How the Enemies of the Normal Are Destroying Obama
by Mark P. Shea
9/10/08
Print This Page
It is an old fact of Christian theology that concupiscence "darkens the intellect" -- or, as I prefer to put it in more colloquial terms, "Sin Makes You Stupid."
The visceral reaction to Sarah Palin by the Enemies of the Normal in the Obama camp is a picture-perfect illustration of this.
From the instantaneous embrace of Trig Trutherism by Andrew Sullivan, Kossites, and various demented contributors to the official Obama Campaign site to the strange theories put forward that Palin is (wait for it) a pro-life hypocrite for not aborting Trig to the bewildered and panicky revelations that Palin is actually on record as praying for friends and being an average high school student, the sheer hatred and terror of the Normal from the manufacturers of Blue State culture is palpable.
Mark Steyn received an e-mail from right here in my home state, the Soviet Republic of Washington, that distills in chemical purity the heart and soul of the Abortion Party's real hatred for Sarah Palin:
This abortion prohibitionist hag won't cut it among women with brains. And BTW she is a good example of reproduction run amok. 5 kids; 1 retard. I wonder if the bitch ever heard of getting spayed.
There is more than the political to a remark like that. It's a spiritual and even demonic hatred, a Herodian hatred I'm not sure can be capped by mere appeals to prudence and reason by people in the Obama campaign who are nervously eyeing the polling data and seeing how the Palin Hate is playing with ordinary people.
Not that some people aren't trying to rein in the Enemies of the Normal before they permanently alienate swing voters and even fellow Democrats. Michael Moore (surprise!) recognizes the train wreck ahead if the Enemies of the Normal continue to try to win the election by indulging their freakish loathing of, well, most of their countrymen and women and their kids:
But before everyone gets all smug and self-righteous about the Palin selection, remember where you live. You live in a nation of gun owners and hunters. You live in a country where one out of three girls get pregnant before they are 20. You live in a nation of C students. Knocking Bush for being a C student only endeared him to the nation of C students. Knock Palin for having kids, for having a kid who's having a baby, for anything that is part of her normalness -- a normalness that looks very familiar to so many millions of Americans -- well, you do this at your own peril.
These are the words, not of somebody who actually likes all those normal people, but of somebody who is not so blinded by hatred of the Normal that he is willing to throw away an Obama victory just to have a spasm of emotional incontinence. He can see what guys like Steyn's correspondent cannot: that the Enemies of the Normal terrify and sicken ordinary folk.
It's no small part of why I and millions of other Americans really like Sarah Palin: She's not intimidated by losers who call Trig a "retard" and reduce her to a breeding animal (you know, self-described "progressives" and "feminists"). She's cool and confident and able to leave mukluk prints all over the face of such creatures without breaking a sweat. Who (besides that frightened loser and his ilk) can't love that?
Well, Andrew Sullivan for one. His response to Moore's very sound warning (a warning, mind you, echoing Obama's own rebuke to his disciples about making political hay from an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, given his own personal history) is to offer this steaming moose dropping of spin:
I'm not smug or self-righteous about this. I'm alarmed by what Charles Krauthammer has called
the paucity of any Palin record or expressed conviction on the major issues of our time.
Maybe we're being picky, but you kinda want to know those kinds of things when someone could be president of the United States next January. Does the fact that we know nothing about her foreign policy views not worry anyone?
Ah! So it was his interest in policy that drove him to speculateon the parentageof Palin's children like a neo-Puritan Inquisitor and Ambassador from Pleasantville. Sure. I'm totally believing that.
Moore is right, and Sullivan and a lot of other Enemies of the Normal have indulged in precisely the behavior Moore warns against with the immediate lust to discuss not her policy but the most vicious rumors about her kids. The hatred of Palin among many in the Obama camp is, as I said, a pre-rational thing. And the swirling kaleidoscope of ex post facto rationalizations for the hatred (plus the flat dishonesty of stuff like Andy's "All I care about is policy" facade) is what is appalling ordinary people and inspiring them to say things like my blog reader who wrote:
And what would they say about me? 11 kids, one of them a "retard" (God how hard it is to type that), and one a disabled vet, and 4 grandkids. Yeah, I'm rankled.
These people could actually make me vote for McCain after all, just to spite them.
I've long believed this election was Obama's to lose. And if Obama can't restrain his worshippers from indulging this kind of filth (and I strongly suspect he can't, despite his best attempts), he shall lose. I myself will not be voting for either candidate, so it's no skin off my nose either way. But I can smell moose patties even when the Party of Compassion tells me it's American Apple Pie. The Palin hatred is only secondarily about policy. First, it's about the hatred of the Normal American. And Normal Americans are the people who vote.
Moore sees this. So does Obama. They know that the Enemies of the Normal in their camp tipped their hand immediately and revealed their profound contempt for the ordinary American. And Obama and Moore know how that sort of stuff plays in Paducah.
What remains to be seen is whether the Enemies of the Normal can restrain their freakish hatred of Palin's normalcy (and particularly of her disabled child -- get your "Sarah Palin Retard Baby Jokes" right here, Team Obama!) in order to achieve their long-term goals. Given the performance of people like Sullivan and Steyn's correspondent so far, not to mention the MSM journalists who "wrinkled their noses in disgust when Piper, Ms. Palin's youngest daughter, was filmed kitty-licking her baby brother's hair into place," my bet is no. When the voices of moderation for Team Obama are Michael Moore and -- I am not making this up -- P.Z. Myers, you are in deep, deep trouble.
Sin does indeed make you stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark P. Shea is a senior editor at www.CatholicExchange.com and a columnist for InsideCatholic.com. Visit his blog at www.markshea.blogspot.com.
Readers have left 105 comments.
Quote(1) Enough is enough
September 10th, 2008 | 2:04am
Do you want to know how far your article moved me from my commitment not to vote for McCain-Palin? To mimic one of the favorite new slogans of the McCainiacs, "zero".
Enemies of the Normal? Are you serious? Have you been paying attention AT ALL to the news lately? It's not the Obama campaign or even the MSM making an issue out of Palin's family anymore - its people like you. There are millions of us who want to put her record to scrutiny and all you can do is keep bringing up the few who want to focus on her family or make off-color marks.
Meanwhile it is the McCAIN CAMPAIGN airing messages that McCAIN HIMSELF has given his approval to, grossly distorting some long forgotten education plan of Obama's as a plan to teach "sex ed to kindergartners". This is, as Obama's campaign manager rightly said, perverse!
When are we going to see an Inside Catholic piece on the sin of lying, of spreading false rumors and bearing false witness? Like abortion, which is murder, it's one of the big ten things we aren't supposed to engage in. How can these Karl Rove tactics be justified? Because Palin is pro-life? And how is this any different than the choicers who distort abortion statistics to make their case, using lies as a weapon of war, saying to themselves that the "ends justify the means"? What happened to the Catholic belief that we may do no evil, even if good will come of it? Out the window when it comes to politics!
What the GOP has engaged in has far surpassed anything Obama and a whole army of left-leaning bloggers have yet to do put together:
They have lied about Palin's political record, including what she has supported and not supported.
They have lied about Obama's record, blatantly and unapologeticly.
These lies have come from the top down, from the candidates themselves down to the right-wing gutter media.
Obama has consistently turned the other cheek while these lying savages tear him apart. If only he and his campaign were half as ruthless as the Republican counterpart, half as willing to avoid the issues and launch obscene personal attacks, THAT might save Obama, because the last two elections and now sadly this one in progress is showing that THAT is what the people respond to. We should all be ashamed.
Written by Joe H
Quote(2) Sorry...
September 10th, 2008 | 2:19am
If what I said was over the top or offensive. But when I heard about the latest McCain ad I was practically ill. I just can't believe it has come to this, and unfortunately I let it get to me and it comes out too harshly.
I will try my best to say what I have to say with a little more composure in the future.
Written by Joe H
Quote(3) no TV, so...
September 10th, 2008 | 4:20am
Joe:
I've had no television, apart from older shows and movies on DVD rentals, for over a year now.
Just what, exactly, has you so exercised? I don't know anything about whatever new ad.
I have to admit that I found Shea's description of Obama supporters matched my own observations. It's been one thing after another; the latest was the eBay auction of Trig Palin (now removed) and Trig's "blog."
Obama himself has tended toward the classy side of the spectrum so consistently that even when he came out with the "stinky old fish" and "lipstick on a pig" remarks, I didn't read much into it other than that, once you take the fellow off the teleprompter, he puts his foot in his mouth every bit as often as "Dubya." Yes, I know others are sure he's making sly personal comments with plausible deniability. But I just think he's so used to entirely friendly audiences of people who think entirely as he does that he hasn't yet adapted. Still, he seems to want to keep it classy.
But his base? Ye gods. I'm not sure what analogy would best describe the angsty seething tensions and outbursts of invective, but it might involve watch-spring images and blown gaskets.
So I found the tone of Shea's piece, while feisty as usual, to be more or less proportional to the misbehavior being described.
Written by R.C.
Quote(4) programmer
September 10th, 2008 | 7:31am
Mark,
I am not sure as a Catholic why you would not be voting.
"I myself will not be voting for either candidate, so it's no skin off my nose either way. But ".
The defining issue is clear and the Bishop's have spoken. Why not vote?
L J
Written by Larry J
Quote(5) I'm with Larry J
September 10th, 2008 | 7:42am
Mark, the most jaw-dropping moment in your piece was your declaration that you were not voting for either candidate. That can mean you are voting for a third-party candidate or not voting at all. I'm assuming you intend to vote for a third-party candidate. In my view that vote will take one vote away from the effort to defeat the Enemies of the Normal you describe so eloquently. I don't get it.
Written by Deal W. Hudson
Quote(6) Untitled
September 10th, 2008 | 7:54am
Mark has made it clear (on his own site) that he thinks McCain is complicit in evil, as well, and so he cannot in good conscience vote for him. Of course he'll vote for a third party candidate (and it's even easier for Mark, since he could cast ten thousand votes for anyone and not keep his state from going blue).
You can't help a person win by not voting for them or their opponent.
Joe H, I haven't seen the "sex ed to kindergartners" ad, so I'm not sure of the context, but even if it's a wild distortion, at least it's about Obama's policy. It isn't wide-eyed, hysterical, and dare I say evil attacks on his children who have done nothing to insert themselves into public discourse (and before anyone says the words Michelle Obama, let me remind you that she at least went on the campaign trail to work for her husband. Palin's children have done no such thing).
Written by Andy
Quote(7) I'll be voting
September 10th, 2008 | 8:38am
Just not for either major party presidential candidate. My reason for not voting for Palin is simple: it means for voting for McCain, who I cannot in conscience support any more than I can support Obama in conscience.
Voting for a third party is not voting for Obama any more than it is voting for McCain. It is voting for a third party.
That's gotten me labeled a Catholic Daily-Kossite *and* a right-wing shill on my blog within the last week. I'll be glad when the election is over and people regain their sanity. Right now I feel like I'm wearing a Mariners shirt at a Yankees-Braves World Series and the beery mob is eyeing me hungrily.
My basic feeling about the elections is that it's Alien vs. Predator: Whoever wins, we lose.
Written by Mark P. Shea
Quote(8) Untitled
September 10th, 2008 | 9:27am
Meanwhile it is the McCAIN CAMPAIGN airing messages that McCAIN HIMSELF has given his approval to, grossly distorting some long forgotten education plan of Obama's as a plan to teach "sex ed to kindergartners".
McCain’s ad was phenomenal.
The “sex ed” genres are rape narratives told to Kindergartners with end of story guidance that kindergartners can consent to sex if they want to and it feels good. If your next door neighbor performed the dramas, any good parent would call the police.
The fact that this was Obama’s only educational contribution is frightening.
Written by Frederica
Quote(9) The hate speech to nowhere
September 10th, 2008 | 10:39am
I thought it was telling that Deal Hudson describes this commentary as "eloquent." Building a whole essay on some anonymous hate speech, possibly written by the author himself, and then blaming its crude sentiments on the Obama Campaign has to be the weakest possible form of journalism...and the ultimate political smear. It's difficult to see anything eloquent about Mark Shea's piece, even if you are completely sold on its ideologic thrust (as we know Dr Hudson is).
