his own words. I have referred to this tactic (on all sides, in many situations) as lying by telling half the truth. And unfortunately, the defense of Obama in this particular appears to have been based on an acceptance of the Obama spin machine’s denial. I doubt this is my coworker's primary issue and I doubt that finding this out will sway his opinion much, if at all. But I did want to provide him and you with a few more facts.

UPDATE: OK, I found the McCain ad that apparently set off the furor. If you haven’t seen it, it’s embedded here. There’s also a link to the Illinois Senate bill at the top of that same page. You have to wade through the legalese, but boiled down it says that each class offered in any grade K through 6 SHALL (a magical legal word which compels action) include instruction on prevention of STDs including AIDS. Then, there’s language (subparagraph c(2)) that says material shall be age-appropriate, which leaves the door wide open for interpretation, and sure as God/Darwin made little green apples, some teachers will construe that as permission to teach materials at the kindergarten level which others will believe are best left alone until 10th grade.

Also, apparently a lot of the objection is to the use of the term “comprehensive”. Whether it was the right word to use or not, the Illinois senate bill uses precisely that phrase – “comprehensive sex education” – when referring to everything which comes within the definition of the act, including what’s taught to kindergartners. And yep, I agree, that’s the McCain people using the truth to convey the wrong impression, because the word “comprehensive” is not used in the act (I hope!) the same way most of us would use the word in normal discourse.

Pit Bulls and Lipstick

One controversy du jour involves Obama's remarks that "you can put lipstick on a pig (pregnant pause) (raucous crowd laughter)" [CUT !!]

OK, Mr. Obama, riddle me this: what was YOUR crowd (of partisan supporters) laughing at? Before the supposed "punch line" was delivered?

Hmmm? And don't you dare pretend that it was the alleged punch line of a hackneyed old phrase.

There is absolutely nothing inherently funny in your comment, nothing to laugh at - unless it's casting Sarah Palin in the role of pig, linked by the lipstick reference she made the week before, so fresh in so many people's minds.

You're not fooling anybody, Mr. Pretender. Well, I take that back: you're fooling yourself if you think the American public believes your denial for a moment.

Does "Community Organizer" = "Black"?

In this article, Governer David Paterson of New York asserts that referring to Barack Obama's life experience as a community organizer is nothing more than Republican code for saying that he's black. He whines that at the Republican convention, "they kept saying it, they kept laughing."

Gee, David - don't you find it pretty laughable? Not to denigrate The Chosen One's life experience, but he does have an exceptionally weak resume for someone applying for the job of Most Powerful Man in the World... No offense toward community organizers as a group of people; but on balance, aren't they just like any other group? Some contribute value to society, others are little more than shakedown artists, most are somewhere in between. Just like lawyers (one of which I used to be), used car salesmen, and politicians.

But NOTHING I have ever seen/heard/read/experienced about the calling of community organizer prompts me to think we need to find one to take over the helm of the homeland.

On some other notes, David - aren't there any white community organizers? And what exactly does it mean when Barack refers to his own past as a community organizer, hmmm?? It's only a snide racial reference when a Republican says it?

You didn't pass the bar exam, David - and it sounds like you didn't do very well in Logical Thinking 101, either.

Large Hadron Collider

They lit up the large hadron collider in Switzerland last night (my time; 10:36 a.m. Swiss time, and heaven knows they're renowned for their accuracy with timepieces). Anyway, along with all the buzz about discovering "God" particles and the amount of power this sucker consumes (35 Megawatts at IDLE!! and 180 when it's cooking), there was no small amount of speculation that the experiment would generate a black hole which would proceed to destroy the world as we know it and otherwise.

My youngest sent me this link this morning.

Too funny. So far, anyway - they've only fired one beam in one direction. Stay tuned.

Update: then my oldest sends me this link - along with the observation that there have been 5 earthquakes in the past 24 hours between 6.1 and 6.9 magnitude.

Coincidence?