Did McCain Lie?


I keep hearing about how McCain lied about Obama’s promotion and “yes” vote on a bill that would have taught sex-ed to kindergartners. Obama says it was just to teach them about inappropriate touching. So, being the former debater that I am, I tracked the bill down. Here’s what it says (the final version):

 

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.

 

The original bill established that the teaching would occur in the 6th grade, when most students are 11 or 12. In today’s society, most of them already know about sex. The bill itself actually isn’t a bad bill, emphasizing abstinence, personal responsibility, and consequences for negative behavior. That was to be the crux of the bill, teaching that self-control is the best way to avoid pregnancy and STD’s. Unfortunately, the “K” was added in (all underlined material was added in prior to the bill being voted on).

The Bill itself, however, deals primarily with teen-to-teen sexual activity and doesn’t really deal with pedophilia or “inappropriate touching” as Obama says. Section 7, lines 8-26 deal with how to turn down sexual advances, but it’s mostly in the context of peer pressure and doesn’t specify “this is all that shall be taught to kindergartners.” Furthermore, this section was added as an afterthought; it was not part of the original bill. In fact, state Senator Iris Martinez – one of the sponsors of the bill – when asked if the bill was specifically about touching, said, “Absolutely not.”

There is nothing designating that anyone below the 6h grade wouldn’t be subject to any of the above. Though the very first lines of section one do designate that a child can opt out via a guardian’s signature, there is nothing (that I saw) saying that a parent/guardian has to know that the child is enrolled in the class.

Again, it actually is a good bill in its original format (which was 6 – 12) that addresses a much-needed issue. However, I think both conservatives and liberals (at least those that still have sanity) can admit that a 6-year-old learning about sex details robs that child of his innocence.

In other words, McCain didn’t lie at all. The ad is accurate – Obama supported a bill that would have allowed teachers to explain detailed aspects of sexuality with 5 and 6 year olds. Certainly McCain has embellished other things in ads and taken unnecessary swipes at Obama (such as comparing Obama to Paris Hilton), but this one just is not it. There’s no wording in the bill that would prevent a teacher from teaching intricate details about sex to a six year old.

Not that I am trying to be a conservative mouthpiece, I just don’t like injustice and less-than-truthful statements. 

It’s not about race


Jack Cafferty at CNN has come out and said the main reason the polls in the US Presidential Election are so close is because of race. As he argues:

“The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.”

The sad part of Cafferty’s article is that there is some truth to what he’s saying. There are some people out there who, even if Obama were a carbon copy of Reagan in terms of policy, wouldn’t vote for him because of his skin color. It’s unfortunate that we still live in a nation where someone wouldn’t vote for someone of a different race, even if that candidate were more than qualified and would be good for America.

At the same time, if we go off stereotypes (and complete the irony), wouldn’t most of these people who wouldn’t vote for a black man no matter what also struggle with voting for a female vice president? Granted, not every racist is also a sexist (and not every sexist is a racist), but it’s fair to assume that someone who is closed-minded enough to be a racist is likewise a sexist. Continue reading