Written by Patrick Whelan
Quote(10) The Truth is Out There, Patrick
September 10th, 2008 | 11:15am
Building a whole essay on some anonymous hate speech, possibly written by the author himself
Yeah, cuz I have nothing better to do than create a zillion websites, as well as anonymous emails to Steyn, claiming to be by Obama fans and mocking the disabled--all on behalf of a candidate I will not be voting for. Trig Trutherism will prevail! I'm part of the Conspiracy!
Sheesh!
By Team Obama, I mean "anybody who considers himself an Obama supporter". I made it pretty clear that not just Obama, but his more politically savvy supporters are not happy with the the way the Palin Hate is playing in Paducah.
But you keep up the denial of the phenomenal amount of pre-rational hatred directed at Palin and her family from so many Obamaphiles. Instead, you get right on that Conspiracy Theory. It's such a winning strategy.
Written by Mark Shea
Quote(11) Another anecdote
September 10th, 2008 | 11:20am
I had NPR on last week and was listening to the Dianne Rheem show when a caller spoke about his concern with Sarah Palin because she wanted to burn books she disapproved of. His comment was that first they burn books, then they burn people. Ms. Rheem corrected him by saying that the allegation was only that she wanted to ban books, not burn them. She then asked the Republican commentator for her opinion which, appropriately, was that the allegation was nothing more than a rumor and didn't warrant a response.
Apparently the caller used sources other than the MSM as they were only repeating the ban-the-books story; the burn-the-books spin was most likely from the people Mr. Shea described in his article.
Written by Ender
Quote(12) Mariners?
September 10th, 2008 | 11:40am
We Yankee fans loooove you Mariners!
Where else can we get an easy 'W'?
(tongue in cheek)
As for Braves fans, I've never seen any of them get passionate for anything outside of speculating what new girlfriend Uncle Ted will be bringing to Turner Field.
Written by Tito Edwards
Quote(13) Thank you Frederica
September 10th, 2008 | 12:01pm
I saw the ad and completely agree. Obama can dress it up any way he wants to, but he is absolutely advocating teaching sex education to kindergarteners. I heard his campaign manager arguing that this bill is just (just? Good Lord!) about helping poor 4 and 5 year old children learn how to spot sexual predators. It is wolf-in-sheep's-clothing tricks and language engineering that school boards and politicians use all the time - and I am not talking party lines here. Parents who are not vigilant fall for it. They think, "oh, look how much they care - please help my Johnny/Janey". They become programmed to think "I need the village, I need the village." I have children, and I have firsthand experience - the agenda is insidious. Dear parents, always demand more information, curriculums, syllabuses, video previews, etc. on any health issue or any human development lessons taught in your schools - you need to be alert, and be ready to opt your children out - God wills it, and His Church teaches, that our precious treasures learn these things from us in the home from a Christian perspective (and at an age that is appropriate). God bless.
Written by Monica
Quote(14) I saw it too
September 10th, 2008 | 12:05pm
I saw it too, the glassy eyes of hate and horror of my liberal friends and family. They set up a howl like I've never seen, over Palin. What's funny is they all turned to me in some way or another and growled, "I bet you're happy! He basically elected you: professional, mother of 5, conservative, Christian, and pro-life" These are the same people who tried to talk us into an amnio for our last baby, in case there was "something wrong with it".
I'm really really enjoying their discomfiture. And I'm enjoying the way they are burying themselves with the "normals", all across America.
I wasn't too sure about voting for McCain, but now I will be...
Written by Maria
Quote(15) "There
September 10th, 2008 | 12:14pm
Really now, adding to the Kossites' flying apart like a helicopter with its rear-rotor shot off there is another reason Obama is circling the drain: people's inability to smell what they are shovelling. The point has been made several times: Michael Moore and P.Z. Meyer's astonishing calls to cool it make no sense if it's all in right-winger's minds.
Written by Scott W.
Quote(16) Untitled
September 10th, 2008 | 12:24pm
Let's face it. The only reason McCain chose Palin was to secure his fading support among social conservatives. This has been a very effective strategy thus far and may help him sustain momentum until November. The pendulum may still swing toward Obama once or twice before election day, but McCain may have timing on his side at the end.
Nevertheless, it doesn't erase the fact that we're still left with McCain at the top of the ticket. Try as they might with Rovian alchemy, the Republicans can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear. McCain's record on the social issues is very unreliable and, for those who don't trust neoconservative foreign policy, he's a complete loose canon.
Written by RK
Quote(17) Kindergarten sex monologues
September 10th, 2008 | 12:37pm
This is no lie: In one of the lessons, the teachers manual instructs teachers to tell the children that it’s normal to explore their classmate’s private areas, because all children do, but they cannot do this at school. It plants the idea in their heads which some kids will act upon. Whoever their victim is can’t resist because the teacher has told them it’s supposed to happen.
The programs encourages young female children as young as kindergarten to engage in sexual activity with any irresponsible partner that comes along. It is degrading, chauvinistic, unsound, unsavory and reckless as it always results in the ruination of childrens' self esteem.
Shame on the Obama camp for pushing this crapola instead of improving the intellectual skills of the poor and indigent.
Written by Frederica
Quote(18) Holding My Nose
September 10th, 2008 | 1:07pm
If anyone is looking for lies and smears about Senator Obama and his record, Inside Catholic is the place to find them. Every day. All day. If the lies and smears aren't in the blogs, they're in the comments. It's particularly ripe today.
Joe H, thank you for your comments. I share your revulsion.
Written by Reader
Quote(19) Voice of Reason (Quote)
September 10th, 2008 | 1:28pm
"As a pediatrician, I am happy to see that Obama supported age-appropriate sex education from Kindergarten through 12th grade. I applaud the comments from parents stating they want to talk to their kids about this themselves. I wish all parents would do the same. However, the harsh reality is that most don't. Each child has the RIGHT to know about their own bodies and what is appropriate behavior. This issue is really about children's rights. As a pediatrician, I teach each of my patients at each of their visits age-appropriate information about themselves and I am glad to see a candidate that supports the schools doing the same."
By the way, the program Obama supported was totally voluntary, non-mandatory. Parents could opt out.
Written by Reader
Quote(20) I want a T-Shirt!
September 10th, 2008 | 1:50pm
My basic feeling about the elections is that it's Alien vs. Predator: Whoever wins, we lose.
— Mark Shea
I've never seen this better said.
Written by Steve Skojec
Quote(21) Re: Voice of Reason (Quote)
September 10th, 2008 | 1:51pm
However, the harsh reality is that most don't. Each child has the RIGHT to know about their own bodies and what is appropriate behavior. This issue is really about children's rights.
— Reader
The harsh reality is this is insane. The reason why children have parents is because we know when it is best to teach them what they need to know on the subject! This quack has to lecture us on forcing their agenda on our children? "Appropriate" is not sex ed in kindergarten. Get real!
Written by Pansy Moss
Quote(22) Candidate analysis
September 10th, 2008 | 1:54pm
I've long been intrigued by this election's tone and shape the candidates envision to take this country and how the country accepts that vision.
Reagan in choosing Bush, ex CIA Director, as his VP was the normal guy who wanted to bring and end to the Cold War and fix the bad economy.
Clinton (with equal portions of charm and famous anger) in choosing the legacy, Gore, wanted to see the leadership as handsome, strong, clever, and young in an elitest fashion - harmless stuff or so he thought.
Bush 43 in choosing Cheney wanted to lead the country with a blend of moderate compassion to conservative Republican watchfulness unafraid to explore the defense options knowing some of the inside intelligence from the previous 20 years.
Now Obama is a naive, "calm the rhetoric; its about working with terrorists and lefty solutions" kind of guy, aka Jimmy Carter. However, Obama picks up liberal, tax man Biden, of the Ways and Means Committee, a committee responsible for writing the tax code for lo these many years who is also an old time inside-the beltway, business as usual kind of guy. Biden knows where the money can be stolen from while cleverly hiding behind his liberal and uber-brillient smiles and clever political/power tactics. How can "change" possibly come from this duo?
Has anyone besides Investors Business Daily and Glenn Beck ever divulged Obama's founding of Public Allies, a militant, mostly ethnic youth group with over 2000 "volunteers?" Michele Obama is its CEO. It's my understanding that Obama wants to make its "community service" compulsory and mandatory for all people under the age of 30.
McCain, always the maverick who sees himself as the reformer chooses Palin, a normal woman who looks like many other people in leadership in this country, young, confident, sexy w/out licentiousness bimbo portrayals, proud and pro American tradition, but her strongest suit is to get rid of the Welfare state, whether its authored by the Democrats or Republicans. Palin brings back thoughts of Reagan from the post feminist generation, not affected by feminist/gay ideological militancy. She also looks like the solid woman being graduated out of college these days headed into the professional world.
McCain in choosing Palin shows he knows where the people of this country are headed and where he wants the presidency to focus its vision.
My sense is that both McCain and Palin would have the sense to know how to avoid an accident while hunting with Cheney. That spells out real street sense to me, not the compulsory Public Allies community organizer version either. Obama and Biden wouldn't even pose for a silly John Kerry shotgun hunting photo op let alone go put on hiking shoes; they are just too upper crusty.
To my thinking though Obama though has one point in his favor; he likes to visit Montana. If you've ever been there you know how its beauty and hospitable people can heal campaign exhaustion. It's where humor and acceptance of drama and excentricities are the norm.
Written by Teri
Quote(23) Untitled
September 10th, 2008 | 2:10pm
Reader,
Voluntary sex-ed programs aren't in practice, volutary, and you and Obama both know it.
The fact that some pediatrician endorses this program says NOTHING about the spiritual an psycho-sexual harm it does to children. It only means that there's an adult who has bought into the sexual revolution and thinks that it should be brought to children. Since we already knew that, it's hardly a revelation, nor is it somehow a justification.
Written by Danby
Quote(24) come on people
September 10th, 2008 | 2:38pm
Are some of you really arguing that children shouldn't be taught about how to spot sexual predators?
Obama realized that some parents might be uncomfortable with this and so there was an option for any parent to keep their child out of it.
But there was nothing inappropriate about the substance of the program. MAYBE it was ill-conceived; MAYBE it was naive of Obama to think he could try and help children in some way without being misunderstood by hysterical fools. The McCain ad makes it seem as if Obama wanted to teach 5 year olds the same kind of sex education they teach, oh, I don't know, 10 year olds (thats how old I was when I had sex ed at Catholic school). Or perhaps high schoolers.
Of course the kool-aid drinkers will get a belly-full from this but it is the fact that they've sunk so bloody low that really saddens and angers me.
Obama has shown a remarkable amount of restraint under relentless attack (a pretty good presidential quality I think) while Palin has gone on the attack viciously, and then complains every chance she gets about unfair treatment. That's what Orwell called "doublethink".
Written by Joe H
Quote(25) It beings
September 10th, 2008 | 2:40pm
Reader,
Voluntary sex-ed programs aren't in practice, volutary, and you and Obama both know it.
The fact that some pediatrician endorses this program says NOTHING about the spiritual an psycho-sexual harm it does to children. It only means that there's an adult who has bought into the sexual revolution and thinks that it should be brought to children. Since we already knew that, it's hardly a revelation, nor is it somehow a justification.
— Danby
Why can't you listen? There is NO harm being done here - it is meant to warn kids about sexual predators. That's all. There's no "sexual revolution" nonsense going on here, Obama is a father of two girls, not some leering sex pervert.
It's time for people to screw their rational thinking-caps back on and reject these outrageous lies and distortions. Even if you don't want to vote for Obama for a valid reason, you should deplore these sorts of hateful, deceptive attacks. Does anyone care about the state of political discourse in this country?
Written by Joe H
Quote(26) Untitled
September 10th, 2008 | 2:41pm
As a pediatrician, I am happy to see that Obama supported age-appropriate sex education from Kindergarten through 12th grade. I applaud the comments from parents stating they want to talk to their kids about this themselves. I wish all parents would do the same. However, the harsh reality is that most don't. Each child has the RIGHT to know about their own bodies and what is appropriate behavior. This issue is really about children's rights. As a pediatrician, I teach each of my patients at each of their visits age-appropriate information about themselves and I am glad to see a candidate that supports the schools doing the same."
By the way, the program Obama supported was totally voluntary, non-mandatory. Parents could opt out.
The idea parents are not teaching concepts about their own children's bodies and sexuality is
dishonorable. These "sex ed prgrams" is nothing more than de-programing what parents are teaching at home, the holiness and sanctity of sexuality. How on earth does this pediatrician think the earth populated itself before Woodstock?
Sexuality is taught by 99.9% of parents. It is taught with an agenda to keep their children safe from other peoples impulsive erotica. With the intercession of the Woodstock generation who insists on programming filth - we have HIV, STD, Herpes, HPV, sterility, abortion - - and without all these, this pediatrician would have one less mercedes in his driveway.
Written by Frederica
Quote(27) Untitled
September 10th, 2008 | 2:45pm
Why can't you listen? There is NO harm being done here - it is meant to warn kids about sexual predators.
Joe,
With all due respect, you are clueless.
I'd lay low in the insult that Mothers and Fathers are not teaching their children about their bodies and how to use their libido. Obama is not going to win with that meme.
Written by Frederica
Quote(28) Reader's quote
September 10th, 2008 | 2:46pm
Dear Reader,
Just curious if you know the religious beliefs of this pediatrician you quoted. Please don't think this is a sarcastic question - it isn't. It really will give us a better perpective. We know Obama believes "it takes a village", because he wouldn't have endorsed this plan if he didn't. And it doesn't mean much that this plan was optional, not mandatory, etc. - I read that as well. As I noted in an earlier post, many of these programs are presented to parents using clever verbiage that cloaks the real agenda. Parents are led to believe that their children will be learning about stranger danger, or seemingly harmless things about hygiene, growing bigger, etc. Parents do not opt out because they don't know they need to opt out, especially if they are trying to be faithful Catholics. I am speaking from experience, and believe me, I know what it feels like to have my first grader come home in tears and terrified about getting AIDS. I was horribly deceived at my son's expense (some "rights", huh?) Thanks and God bless you.
Written by Monica
Quote(29) Untitled
September 10th, 2008 | 3:03pm
Are some of you really arguing that children shouldn't be taught about how to spot sexual predators?
Please don’t resort to these kinds of gutter insults!
95% of sexual predators use the pretense that they’re going to teach them about sexuality. That’s what Shanley et al used, that is what teachers use, that is what pedophiles use.
Therefore, if you are looking for sexual predators, the most dangerous place to plop your child is into a situation where somebody, other than a family member, is claiming they need to intercede to teach your children sexuality because you are deficient.
Written by Frederica
Quote(30) I'M clueless?
September 10th, 2008 | 3:14pm
Why can't you listen? There is NO harm being done here - it is meant to warn kids about sexual predators.
Joe,
With all due respect, you are clueless.
I'd lay low in the insult that Mothers and Fathers are not teaching their children about their bodies and how to use their libido. Obama is not going to win with that meme.
— Frederica
Even if it happens to be true? It isn't an insult if it's the truth, and it may be the truth that some parents, maybe even a lot of parents, don't have the time or the ability to teach their children what they need to know.
You're clueless if you don't understand the implications of the breakdown of the family in this country. Saying that the family "should" do this and that, which I agree with, is not the same as saying that it "can".
And so under these circumstances, where ANYONE had the ability to opt out, they thought that they would at least TRY and teach kids how to spot a predator. For you to suggest that legislators and teachers are somehow really just trying to "fool these kids" to lure them into bizarre sexual relations is just crazy.
You're also completely friggin' clueless when you suggest that family members are inherently safer than, say, teachers. Do you want to re-think that claim? Do you want to look at the percentage of children abused by parents or aunts or uncles compared to the percentage abused by teachers or Barack Obama? Some people will say anything to reinforce their ideology.
With all due, respect, of course.
Written by Joe H
Quote(31) Oh, and...
September 10th, 2008 | 3:15pm
Obama is not trying to "win with that meme". It is the McCain campaign that is dragging this thing up from the past and spreading it around as something dirty and evil.
Written by Joe H
Quote(32) Re: come on people
September 10th, 2008 | 3:17pm
Obama realized that some parents might be uncomfortable with this and so there was an option for any parent to keep their child out of it.
— Joe H
Uncomfortable, perhaps, but it's our responsibility, not yours, not Obama's.
RE: avoiding sexual predators? As far as avoidance is within a child's control (in other words, besides a child's instinct that some people are just plain creepy, relying on a child to keep themselves safe is ludicrous-that is what parents are for, and sadly sometimes bad things happen with the best of parents), the best way to teach a kindergartner is age-appropriate modesty and chastity. At that age it is usually nothing more that keeping them in a healthy household, around modest and chaste people, and not exposing them to early to over-sexualized TV shows or behavior inappropriate for their age levels (such as drawing unnecessary attention to "their bodies" on a level they cannot handle). That's it.
Written by Pansy Moss
Quote(33) Re: Oh, and...
September 10th, 2008 | 3:18pm
Obama is not trying to "win with that meme". It is the McCain campaign that is dragging this thing up from the past and spreading it around as something dirty and evil.
— Joe H
So does he support it or not?
Written by Pansy Moss
Quote(34) Joe H and Reader
September 10th, 2008 | 3:21pm
Joe H and Reader--is there anything about the Obama campaign that you don't agree with? I've read both of you respond to any criticism of Mr Obama with the same vehemence as Joe H displayed earlier in this post over the last several weeks. I've gotten the idea that you both will support him despite his support of the pro-death movement because you probably feel that you hold the prudential judgment to overlook that without life, nothing else matters.
Now before you start to bring up anything about the other side, or that you are going after the "lesser of two evils" or anything else that might raise the blood pressure of Joe H back to where it was before he posted (and then recanted), consider that we, as Catholics, can never support evil. We can support the greater good and for that, because of the stance that Mr McCain has of the vast majority of pro-life issues, we need to move in that direction--just as many pro-life Democrats have on this very site (yes, the same one that Reader says is full of lies).
The whole point of the original post is that there a ton of flame throwers out there who spew hatred--in this case, against Mrs. Palin, her family, her baby, etc. Yep--there's also stuff out there about the Obama family (ummm, Andy, what the heck are you yammering about in the last line of your post?)Denying that they exist or trying to somehow justify their remarks is just dumb.
Written by OhPlease
Quote(35) my point of view
September 10th, 2008 | 3:37pm
"Joe H and Reader--is there anything about the Obama campaign that you don't agree with?"
Plenty, beginning with the pro-choice politics, and I've said so many times.
"I've gotten the idea that you both will support him despite his support of the pro-death movement because you probably feel that you hold the prudential judgment to overlook that without life, nothing else matters."
Well, I also have this idea that if we're all eradicated in a nuclear explosion, nothing else matters either, and that's a place I think McCain is more likely to take us.
That said, I haven't decided yet whether or not that means I should vote for Obama in spite of abortion. All I know is that I will NOT vote for McCain.
"consider that we, as Catholics, can never support evil"
Then you can't support a candidate whose campaign tells outrageous lies that destroy political discourse in this country, candidates that lie about their records repeatedly. Lying is also evil, lying to the people from a position of power for political purposes is also evil.
No evil, even if good will come of it. And so I'm trying to decide whether or not voting for Obama, given the gravity of what may happen if McCain is elected, is evil or not. You can do the same for the liar and his lying VP. Maybe the lies are the means that justify the ends of one day getting a supreme court that will overturn RvW.
As I see it, these Rovian tactics are appalling and unjustifiable. You can't say "that's politics" as if Catholics have nothing to say about lying when it comes to politics.
I am also saddened by the state of political discourse in America, which Obama has tried to elevate, and which McRove has degenerated over and over again, and to a greater degree each time. Obama wants to focus on the issues and McCain is whining about some "lipstick on a pig" remark, which EVERYONE knows Obama was applying to their positions on the issues and not a particular individual. The GOP has destroyed political discourse in this country, has brought it down to the level of smears and nitpicking complaints. Spite for these tactics alone is driving me pretty hard towards pulling the level for Obama.
Written by Joe H
Quote(36) This excerpt from Newsweek
September 10th, 2008 | 3:42pm
On the Obama/lipstick controversy:
"The point, of course, was to get everyone speculating about whether or not Obama had committed a heinous act of "sexism." Mission accomplished. Never mind that "you can put lipstick on a pig" is an old idiomatic expression. Never mind that Obama was talking about McCain--not Palin--when he used it. Never mind that Obama also said that "you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change,' [but] it's still gonna stink after eight years." Never mind that McCain's former press secretary, Torie Clarke, wrote a book called "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era." Never mind that Elizabeth Edwards once compared McCain's health care plan to “painting lipstick on a pig.” Never mind that Obama has used the phrase before, claiming last September that Gen. David Petraeus "has done his best to try to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig" in Iraq. And never mind that McCain said the same thing of Hillary Clinton's health care plan the following month, characterizing it as "eerily" similar to her failed 1993 proposal. "I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” McCain said, “but it’s still a pig."
Never mind all that. According to McCain, Obama wasn't doing what he, Clarke, Edwards and Obama himself had done before--you know, just using a colorful American metaphor. No. In McCain's view, Obama was actually dumb enough to mount the stage, face the cameras and boldly announce that Sarah Palin is a porker."
To me, the McCain campaign is really the enemy of rationality right now.
Written by Joe H
Quote(37) Re: Voice of Reason (Quote)
September 10th, 2008 | 3:44pm
By the way, the program Obama supported was totally voluntary, non-mandatory. Parents could opt out.
— Reader
I'll be happy to have my tax dollars support this after the government fixes another of my tax dollar supported programs--public education. Am holding my breath starting....now.
Written by RK
Quote(38) Untitled
September 10th, 2008 | 4:05pm
You're also completely friggin' clueless when you suggest that family members are inherently safer than, say, teachers.
How you get away with speaking like a vulgar bully when everyone else is held to a different standard here is puzzling. I am a woman and I would appreciate your speaking to me with respect.
Obama is not trying to "win with that meme". It is the McCain campaign that is dragging this thing up from the past and spreading it around as something dirty and evil.
You’ve fallen into the hands of paranoia. I’m sorry to hear you would trust a virtual stranger before you’d trust your mother, father, sisters and brothers. I find that hard to believe in the real world.
Away from the cyclone of hysteria, parents are on top of who is in their family and neighborhood and a clarion call that you as a parent are on top of your child is enough to keep predators away. The point of the McCain ad is that Obama is exposing kindergartners to rape stories under the premise that all parents are deficient in keeping their children safe – which is insulting and ludicrous – so it is his meme.
Further he takes it upon himself to decide what is age appropriate for everyone’s children. which is emotionally harmful. Finally, he is putting them right into the hands of predators who jump on opportunities to be community sex crusaders so they can target a child from a dysfunctional family and then victimize them under the guise they are helping them learn about sex.
It is filth and we are entitled to know this is his agenda.
Written by Frederica
Quote(39) Joe H.
September 10th, 2008 | 4:18pm
Joe H., you shock me. One post you sound reasonable and knowledgable and thoughtful, the next you're a lunatic. Don't say it's because your upset, because everybody is. Calm down, your points will be better understood, and by more people, if you do. You bemoan "Rovian" tactics and then refer to McCain and Palin as the liar and his lieing VP. Are you helping to raise the tone at all yourself?
You are hopelessly naive if you think one party fights dirty and the other doesn't. News flash: they BOTH do, they are like Coke and Pepsi - they always have, they always will. Nothing new here. Obama's shtick is that he tries to appear above the fray by letting his staff do the dirty work for him. BTW, you accuse McCain himself of responding to the lipstick/pig thing - I may be wrong, but I don't think that is the case.
Finally, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't have kids yet (forgive me if I'm wrong). In any case, listen to Pansy about what kids need to keep them safe. There are many, many HORROR stories about what kids are exposed to in these types of low-key "sex-ed" classes for children. Please read up and inform yourself properly before defending them in the name of Obama; you are talking about our children here.
Written by meg
Quote(40) you're right and wrong
September 10th, 2008 | 4:33pm
Obama is the one who said he would fire anyone spreading stories about Palin's family. Do you think that was a lie?
I'm not defending "sex-ed" classes for young children. Teaching kids how to spot inappropriate touching is not the same as "sex-ed" where kids are learning the "facts of life". At the least some kind of distinction has to be made so that these two very different things are not confused.
As for what I'm doing to elevate the tone, I can't help it - McCain and Palin HAVE lied. They lied about this "bridge to nowhere" nonsense (at best told a murky half-truth), they lied about opposing earmarks, they lied about Obama not having authored a single piece of legislation, about not working Republicans across the isle (when McCain was one of the Republicans he worked with), about his tax plan, and that is only the beginning. These aren't distortions, they are boldly dishonest statements about themselves and others that depend entirely upon the ignorance of the person hearing them.
What are we supposed to do, not call a lie a lie in the interests of maintaining a political tone that has already been completely destroyed? The political tone can only be reset by the aggressors, not the target of the aggression. I would like to see it restored but it isn't my responsibility or anyone else's to be a "punching bag for civility".
Of course both parties fight dirty, but the Republicans under Karl Rove have taken filthy to entirely new levels. And after what McCain went through in the 2000 primaries, after what Rove did to him then, you'd think he'd want to avoid doing that to someone else, but instead he just learned from it and re-applied it.
Written by Joe H
Quote(41) and by the way
September 10th, 2008 | 4:36pm
It was McCain not long ago who wanted to talk about the "politics of civility", writing in a letter to Obama about a proposed town-hall debate tour:
"I also suggest we fly together to the first town hall meeting as a symbolically important act embracing the politics of civility."
Of course this is when he was down in the polls, when there was no Palin. All of that is out the window now.
Written by Joe H
Quote(42) Re: my point of view
September 10th, 2008 | 4:36pm
"No evil, even if good will come of it. And so I'm trying to decide whether or not voting for Obama, given the gravity of what may happen if McCain is elected, is evil or not. You can do the same for the liar and his lying VP. Maybe the lies are the means that justify the ends of one day getting a supreme court that will overturn RvW.
As I see it, these Rovian tactics are appalling and unjustifiable. You can't say "that's politics" as if Catholics have nothing to say about lying when it comes to politics.
I am also saddened by the state of political discourse in America, which Obama has tried to elevate, and which McRove has degenerated over and over again, and to a greater degree each time. Obama wants to focus on the issues and McCain is whining about some "lipstick on a pig" remark, which EVERYONE knows Obama was applying to their positions on the issues and not a particular individual. The GOP has destroyed political discourse in this country, has brought it down to the level of smears and nitpicking complaints. Spite for these tactics alone is driving me pretty hard towards pulling the level for Obama.
— Joe H
See Joe, you just can't help it--you start off with a reasonable, if wrong, argument and then you go off the deep end with your opinion of things, which tend to get a bit on the shrill side.
My gut tells me that the reason you post this kind of tripe is that you either are unwittingly trying to persuade some to go in the direction of evil--that is, give a vote to the pro-death side of things. That, in itself, is sad. But to see you struggle with the justification is even more sad. See, Joe, the choice is fairly easy. Either you side with pro-life or you side with pro-death. Once you come to grips with that, the rest is pretty much a crapshoot of what you'd like to see in the world--whether it be "predator identification"to kindergartners (by the way, it is the parents responsibility to educate their children--check your Catechism") or wage redistribution, it doesn't matter to me. The main thing is the life issue, which YOUR candidate seems to be against--regardless of the spin.
I'll say a prayer for you that you somehow see that light
Written by OhPlease
Quote(43) ridiculous
September 10th, 2008 | 4:39pm
Frederica,
You called ME clueless first, remember? When you give respect, you'll get it.
I was just returning fire, something I wish Obama would do.
Written by Joe H
Quote(44) To Joe H
September 10th, 2008 | 4:45pm
Step away from the computer and switch your choice of morning beverage. It's harming your liver and feeds the bilious attitude. I has worked for me today.
Your impassioned writing shows you have conviction but your writing is also too hateful for me to not be concerned for you. I also recommend a liberal sprinkling of holy water on the keyboard and your head. What sounds like a trite but true suggestion is meant for your healing. With your writing talent you could produce something edifying.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us sinners, all.
Written by Teri
Quote(45) I'll take the hint
September 10th, 2008 | 4:51pm
I still disagree with you all, but if I'm really that out of control, I'm just going to refrain from commenting on the campaign controversies from here on.
I'll leave you to fight amongst yourselves.
Written by Joe H
Quote(46) Untitled
September 10th, 2008 | 4:53pm
"You called ME clueless first, remember?"
No, your memory is not up to snuff. It was a respectful conversation in which I conveyed respectfully that you were clueless about the subject matter. This does not give you license to act like a bully and pepper it with vulgarity.
You have taken over these com boxes with bullying and ranting reductio ad absurdum.
Written by Frederica
Quote(47) Re: you
September 10th, 2008 | 5:00pm
I'm not defending "sex-ed" classes for young children. Teaching kids how to spot inappropriate touching is not the same as "sex-ed" where kids are learning the "facts of life". At the least some kind of distinction has to be made so that these two very different things are not confused.
— Joe H
Again, putting the responsibility on children that young to protect themselves is unrealistic. Keeping them sexually healthy, by pushing and agenda is the best defense. All you are trying to teach them is a sense of appropriate, raise them in an appropriate manner that is not centered on sex.
Written by Pansy Moss
Quote(48) Part of what that sex ed law said
September 10th, 2008 | 5:13pm
FWIW, this is supposed to be part of the text of the law in question:"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered 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."
That's for K-12 students. Appropriate? I really don't think so.
No link, I pulled this off of Campaign Spot and my DSL is not behaving well, I keep losing pages half-loaded.
Written by Elaine T.
Quote(49) Stepping in
September 10th, 2008 | 5:32pm
Folks: I thought I was keeping better tabs on this thread, but it seems things have gotten heated when I wasn't looking. I apologize for letting it get out of hand. Those of you crossing the line know who you are; keep it civil or don't bother posting.
Written by Margaret Cabaniss
Quote(50) Reality Check
September 10th, 2008 | 5:37pm
I still disagree with you all, but if I'm really that out of control, I'm just going to refrain from commenting on the campaign controversies from here on.
I'll leave you to fight amongst yourselves.
— Joe H
Joe H, you are not out of control.
The McRove Campaign reliance on lies and smears against its opponents, that's what's out of control.
Written by Reader
Quote(51) Re: I
September 10th, 2008 | 6:10pm
Mark, the most jaw-dropping moment in your piece was your declaration that you were not voting for either candidate. That can mean you are voting for a third-party candidate or not voting at all. I'm assuming you intend to vote for a third-party candidate. In my view that vote will take one vote away from the effort to defeat the Enemies of the Normal you describe so eloquently. I don't get it.
— Deal W. Hudson
I live in Illinois so it doesn't matter who I vote for. Unless I can dig up a few "friends" to vote against Obama, a la "the Kennedy technique," my vote won't change a thing. One vote for McCain, Nader, Paul, Keyes, Putin, etc... won't amount to anything against the liberal megalopolis in the northeastern corner of my state.
Written by Dr. Eric
Quote(52) Read that five times before moving on?
September 10th, 2008 | 9:55pm
Joe, I'm glad you are taking a break. I'm sure you don't realize how you are coming across?
McCainiacs
Enemies of the Normal? its people like you.
grossly distorting
sin of lying, of spreading false rumors and bearing false witness? these Karl Rove tactics
right-wing gutter media
These lies have come from the top down
these lying savages tear him apart.
were half as ruthless as the Republican counterpart,
We should all be ashamed.
Of course the kool-aid drinkers
they've sunk so bloody low
Palin has gone on the attack viciously
Why can't you listen?
these sorts of hateful, deceptive attacks.
lure them into bizarre sexual relations is just crazy.
completely friggin' clueless
spreading it around as something dirty and evil.
whose campaign tells outrageous lies
candidates that lie
Lying is also evil,
You can do the same for the liar and his lying VP.
these Rovian tactics re appalling and unjustifiable.
which McRove has degenerated over and over again,
brought it down to the level of smears
McCain campaign is really the enemy of rationality
McCain and Palin HAVE lied.
When you give respect, you'll get it.
I called you arrogant and uncharitable because I do understand the meaning of words.
If that isn't "rational" enough for you, I don't know what will be.
post-modern liberal boogeyman can't be invoked to smear it.
McCain as the pandering, patronizing political manipulator -
I suggest you do some thinking about the way you conduct yourself in an exchange.
I'll accept your apology whenever you're ready to give it.
You called my point "nonsense" and contemptuously dismissed everything else I wrote
you were incredibly rude and condescending,
People wonder why political and intellectual discourse in this country is so low,
this is why. Your attitude is why.
But you did it to me, assuming that I am some sort of Obama-loving liberal.
Anyone who has paid you to teach philosophy would do well to ask for a refund.
What does the word charity mean to you, I'm going to ask you to think about that.
I don't get angry about ideas - I get angry about attitudes.
I am most certainly frustrated - because I showed you nothing but respect and you spat in my face.
As quickly as I am angered by these ridiculous distractions and condensing remarks,
I don't insist that you agree with me, or even that you like what I have to say. I only insist that you show some respect or walk away.
I'm going to vote for McCain out of spite.
And this charge of esotericism is a ridiculous cop-out.
Read that five times before moving on.
I'll leave you to fight amongst yourselves.
Does anyone care about the state of political discourse in this country?
Written by Joe H
Written by Anon
Quote(53) The only issue is abortion
September 10th, 2008 | 9:58pm
Joe H. "That said, I haven't decided yet whether or not that means I should vote for Obama in spite of abortion. All I know is that I will NOT vote for McCain."
I am a newcomer to comments on this site. Are you Catholic? I do not understand how any Catholic can vote FOR the abortion-loving, against-care-to-the-botched-aborted-baby - OBAMA.
Sorry, but there is only one issue for Catholics and it is ABORTION! More babies are killed in the U. S. EACH DAY than have been killed thus far in Iraq. How can anything equal the right to life? If one isn't allowed to live, how can anything else matter?
Like Deal, I too was struck by Mark's comment that he was not voting for either candidate. I am an Arizonan who did not vote for McCain in his last senatorial election - my silent protest, although I knew he would probably win. I called his office in Phoenix about three weeks ago and told them I am a one-issue voter and I intensely dislike McCain. I told them I would hold my nose and vote for him because Obama is worse. BUT, if he chose Lieberman or Ridge or any other VP that was not pro-life, I would vote third party. I am thrilled with the selection of Sarah Palin.
We have a duty to vote. I COULD be sorely disappointed in McCain/Palin if they win deliver nothing, but there is no question that I have no hope in an Obama administration. Nothing Pro-Life will emit from that administration.
Oh, and absent the abortion issue, there is no question in my mind that Obama has NO qualifications for the office of President. He has aspired to too much too early. IMHO he is totally NOT qualified to be President. I would trust the ability of a 2-year governor with the record Palin has over the ability of a 143-day Senator who has done NOTHING of import.
I want pro-life judges - I don't have a prayer with Obama. I MAY have a prayer with McCain
Written by Gigi S
Quote(54) like a child
September 10th, 2008 | 10:34pm
I see this voting issue very differently than most. Because I am trying to be a faithful Catholic, I will always vote for the only party who does not advocate abortion. Period. Now if all faithful did the same Democrats would have to abandon their pro-choice stance, at least in this childs view.
That's all I need to know to vote, and all I care about. The rest is up to God.
Written by Frank
Quote(55) One-issue voting
September 10th, 2008 | 11:00pm
While in practice, I am probably similar to Gigi (I don't see myself actually voting for a candiate as pro-abortion as Senator Obama), I can't agree with her statement that "there is only one issue for Catholics and it is ABORTION!" It's probably the most important single issue, but there are more things than just abortion to be concerned about.
If one honestly sees a nominally pro-life candidate such as Senator McCain as a candidate who is deceptive, war-mongering, giving primacy to the rich and preferential treatment for corporate America (to the detriment of us all), and will intentionally cause more worldwide suffering through imperialist American foreign policy, then I think those can legitimately be weighed against someone who thinks that abortion should remain a legal option for women. Remember, bad as it is, abortion in America is optional, not compulsory. A politician blinded by the spirit of the age can easily fool themselves into tolerating it without intending it. Whereas these other issues as I've stated them go to the intent of the man, and it's all bad.
I understand your zeal, Gigi - I once thought as you do. But I don't any longer. I happen to not see McCain in the light I've described, but I think someone legitimately can. And if they do, I think there is moral ground for them to vote for any other candidate they believed to have integrity - even the integrity of the deceived, because that's not as bad as an intentionally bad man.
Written by Jason
Quote(56) A test to see if you're obsessed w/ Palin
September 10th, 2008 | 11:55pm
Do you know the names of Sarah Palin's spouse and children?
Do you know the names of Joe Biden's spouse and children?
Do you know the names of John McCain's spouse and children?
Do you know the names of Barack Obama's spouse and children?
For the above questions substitute "spouse's job" and personal data like home town, kid's boyfriend's names, origination of the children's names.
For the above candidates fill in "school's attended" and hobbies.
All the vetting of the other three candidates has shown me that I draw a blank on most of these questions, especially Biden. What's his first name? Just kidding; it's Joe, but what's his middle initial and what's it stand for?
Am I media obsessed? No but my psyche is dogged by the media constantly about Palin. I've learned to tune out the commercials, so I really don't know what many of the comments above are based in. How blessed I am!
Written by Teri
Quote(57) Re: Thank you Frederica
September 11th, 2008 | 12:08am
I saw the ad and completely agree. Obama can dress it up any way he wants to, but he is absolutely advocating teaching sex education to kindergarteners.
— Monica
i apologize in advance, but this must be said...
you're not living in the real world...i know, i know...i'm sorry....but if you think a parent is able to be around their child 24 hours a day when they are of school age...you're kidding yourself.
children need to know what a sexual predator is...
maybe you all are afraid to bring it up, but i think it's a valid point...what if it's someone they trust......maybe say....a priest? *gasp*
there is a huge difference in teaching a child what sex is and teaching a child what a 'bad touch' is....
Written by jeff
Quote(58) Re: Re: Thank you Frederica
September 11th, 2008 | 12:26am
I saw the ad and completely agree. Obama can dress it up any way he wants to, but he is absolutely advocating teaching sex education to kindergarteners.
— jeff
i apologize in advance, but this must be said...
you're not living in the real world...i know, i know...i'm sorry....but if you think a parent is able to be around their child 24 hours a day when they are of school age...you're kidding yourself.
children need to know what a sexual predator is...
maybe you all are afraid to bring it up, but i think it's a valid point...what if it's someone they trust......maybe say....a priest? *gasp*
there is a huge difference in teaching a child what sex is and teaching a child what a 'bad touch' is....
— Monica
jeff, you get it. Thanks for netting it out!
Written by Reader
Quote(59) Untitled
September 11th, 2008 | 2:38am
Joe Biden's sons are lobbiest for the banking industry that Mr. Biden chairs in the U. S. Senate.
Obama's extended family in Africa are Muslim and dirt poor living in huts.
There's plenty for easy picking here for scandal if there actually was an evil Kark Rove character like one from a James Bond movie set.
Two of McCains sons are in the military, one was adopted from Mother Teresa, another who blogs from college. Not much ammo here appearantly.
It's a cop out for Obama to say he would fire anyone who works for him that attacks Palin and not be critical of his associations that financially support him or condemning them by name.
Written by nobody
Quote(60) I'm truly flattered
September 11th, 2008 | 5:14am
Joe, I'm glad you are taking a break. I'm sure you don't realize how you are coming across?
McCainiacs
Enemies of the Normal? its people like you.
grossly distorting
sin of lying, of spreading false rumors and bearing false witness? these Karl Rove tactics
right-wing gutter media
These lies have come from the top down
these lying savages tear him apart.
were half as ruthless as the Republican counterpart,
We should all be ashamed.
Of course the kool-aid drinkers
they've sunk so bloody low
Palin has gone on the attack viciously
Why can't you listen?
these sorts of hateful, deceptive attacks.
lure them into bizarre sexual relations is just crazy.
completely friggin' clueless
spreading it around as something dirty and evil.
whose campaign tells outrageous lies
candidates that lie
Lying is also evil,
You can do the same for the liar and his lying VP.
these Rovian tactics re appalling and unjustifiable.
which McRove has degenerated over and over again,
brought it down to the level of smears
McCain campaign is really the enemy of rationality
McCain and Palin HAVE lied.
When you give respect, you'll get it.
I called you arrogant and uncharitable because I do understand the meaning of words.
If that isn't "rational" enough for you, I don't know what will be.
post-modern liberal boogeyman can't be invoked to smear it.
McCain as the pandering, patronizing political manipulator -
I suggest you do some thinking about the way you conduct yourself in an exchange.
I'll accept your apology whenever you're ready to give it.
You called my point "nonsense" and contemptuously dismissed everything else I wrote
you were incredibly rude and condescending,
People wonder why political and intellectual discourse in this country is so low,
this is why. Your attitude is why.
But you did it to me, assuming that I am some sort of Obama-loving liberal.
Anyone who has paid you to teach philosophy would do well to ask for a refund.
What does the word charity mean to you, I'm going to ask you to think about that.
I don't get angry about ideas - I get angry about attitudes.
I am most certainly frustrated - because I showed you nothing but respect and you spat in my face.
As quickly as I am angered by these ridiculous distractions and condensing remarks,
I don't insist that you agree with me, or even that you like what I have to say. I only insist that you show some respect or walk away.
I'm going to vote for McCain out of spite.
And this charge of esotericism is a ridiculous cop-out.
Read that five times before moving on.
I'll leave you to fight amongst yourselves.
Does anyone care about the state of political discourse in this country?
Written by Joe H
— Anon
I guess I should feel flattered that you've gone through practically every post I've ever made here, picked out dozens of isolated sentences and juxtaposed them to make me look like some sort of loon. I guess I don't mind being the center of attention, but I think I was justified at least 90% of the time saying what I said. The other 10% I've admitted I was wrong and apologized.
I don't suppose we'll be seeing the nice things I've said anytime soon, or the nice things people have said about me. Can I really be the same guy RC just called a gentleman?
Maybe before you come down on me too harshly you juxtapose the delightful exchanges I had with RC, with Tim Shipe, and with some of the other regular posters here with some of the posts where you dragged these quotes up from.
I also suggest you get a new hobby. You do that, and I'll drastically reduce the number of adjectives I use to get a point across. Deal?
Written by Joe H
Quote(61) Third Party? Sex. ed for Kindergarten? Other issues?
September 11th, 2008 | 5:22am
Until last week, I was seeking out a third party candidate, like Steve, Mark and Joe. I feel my conscience is more important than who wins.
Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain won me over. If nothing else, an Obama presidency will be disastrous for a number of reasons, and McCain at least can't do that much damage. But it would be a springboard for getting an authentically pro-life woman in the White House.
As for "sex ed kindergarten" (haven't seen the ad either), don't we have that in the Catholic Church right now??
And kids can be taught to avoid "predators" without getting into explicit detail. John Paul II taught that children are not supposed to be exposed to sexual information before they are physically and psychologically mature enough. And Catholic teaching is that *parents* are the ones to decide when that time comes.
That's what's wrong with the "safe environment" ("Let's turn parents and lay volunteers into the villains") programs.
As for single-issue voting, let's not forget other issues besides abortion: UN and the International Criminal Court, hate speech (silence Christians) laws, and homosexual "rights". I don't expect McCain Palin to end no-fault divorce or legalized contraception, but is there a candidate on the canvas who will do either of those things?
Moral absolutes trump economic issues, because every social encyclical says we are free to disagree on economic issues, or political issues, so long as we consider both subsidiarity and solidarity when making that determination. I think McCain's stance on health care is perfect for satisfying both principles.
And Obama is not the peacenik his followers make him out to be. He has said very clearly that he wants to get out of Iraq and invade Iran.
Written by JC
Quote(62) Re: Re: Thank you Frederica
September 11th, 2008 | 7:56am
I saw the ad and completely agree. Obama can dress it up any way he wants to, but he is absolutely advocating teaching sex education to kindergarteners.
— jeff
i apologize in advance, but this must be said...
you're not living in the real world...i know, i know...i'm sorry....but if you think a parent is able to be around their child 24 hours a day when they are of school age...you're kidding yourself.
— Monica
I have 6 kids ranging in age from 15 to 21 months (and one on the way). The only kids that have been away from me are the oldest two because I just put them into traditional school at 10th and 8th grade this September. They have never been with a baby sitter besides family, never in day care, none of that. Not usual, perhaps, but not as odd as you think. I don't do this because I paranoid about predators, child abductors, rapists or what ever evil may be "out there". Maybe because I do the best I can and that is all I can do. But I keep them home because I am more worried about damage to their souls and their innocence (not just from sex ed, but many issues such as materialism and other issues I find opposite of my Catholic beliefs). Children are too delicate and impressionable and what they are exposed to cannot be scrutinized enough.
When I was in first grade, I used to walk home by myself in a not so great neighborhood and was stopped by what I thought to this day were creepy people with not so great intentions, and that teaching of "never get into cars, never take candy from strangers: I think was more than enough to save me on a few occasions. But if any of those people were not deterred by those actions, and wanted to forcibly snatch me, no extra knowledge of my body was going to stand in their way. But even then, without driving the issue home, I remember having a very natural revulsion to matters of sexuality beyond their comprehension. They do not need a comprehensive in school program to realize they will not enjoy being abused.
RE: your priest remark, I have been Catholic all my life and been around priests all my life. I never knew a real life story of an abusive priest (not saying it didn't happen, just not in my sheltered world or at least so close to me that I was aware of it), but in my public high school I knew at least three teachers sleeping with students.And I don't mean "heard", I mean my girlfriends asking me to cover for them while they went to the teacher's houses (and yes, we brought it to the attention of the school who did nothing). Yeah, those are the people I want teaching my kids about sex. And again, does that mean you should never put them in school? No, not every child can be home schooled, not every parent can afford parochial school. But it means parents should have a say in what our children are being taught.
Written by Pansy Moss
Quote(63) Jeff, Reader, etc.
September 11th, 2008 | 8:08am
First of all, this was a K-12 program - are we to believe public high-schoolers need "bad touch" lessons? Obviously, this program included more than that at the upper grades - the defense of it is a smokescreen which you either believe out of naivete or something more evil than that.
Since this is a Catholic website I assume everyone reading, Catholic or not, understands Catholic thinking. The people behind these kinds of programs are not basing them on Catholic ideas, they are basing them on secular ideas and they use these programs as an entree to more advanced topics. The opt-out idea is a joke - I know from personal experience from my own mother pulling me out in high school, and from mothers I know that have tried recently. The schools know that most people are very uncomfortable opting out, or their children are, and teachers and school nurses will lecture and brow beat because they consider the parent "unenlightened" and see it as their job to help. Read up on what happened to the man who tried to pull his 1st grader out of the "same sex marriage is OK" program at his local public school.
Inform yourselves and think about all of this in terms of CATHOLICISM, not POLITICS. Read about the liberities that have been taken by people with their own agendas to promote, from promoting contraception, refusing to teach abstinance, to acceptance of gay lifestyles. These are our precious children you're casually handing off.
Shame on Catholic schools for caving on this issue - that doesn't make it right! Sex-ed is an INITIATION to "neutral"( i.e. un-Catholic) ideas about sexuality by a teacher who is basically a stranger in a class full of peers. The message is that sex is nothing to be ashamed of, you can go to a stranger with questions, talk to your friends, don't be embarrassed, etc, etc, etc. Who is left out of this equation? The parents, of course, who after sex-ed classes is quite possibly the last person the child would go to with concerns. This is not a way to build families.
Written by meg
Quote(64) You're truly flattered?
September 11th, 2008 | 8:24am
You think flattery is the appropriate response?
It wasn't my motive to make you feel like a loon. It didn't take more than five minutes to make that list and there is much more where they come from. These are not juxtaposed sentences in an insincere effort to make you look like a loon, there's a lot of comments on this thread from several regulars noting your rage. As a Jonniecomelately to this blog, I'm puzzled that the moderators have permitted your rage and domination of this commenting space.
Instead of flattery, I was hoping you'd recognize how you are coming across.
Written by Anon
Quote(65) Good touch, bad touch
September 11th, 2008 | 8:34am
there is a huge difference in teaching a child what sex is and teaching a child what a 'bad touch' is....
The government has no right to suggest that I, as a mother, have not provided her with age appropriate stranger skills. The government has no right to make an assessment that my child has the maturity to process that perverts are after her genitalia. The government has no right to select an individual to define what is a good touch and what is a bad touch - as Meg points out, there are cultural and religious definitions that are being taught that are secular. This is unconstitutional.
Starting a child's information about sexuality as a violent boogeyman by giving them a two year course of rape stories is abusive. Sex is a loving joyous expression - a gift.
Written by Anon
Quote(66) Joe H, lines 13-17 of Bill SB0099 that Obama supported
September 11th, 2008 | 8:50am
13 ...Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV.
The bill originally said 6-12. The "6" was struck out and "K" added.
I don't care if it was "Opt out." As a parent I detest opt-out, especially in my children's Catholic School. Essentially, the school or the government are saying, "This is what we are teaching, this is normal, you don't have to learn it so don't come." It forces parents to make a choice between staying in school or staying out. It is backwards! It should be "Opt-in."
Please tell me how McCain's ad is a lie, given that the first paragraph of the bill has this text!
You can google sb0099, illinois for the full text. The ad is not misleading. This is what it said; he supported it. It is not a lie so stop saying it is.
Written by SQ
Quote(67) Re: Jeff, Reader, etc.
September 11th, 2008 | 9:19am
The opt-out idea is a joke - I know from personal experience from my own mother pulling me out in high school, and from mothers I know that have tried recently. The schools know that most people are very uncomfortable opting out, or their children are, and teachers and school nurses will lecture and brow beat because they consider the parent "unenlightened" and see it as their job to help. Read up on what happened to the man who tried to pull his 1st grader out of the "same sex marriage is OK" program at his local public school.
— meg
As I mentioned, my tenth grader just started public school. When she was with the guidance counselor making her schedule, the guidance counselor said they had to put her in health because she needed at least 1 health class to graduate. My daughter asked (I was sitting right there, but the counselor never addressed me) if by "health" they mean sex ed. The guidance counselor said yes, and "other knowledge about your body". My daughter said she didn't want sex ed. The guidance counselor was dumbfounded (this was a first) and simply said "well we can hold off for now, but I don't know what you are going to do because you need that to graduate,"
Fact is, I don't know what we are going to do. I was shocked that before they decide to put them into sex ed, they do not ask the parents' permission automatically, as you would think with an "opt out" program, or any decent form of education. Second, I am not sure how to get around this. I thought all sex ed was "opt out". Some one either lied that it is, or they are making it very difficult to do so.
Written by Pansy Moss
Quote(68) opting out puts you on a suspected child abuser list
September 11th, 2008 | 9:42am
The browbeating in my area actually intimidated by saying if you "opted out" you would be put on a suspected child abuser list.
The larger point here is, Joe H knows not of what he speaks and with his uninformed conscience he goes round and round with accusations that enlightened are insipid, outrageous liars who can't read and hear the almighty joe.
Written by Frederica
Quote(69) prayers for you and your family
September 11th, 2008 | 10:16am
Pansy,
I've seen every kind of tactic there is with the farce we have an "opt out". I'll pray for you and your family in making your choices and decisions. With my oldest, I was firm every time they violated my opt out rights. They eventually learned to bring in the agenda on Martin Luther King day - and put it as a civil rights issue. In a 4 hour class, they put every topic imaginable and classified parents as civil rights violators who were not to be trusted. They gave out private phone numbers and websites and told the kids not to tell their parents. Of course, mine came home and rat finked, but not before proceeding to sit at the lunch table with her group of friends and vet the propoganda to her group of friends who then felt empowered.
Anyone saying that as a Catholic, they are voting for Obama or will take an action that is not in the interests of getting McCain/Palin (our only hope) into office, without knowing what will happen, is doing to families raising children is a reckless militant for our causes.
Written by Frederica
Quote(70) Untitled
September 11th, 2008 | 10:48am
lexisnexis.com
Copyright 2008 National Broadcasting Co. Inc.
All Rights Reserved
NBC News Transcripts
SHOW: NBC Nightly News 6:30 PM EST NBC
September 9, 2008 Tuesday
LEE COWAN reporting:
"...at an Obama rally we were at earlier today in Michigan, the crowd actually started chanting "No more pit bulls." Pretty sarcastic reference to that lipstick joke that Sarah Palin made at the GOP convention..."
Later that day in Virginia Obama made his Lip Stick comment.
Happenstance?
Written by nobody
NOTE: To reduce cyber-stalking, comments are now moderated. As a result, you might sometimes notice a brief delay between the time you submit your comment and the time it appears. This is an important safeguard, as we'd like this to be a place where Catholics from various perspectives (and anyone of good will) may constructively discuss the issues that unite and divide us. The subjects we cover produce strong feelings, and we want to make sure all disagreement is handled charitably. Please always assume the good intentions of the other person, especially when you disagree, and avoid personal attacks. All ISPs are recorded and disruptive commentators will be regretfully blocked. Finally, all columns and blog posts reflect the opinions of the writer ALONE, and do not necessarily represent the views of the staff, columnists, or writers.
Your Name :
Title For Your Post :
Your Website (NOT your email address) :
Text ColorAquaBlackBlueFuchsiaGrayGreenLimeMaroonNavyOlivePurpleRedSilverTealWhiteYellow
Comment(s) :
Please delete the text in the box above, then press 'Submit' to add your comment.
Quote(71) Mark Shea please hear my case!
September 11th, 2008 | 11:31am
Mark, as a fan of yours, I too find great disappointment that you can't bring youself to overcome "McCain failings" to advance "pro life" in a way, at least IMO, we've never had before us.
I see Sarah Palin as the pro life witness this country needs if there will ever be a "heart change", the ONLY thing that will EVER change abortion in this coutnry Short of the Gloria Steinmens Mark, she's relatable to almost EVERYONE. Unlike most VP's, Palin is not going to fade into the sunset after the oath.
The witness doesn't end with just the kids. In less than 8 weeks, our/my California vote will, for better of for worse, heat up the redefinition of marriage debate in America. Did it ever occur to you that we so lack the "man's man" role model that so many confused and "underfathered" kids in America lack. Who better than Todd Palin to set that tone, macho enough to win
iron man snow machine races, and still "man enough" to be a loving father who braids his daugher Piper's hair and becomes "mom" as needed.
I'm admit I myself had a hard time with McCain or ANY candidate that was worth the trip to the polling booth. After much prayer for a worthy candidate, and of course Palin on the ticket, I'm convinced they are not only our witnesses, but our hope. Mark it CAN'T be a coincidence that on the world stage POTUS team, are two very unique familes. One has 7 kids, including one directly from the hands of Mother Theresa; the soon to be saint who never stoppped warning America of the perils of our aboriton mentality. In the Palin family, we have a witness to just about every other part of pro life that there is.
I honestly don't see how anyone, especially Catholics, can look at the McCain/Palin ticket and not see the great hand of God, who ALWAYS gives us mercy before justice. We're on the precipice, about to go over the cultural cliff; a fall from which we may never, as a country, fully if at all recover. Don't our kids deserve the "life" vote?
I certainly can't tell you or anyone else how to vote, but I made and rest my case. Last but not least, agape love demands sacrifice, EVEN if that means voting for John McCain to get the voice of Sarah Palin fighting for what America can't afford to lose.
Klaire
Written by Klaire
Quote(72) Good gracious, folks...
September 11th, 2008 | 11:34am
Is there a consensus to be reached here?
Joe H:
Y'know I respect you. But I fear than Anon. got your number, a bit, in that post concatenating quotes from your posts.
Yes, it's unfair: I'd hate for individual sentences of my posts to be chained together, sans context.
But my own impression is that in the last several days (I don't know if it dates from Palin's nomination or sometime thereafter) the D-to-R and D-to-N ratios in your notes have gone up significantly...where "D-to-R" is the ratio of statements connoting disrespect for those with whom you disagree to those connoting respect, and "D-to-N" is the ratio of statements connoting disrespect, to those which are more or less neutral. That is, I say, the impression I've had in recent days; the post by Anon. served to shine a spotlight on it.
Again, you know I respect you; I felt it important to mention this, to help you maintain your reputation for reasoned and even-handed posts.
Other Folks, esp. those debating against Joe and "Reader":
My own fondness for the Palin pick, and my hope that she'll grow into readiness for the presidency, is probably no secret. And I don't think much of Obama's policies; I think they'll hurt nearly every situation he hopes they'll help.
But Joe H isn't voting for Obama. When he defends Obama, he's defending the candidate he prefers out of two tickets he thinks are so bad that he's unwilling to vote for either. This suggests a more even-handed starting point than some folks are giving him credit for.
So, cut the guy some slack. He's able to see flaws in Obama's approach, and McCain's. And, although I'll be voting for McCain as the lesser of two evils, I haven't felt Joe belittling me about it. The elevated tone-of-voice in this thread is out-of-character, on all sides.
So I think perhaps the problem here is that everyone's feathers got ruffled, and have yet to smooth back down.
Mutual de-escalation, anyone?
Respectfully,
R.C.
P.S. Since I myself have gotten a bit ruffled before, I hereby acknowledge that I'm not perfectly fit to be dispensing advice like this. Mea culpa: Do as I say (please), not as I do!
Written by R.C.
Quote(73) re: my point of view
September 11th, 2008 | 11:45am
Joe H says in response to a question (both question and response are listed):
"I've gotten the idea that you both will support him despite his support of the pro-death movement because you probably feel that you hold the prudential judgment to overlook that without life, nothing else matters."
Well, I also have this idea that if we're all eradicated in a nuclear explosion, nothing else matters either, and that's a place I think McCain is more likely to take us.
Actually, that's a good point. If I was sure an election for McCain meant the likelihood of nuclear explosion, I would probably not vote for him either.
But then again, the chances that there will be 1,000,000 abortions next year if Obama gets elected is about as close to 100 percent as you can get. And the chances a nuclear explosion will obliterate the human race in the next 4 years is probably about as close to 1 percent as you can get.
I'll take the sliver of a chance that there will be a nuclear explosion over the certainty of 4,000,000 murdered babies anyday.
Written by wamisto
Quote(74) On the substance...
September 11th, 2008 | 11:46am
On the substance of the question:
(1.) The kindergarten sex-ed bill says what it says;
(2.) I think warning kids against sexual predators and kidnappers in general is perhaps better done during school visits by policemen in the context of a "watch out for criminals" education rather than a sex-ed program;
(3.) Because their consciences are usually not well-formed on sexual topics, and because those with well-formed consciences are not free to speak their minds, public school teachers are institutionally and systematically prone to delivering harmful, rather than helpful, information about sex. (Apart from the pure science thereof.)
For the above reasons I am not in favor of early sex education by public school teachers. I do not suspect those who support if of being pedophiles or wishing to sexualize children. Rather, I suspect that they (a.) disagree with me about point (3.), above, and haven't really considered the option in point (2.).
So, my take is that if the McCain ad underscores its accusations of Obama with ominous music, suggesting evil motives for his sex-ed opinions, then it is unfair in that way. I'm not sure what would be fairer. Perhaps bumbling, clownish-sounding music? That would perhaps better suggest, not a wicked villain, but someone whose policy is (or, well, we think to be) unwise, but who just doesn't know any better.
Thoughts?
Written by R.C.
Quote(75) Positive Liberty
September 11th, 2008 | 11:54am
RC,
Before you go too far in saying Joe H is not voting for Obama, may I suggest you visit his personal blog.
He obviously has not behaved with you as he has with several posters but, you are the exception.
Written by Frederica
Quote(76) Re: On the substance...
September 11th, 2008 | 12:40pm
For the above reasons I am not in favor of early sex education by public school teachers. I do not suspect those who support if of being pedophiles or wishing to sexualize children. Rather, I suspect that they (a.) disagree with me about point (3.), above, and haven't really considered the option in point (2.).
— R.C.
Does it matter? I as my child's parent have first say on such personal matters. Period, end of story.
Written by Pansy Moss
Quote(77) Fight the Smears
September 11th, 2008 | 1:55pm
The truth about Obama's record and the Illinois bill that was never passed. http://tinyurl.com/5s33fb
Written by Reader
Quote(78) From my friends, Sie Germans:
September 11th, 2008 | 2:00pm
They have an expression in Germany, which is quite well adapted for American use in this case:
"Bleibt ist bleibt, nein kumpft fur das"
Translated:
Stupid is stupid, there is no cure for that.
But make no mistake, whether Obama wins the election or not, Obama will bring a war to our back door. It will come from the southern border, but not necessarily from Mexico. I had a vision of this, and I don't have visions. So, I am leaving the seminary and I have signed up for the Border Patrol. Nevermind that my so-called Bishops want to end the ICE raids, which would be immoral itself.
Written by Geistesswiesenschaften
Quote(79) Sex-ed
September 11th, 2008 | 4:08pm
Four points (hopefully concise) concerning a topic so far:
1) Parents have essentially willed public schools (and parochial schools) to take over sex-ed. They have been brainwashed by national and state teachers' unions (of which I was a member) that sex-ed is necessary to protect kids. When the teen-pregnancy goes up, so do unions' cries for more sex-ed (and more health teachers).
2) "Inappropriate touching" is an endemic problem based on a misunderstanding of what sex really is. It essentially stems from the core premise of mainstream sex-ed: sex is for your pleasure, but be careful...someone else could hurt you. Those who do the inappropriate touching (aka molestation) are merely acting in line with what our culture has taught them. Sex-ed is not the cure for molestation, but increased molestation has its roots in sex-ed.
3) Many sex-ed programs teach things that violate nature. It is quite obvious that the purpose of sexual intercourse is to reproduce. New research has found that orgasm produces a hormone (oxytocin) that increases bonding between the two people involved (and increased the likelihood they will stay in a relationship). The constant teaching of the Church then is backed by science: sex is for babies and bonding. Sex-ed treats babies and bonding as secondary, sometimes unpleasant side-effects of intercourse.
4) MBLA (Man-Boy Love Association) has been lobbying for lowering the age of consent to 12. It has relied on the Kinsey Association for facts that demonstrate this age to be appropriate. The Kinsey Institute also supports sex-ed for young children. If you don't know about the Kinsey Institute or Alfred Kinsey's work, you can check out http://www.cwfa.org/kinsey.asp
Irregardless of the fact that the Illinois bill was rightly shot down, the fact still remains that Mr. Obama supported it. From his view on children, gay marriage, and abortion, we know what he considers sex-education. We also know that he wants younger and younger kids to be subjected to this. Considering that Mr. Obama has not been shy about saying that he is for greater government control of certain things, we should be very afraid.
Written by mrteachersir
Quote(80) Of course I'm flattered
September 11th, 2008 | 4:58pm
To be completely taken out of context, 100 times, by someone who has nothing better to do than comb though several dozen posts, some of which are months old, in a petty war on a message board on the Internet.
I don't want to do a line by line analysis, but most of the things you quoted me as saying aren't that bad and I would continue to stand by - things that are true, things that only had to be said after saying them politely 10 times didn't get the point across, things that express my JUSTIFIABLE anger at things that are actually evil or unjust, and I will never apologize for that. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the inclination to go back and recontextualize myself.
Anything I've said that was over the line, I've already apologized for.
And to clear a few things up:
I have NOT said I'm voting for Obama, I've said I'm weighing my conscience on the matter. I wonder when Anon will go through all the posts where myself and others have been insulted and harassed for even THINKING about it? I don't think we'll see that anytime soon.
Written by Joe H
Quote(81) RC, it wasn't ominous music
September 11th, 2008 | 6:14pm
RC, Regarding the Kindergarten Ad, it was not "ominous" music, it actually sounded lullaby-like (a baby crib's mobile melody or something like a wind-up jack-in-the-box). And it was extremely effective. In Obama's world, babies and children are indeed expendable. They are not allowed medical care if they survive an abortion, they are a "punishment" to teens pregnant out of wedlock, and those lucky to make it til the age of 4 or 5 will be open game for BIG BROTHER Obama's teachings: Heather can certainly have two mommies, masturbation is great, but make sure to self-indulge in private, etc. - I am not kidding - this was right in the curriculum that Obama approved. Now can we hear that ominous tune? Jesus have mercy!
Written by Monica
Quote(82) Four Things...
September 11th, 2008 | 7:09pm
(1.) Does someone have a link to the McCain ad that's been at the core of this controversy? I haven't had access to broadcast television for some time and would like to see what the hubbub's about.
(2.) Joe H, how 'bout a link to your personal blog? I was under the impression you preferred Obama over McCain but were voting for neither. Someone here seems to think, on the basis of your personal blog, that this is no longer true.
(3.) Is it still true, Joe? (Trying to avoid a "say it ain't so" vibe here!)
(4.) Re: John Hagee, here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:
On May 12, 2008, Hagee issued a letter of apology to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, expressing regret for "any comments that Catholics have found hurtful." He apologized for condemning Catholics for what he viewed was their persecution of Jews, and outright stated that he did not believe that, and many other previously held views, any longer. He also said that the "great whore" comments were taken out of context and were not directed at the Catholic Church. He went on to explain that his comments about the Catholic Church were made "n my zeal to oppose anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its ugly forms. I have often emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholic and Protestant relations with the Jews." Bill Donohue told Fox News, "I'm absolutely delighted... I haven't seen such a quick turnaround in the 15 years that I have been president of the Catholic League.... The tone of Hagee's letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it." "Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology," Donohue wrote in a press release. "What Hagee has done takes courage and quite frankly I never expected him to demonstrate such sensitivity to our concerns. But he has done just that. Now Catholics, along with Jews, can work with Pastor Hagee in making interfaith relations stronger than ever. Whatever problems we had before are now history."
While I'm not as sure as Donohue that Hagee's turnaround is 100% sincere and 100% permanent, I suppose it's plausible.
Though I'm not quite sure why the topic came up in a thread about "Enemies of the Normal."
Written by R.C.
Quote(83) Dangling italics
September 11th, 2008 | 7:13pm
Once again, how I wish we could preview posts before posting. Hopefully the codes I just inserted turned off the italics in my last post.
Written by R.C.
Quote(84) Mr. Teacher, Sir...
September 11th, 2008 | 7:16pm
"Irregardless" is not a word.
(If your sig hadn't suggested you were an educator, I'd have let it pass, but...!)
Written by R.C.
Quote(85) Okay, I've seen the Ad
September 11th, 2008 | 7:37pm
I'd been looking for the ad on news sites and stuff. I don't know why it didn't occur to me previously to just go to John McCain's site!
So now I've seen it.
I think the ad is unfair on one point: The sex ed in question was intended to be comprehensive in the sense of including appropriate sex ed for kids at all grade levels, from K-12.
The ad, while technically using the exact terms of the bill to describe it, makes it sound as if the sex ed given to kindergarten kids would, by itself, be "comprehensive." This gives the impression that kindergarteners would be hearing about chromosomes, seminal vesicles, buggery, vibrators, age-of-consent laws, and so on...which is nonsense.
What, then, was to be taught to these kids under this program which Mr. Obama supported? I don't know, and I don't see any way to determine whether it was something helpful, or harmful, or neutral.
Let's acknowledge, right out of the gate, that schools are delivering relatively approving or neutral messages about early/unwed sex, when they ought, if anything, to deliver disapproval and warning.
What I'm unsure of, then, is not whether I'd allow my kids to be educated by a system Mr. Obama approves of. I wouldn't.
What I'm unsure of is whether the bill in question actually made that system worse than it was (which might justify the McCain ad), better than it was (which would make the McCain ad unjustified), or had no effect.
Written by R.C.
Quote(86) Re: "appropriate"
September 11th, 2008 | 7:42pm
In the preceding post, I said:
...in the sense of including appropriate sex ed...
Please be aware this was not an assertion or acceptance on my part that the sex ed in question was what I'd call appropriate, at any grade level.
I should probably have enclosed the word "appropriate" in "scare quotes" to indicate it's what legislators and education bureaucrats think appropriate; I'm quoting them.
Written by R.C.
Quote(87) Sin
September 11th, 2008 | 7:53pm
I would vote for McCain, but since I sin too frequently, I am absolutely convinced I am not capable of making the correct decision.
Written by Aaron D
Quote(88) Joe H deleted his blog
September 11th, 2008 | 8:25pm
"(2.) Joe H, how 'bout a link to your personal blog? I was under the impression you preferred Obama over McCain but were voting for neither. Someone here seems to think, on the basis of your personal blog, that this is no longer true."
RC,
Though it took me some time to find it (it was positivelyliberated),I did read Joe's blog this afternoon and his most recent posts were very pro-Obama. In fact, he had a long post apologizing to Obama for not getting on board earlier and ragging McCain and the Republicans. I just tried to find the blog to quote and it's gonzo. He has deleted it.
Written by Anon
Quote(89) still comes up on google...
September 11th, 2008 | 10:37pm
My apologies to Mr. Obama
6 Sep 2008 by Joe
For the last several months I had a chip on my shoulder about Obama's campaign because I, like many others not only on the right but on the far-left, saw him as nothing but a good speaker, an empty suit without substance, ...
Positive Liberty - http://positivelyliberated.blogspot.com/
Written by Anon
Quote(90) to set the record straight
September 11th, 2008 | 11:02pm
Yes, I deleted my blog. I'm tired of playing games with people and having to defend myself against exaggerated claims and accusations. It's old, it's boring, and frankly I have better things to do. I just got a new job and so I won't have as much time to spend bickering with people about politics on line anyway.
What my blog did say was what I'll say now, and what I've already said here on this thread: I'm still making up my mind, I have committed to nothing.
Anon, I suspect you're the same woman who was trolling on my blog not too long ago. Even if you're not, all I can say is, I'm not running for office, so save your energy for someone who counts. I am not worthy of your repeated efforts to publicly discredit me.
I use strong language when I have strong feelings about the issues, but my feelings don't dominate my intellect simply because I choose not to repress them in the recesses of my mind for the sake of polite society.
It is obvious to me that the real problem people have with me is not my tone, but my assumed place on the political spectrum. When I see you and others treating some of the more outlandish conservative commentators and their insults the same way you've treated mine, maybe I'll reassess that.
In the end this is just a message board on a website, and while it is entirely appropriate, at least in my view, to get as angry about the issues and the philosophies as you like, there's really no need to focus so much attention on a person like me and everything I say. That's why I think you need a new hobby. As for me, I'm going to play my guitar.
Written by Joe H
Quote(91) Back To the Topic?
September 12th, 2008 | 12:11am
Can we get back to the topic which is how the secular left hates the normal and healthy?
I used to live the homosexual "life" (man, what a misnomer) before coming back to the Church this past winter. When I talk to my old gay friends, I'm shocked at the hatred of anything normal, healthy or decent that they have. Their main enemy of course is the Church of Christ, but it's also things like children, motherhood and fatherhood and masculinity and femininity.
You'd have to be in this world in order to appreciate it. If you're in the Church a lot, and don't associate with secular culture, you might not see a lot of it.
Until Sarah Palin came along that is. Watch what happens with the atheistic secular left gets mad. All their hatred of the normal comes out then. It's like an atom smasher...you only find out what the atom is made of once it cracks up, and man, does she make liberals crack up.
I'll take credit for saying it, because I said it first, but Peggy Noonan said the same thing last week in her column... we can recognize one of our own in Sarah Palin. And we can see in her more of the Church then we can see in Speaker Pelosi or Joe Biden.
I know that McCain is far from perfect. But he's clearly better then Obama, the secular messiah. Perhaps with God's grace, a President McCain will grow in office like Harry Truman did.
Written by MarkF
Quote(92) Okay, Perhaps I was mistaken
September 12th, 2008 | 12:22am
Hmm.
Previous blog posts by ol' Joe suggested he wasn't going to vote for Obama or McCain, and that Huckabee had been his favorite candidate in the race.
As time went by (and Huckabee went bye-bye) Joe became more pro-Obama. He never actually says he's going to vote for Obama, but he looks like he's considering it.
His game-changer justification is that he thinks McCain's going to get us into a nuclear exchange with Russia, and that that will kill a lot more people than even Obama's support for abortion.
So it is the pugnacity of McCain that's driving Joe in that direction. (And, obviously, Palin doesn't soften that image in the slightest, which perhaps is the reason for his more recent posts being a tad more fierce than usual.)
All of the above is gleaned from the cached bits of his personal blog, plus recent posts here at InsideCatholic. To the best of my ability, I am not putting words in his mouth.
However, I could be wrong...in which case I am putting words in his mouth...in which case I apologize, Joe, and feel free to clarify whatever needs clarification.
But I can sympathize with the "go play guitar" feeling; I haven't played mine in, well, far too long.
Written by R.C.
Quote(93) Response to MarkF
September 12th, 2008 | 12:39am
Thank you, thank you, sir.
You're right, we got a bit off-topic.
Yes, normalcy can contain tributaries and eddies of pettiness, ignorance, banality, and blunders. But it contains rivers of balance, community, vitality, honesty, courage, and hope.
Some sins are covert, and others overt.
Of the overt ones, those who commit them are rarely so diabolical as to utterly disregard the disapproval of their fellow men. Most feel discomfort; most find that the pursed lips, real or imagined, of others merely amplify the pangs of their own consciences.
So they invent coping mechanisms, which include:
(a.) Pretending whatever they're doing is healthy and normal;
(b.) Asserting that anyone who disapproves is unhealthy and abnormal;
(c.) Crowding into intellectually-inbred enclaves or echo-chambers of those who share the same sin, to avoid hearing opinion which might challenge (a.) or (b.)
You see these in the gay community; you see them in the pro-choice crowd; you see them amongst folks in the (hetero) club scene; you see it amongst "swingers"; you see it amongst recreational users of cocaine and meth.
Now just as my self-pity over the imagined pain of a stressful job can be wiped completely out of my mind by the real pain of five minutes' genuine toothache, so can the illusion of normalcy created by (a.)-(c.) be shown up as so much trumpery by five minutes' exposure to that which is REALLY NORMAL.
Hence the overreaction to Palin. She's the real thing -- though doubtless a flawed human being whose warts will show any day now -- and her presence makes the urbane cosmopolitan lifestyle and mores appear visibly shallow.
Let us hope she remains the breath of fresh air she currently seems to be, and doesn't get sidetracked into, or sidelined by, the world Inside the Beltway.
Written by R.C.
Quote(94) RC is right
September 12th, 2008 | 1:01am
I'm still lurking about, so you can talk to me instead of about me, if you like.
Nothing you said was inaccurate or anything I deny. I do think McCain is far more likely to lead us into another war, and that another war could have disastrous consequences for all human civilization. I don't care if that makes me crazy in the eyes of some people.
Frankly I also think Obama could lead us into an exchange with Russia. I just think he's less likely to jump the gun.
But, people will believe what they like about me or anything else. I only post this for your benefit, my friend.
And, by the way, I still like Huck, and I think he is the only public face of the GOP right now that has any honor left. On FOX News he refused to join the "lipstick" hysteria and simply told the truth: it's common expression, and cut Obama some slack. Now Huckabee is no flag-burning, baby-killing, coke-snorting liberal. He's just honest, God bless him, and fair.
Written by Joe H
Quote(95) Obama Should Have Agreed To Debates
September 12th, 2008 | 1:40am
Yes, he should have. Then, it would be abundantly clear what will, in fact, happen when the people have their say.
Not so smart after all, I guess.
Written by tanarg
Quote(96) Great Article
September 12th, 2008 | 1:42am
Just wanted to say great article, tho isn't it stating the obvious?
Hasn't the post 60s American left always been the enemies of the normal?
Written by Bill S.
Quote(97) Common Sense does infuriate Sheeple
September 12th, 2008 | 4:55am
Great article, well thought out and quite observant.
And by the looks of of some of the comments, dead on.
Blessings, but one side comment, All it takes for evil to win is for good men to stand by and do nothing. As an American as well as a Christian, you should do your biblical duty to vote.
I am voting Palin / McCain for America. I fear a marxist in control of the Reigns in the middle of an economic downturn and a world war with Islam.
God has given us a very clear choice, we will either choose wisely or create our own judgement.
Written by Greg
Quote(98) For the Record
September 12th, 2008 | 7:51am
"As time went by (and Huckabee went bye-bye) Joe became more pro-Obama. He never actually says he's going to vote for Obama, but he looks like he's considering it."
RC,
For the record, Joe's posted apology to Obama was definitive in voting for Obama. The post said he made up his mind. Readers aren't stupid. Many, including you noted his rage directed towards other posters and life in general - which he still sadly justifies.
Written by Anon
Quote(99) Fallacy?
September 12th, 2008 | 8:25am
Has any one ever heard of the fallacy of over-generalization? That's where you take some isolated statement of some one purporting to represent some side of the issue and apply it to all the other supporters of the issue. Then, when you attack that position, it's another fallacy called a straw man.
Just fyi.
Written by Aaron D
Quote(100) MarkF-it has to hurt
September 12th, 2008 | 8:41am
It must be difficult for you to hear such criticisms from old friends about values you embrace and respect.
We are displaced New York City people. The people we know who are kind enough not to criticize our lifestyle to our face says enough to let us no our funny, little life, (family, living upstate), is just that, a funny, little life but you can't possibly take that seriously. And that reaction is because they are being open-minded I have not gotten into any political s, but I can't imagine...If I reacted the same way to them...
Written by Pansy Moss
Quote(101) Back to the issues
September 12th, 2008 | 10:01am
To those for whom this applies: Let's stick to the issues and stop psychoanalyzing other commenters.
Much appreciated.
Written by Brian Saint-Paul
Quote(102) Re: For the Record
September 12th, 2008 | 10:02am
"As time went by (and Huckabee went bye-bye) Joe became more pro-Obama. He never actually says he's going to vote for Obama, but he looks like he's considering it."
RC,
For the record, Joe's posted apology to Obama was definitive in voting for Obama. The post said he made up his mind. Readers aren't stupid. Many, including you noted his rage directed towards other posters and life in general - which he still sadly justifies.
— Anon
Well, that is a complete lie, for which you ought to be ashamed. RC saw what I wrote - at no point did I ever say I made up my mind.
If I had rage, it was for the Rovian tactics of the McCain campaign, not for anyone here. As for your obsession with me, bewilderment would be a more accurate description.
Whatever beef people have with me or my politics, I understand, but I hope the tiny bit of goodwill I've managed to build between some people here isn't completely ruined by one person's lies.
That's all for now. I won't be here for a while to answer any further smears, but I'm sure that won't stop you from continuing to make them.
Written by Joe H
Quote(103) Catholic 0bamessiahites? :)
September 12th, 2008 | 3:03pm
Uh, how can any Catholic be a democrat with 0bambie at the top of the democrat ticket?
Well, I suppose I know ONE way, which is how I'm a democrat and a very anti-0bambie supporter, which is that I've always BEEN registered democrat and have been simply too lazy to re-register! :)
That bit of sloth on my part will be remedied directly after the election.
The blatant Alinskyite anti-normal anti-family anti-human behavior and motives of the "new democrats" (the "retard users") is beyond being tolerable.
Give me a good old Rovite neo-con worldview anyday, but McCain/PALIN (which I would prefer to be PALIN/McCain) will be a real Washington backside-kicking duo that even the "evil neo-cons" will dread.
What is needed is for the normal people, the anti-anti-normal people, to hold politicians feet to the fire, and to politically eliminate them while in office if they don't measure up.
Written by CatsAndDogs
Quote(104) Message to Michael Moore
September 12th, 2008 | 9:03pm
Last I knew, a "C" grade is "average". ("A" is excellent; "B" is "above average".) Do you know what "average" means, Mr. Moore? I think not: if you did, you would not think it telling to note that America is a nation of C students. Apart from dramatic grade inflation, it could not be otherwise.
Written by ELC
Quote(105) Re: Enough is enough
September 12th, 2008 | 10:03pm
Do you want to know how far your article moved me from my commitment not to vote for McCain-Palin? To mimic one of the favorite new slogans of Normal Americans: O=Zero.
Enemies of the Normal? (You mean like those who promote and/or lie about) Obama's (very well documented, perverted) plan to teach sex ed to kindergartners? . .....
When are we going to see an Inside Catholic piece on the sin of lying, of spreading false rumors and bearing false witness? Like abortion, which is murder. (And not a scrap less so than the infanticide that B Hussein ordered up for the living survivors of abortion) ....
(Obama and his legions of fellow haters) have lied about Governor Palin's impressive and impeccable) political record, including what the nation's most popular Governor has supported and has not supported.
(B Hussein bin B Hussayn bin Hussein Muhummid Ubama and the "reverend" Comrade Wright and Rezco and Ayres and other terrorists etceteras) have lied about Obama's "record," blatantly and unapologeticly.
These lies have come from the top down, from the (mobbed-up Marxist murtadd Muslim Arab-African himself and from his supporting polemicists and propaganists who comprise the leftard)-wing gutter media. And particularly about the record of his time served as a Saul Alinsky Stalinist street agitator, [AKA "community activist"] while blowing Fifty Million Dollars of Annenberg grant money in the achievement of absolutely nothing! Zero. And spent as a bagman and facilitator for Marxists, Muslims and organized criminals, some of them now felons and for unrepentant terrorists, while voting "present" a hundred and thirty times as an Illinois senator and about funneling Three Quarters of a Billion Dollars of feral pork to his wife and to other America-hating Chicago cronies during the 140 or so days on which he has actually ever bothered to attend the US senate)
... (and yet his thug mobs of mindlessly moronic) lying savages (dare to attempt) tear (Governor Palin) apart. ...
— Joe H
(Yep! You) should all be ashamed.
Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles - California 90028
Written by Brian Richard Allen
NOTE: To reduce cyber-stalking, comments are now moderated. As a result, you might sometimes notice a brief delay between the time you submit your comment and the time it appears. This is an important safeguard, as we'd like this to be a place where Catholics from various perspectives (and anyone of good will) may constructively discuss the issues that unite and divide us. The subjects we cover produce strong feelings, and we want to make sure all disagreement is handled charitably. Please always assume the good intentions of the other person, especially when you disagree, and avoid personal attacks. All ISPs are recorded and disruptive commentators will be regretfully blocked. Finally, all columns and blog posts reflect the opinions of the writer ALONE, and do not necessarily represent the views of the staff, columnists, or writers.
Your Name :
Title For Your Post :
Your Website (NOT your email address) :
Text ColorAquaBlackBlueFuchsiaGrayGreenLimeMaroonNavyOlivePurpleRedSilverTealWhiteYellow
Comment(s) :
Please delete the text in the box above, then press 'Submit' to add your comment.
J! Reactions 1.09.04 • Professional Site License
Copyright © 2006 S. A. DeCaro
Close Window
Friday, September 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To Global Rumblings Blog
Posts
Comments
Popular Posts
-
Stan's Comments on 12-21-2012 – What Might Be Coming December 21, 2012 Stan Deyo Although I do not believe life as we know it will e...
-
Comet ISON: A Viewing Guide from Now to Perihelion by DAVID DICKINSON on SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 Want to stay on top of all the space n...
-
This is the Miami Herald Building's Surveillance Video You can see the first police car in the left side, under the Metro Rail. C...
-
Survive Anything - Disasters - Economy Collapse - Mobs, Etc. Protect your family. Click Here! 37 Food Items that will be SOLD OUT after C...
-
Warning! 10 Major Volcanoes have Erupted Along the Ring of Fire! Published on Apr 7, 2015 10 Major Volcanoes have erupted along th...
-
Many, many admirers entreated Michael (dutchsinse) to keep at it! He received much encouragement and support. So, here is a blog devote...
-
What in the world? From Gina Suzanne at - 5 hours ago Microchipping the population is not a theory, it's a plan. The Obama...
GET A GROUPON!
Curious about what the future holds? Click here to find out how you can receive a 10 minute psychic reading from Psychic Source.
Calculator-1.com - The Best Free Online Calculatorн
No comments:
Post a Comment