Scarborough, et al., aghast over Obama advocacy of age-appropriate sex ed, but never spell it out
On the July 19 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough discussed an ABC News report on comments Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) made at a Planned Parenthood event, which appeared under the headline "Sex Ed for Kindergartners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama." Scarborough said, "I'm gonna tell you why Democrats don't get elected president regularly, all right? Because they say things that lend themselves to the type of headlines, this Associated Press headline, and you gotta be careful." Scarborough, co-host Mika Brzezinski, and guest John Ridley, an NPR contributor, proceeded to sharply criticize Obama -- with Brzezinski exclaiming, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa" and Scarborough and Ridley sharply questioning Obama's political judgment. None, however, actually spelled out what Obama was advocating.
By contrast, the ABCNews.com article to which Scarborough referred elaborated on Obama's position:
When Obama's campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers "age appropriate" for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had "moved to clarify" in his Senate campaign that he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with 'medically accurate' information . . . 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"
In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an "opt out" provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about "inappropriate touching," according to Obama's presidential campaign. Despite Obama's support, the legislation was not enacted.
Scarborough noted that Obama "says, of course, that it needs to be age-appropriate," but did not discuss what Obama meant by age-appropriate. Brzezinski stated, "I'd like to know what age-appropriate sex education for kindergarten is." Ridley said, "I don't want my kid, 4 or 5 years old, to be sexually aware at that point." Scarborough did not note that Obama was quoted in the ABCNews.com article saying, "Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it." Nor did he mention the article's reference to "teaching kindergarteners about 'inappropriate touching.' "
From the July 19 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: OK, I'm gonna tell you why Democrats don't get elected president regularly, all right? Because they say things that lend themselves to the type of headlines, this Associated Press headline, and you gotta be careful. You gotta be careful. Barack Obama hasn't been on the national stage very long. This is a headline, actually it's from ABC News: "Sex Ed for Kindergartners: The Right Thing to Do" --
BRZEZINSKI: Whoa.
SCARBOROUGH: -- "says Obama."
BRZEZINSKI: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
SCARBOROUGH: I could get in and I could explain the subtleties.
BRZEZINSKI: Could I see that?
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. Do you believe that? But he says, of course it needs to be age-appropriate, but he made fun of [Illinois' 2004 Republican Senate candidate] Alan Keyes for suggesting that it was wrong to teach kids in kindergarten sex education and imitated Alan Keyes, but then went on to say -- he was talking to Planned Parenthood, who is very big into sex education -- I have nothing against sex education, you know. I wish I would have gotten some sex education, you know, by the time I went off to college.
BRZEZINSKI: But what are you teaching a kindergartner?
RIDLEY: Yeah, kindergarten!
SCARBOROUGH: But kindergarten is insane. Do you understand, John Ridley, how Democrats always seem to be tone deaf? They talk to Planned Parenthood. They talk to these groups that have left-leaning agendas. They say these outrageous things and they come up, and they blow up in their face later. Whereas Republicans -- people say, "Well, Republicans talk to right-wing nuts." I'll tell you something, most people are not offended by the things that Republicans say regarding faith, etc. etc. in Middle America. But when you say sex ed for kids in kindergarten, that's insane.
RIDLEY: It's more than a little much, and I don't know how you defend it. And, you know, again, there are so many other policy issues going on. It's one of those things when you say it, it takes over everything else. The Democrats have been talking about faith, they've been talking about national security. It all sounds good, but this is like, "Oh my God. For my kid?"
SCARBOROUGH: It's symbolic.
BRZEZINSKI: I would like to know what they're teaching. I'd like to know what age-appropriate sex education for kindergarten is.
RIDLEY: I don't want it at all. I don't want my kid, 4 or 5 years old, to be sexually aware at that point. Don't need it, don't want it. You talk about high school, fine. Not five-year-olds.
SCARBOROUGH: And this is the problem, again, where Democrats have disconnected with Middle America many times -- parents mainly -- who may be progressive, but also have kids and are very concerned about the world that their kids are growing up in. And somebody sees this headline in the morning, "Barack Obama Supports Sex Education for Kindergarten Kids." They don't care about the subtleties. They just check it off.
Yes, there most certainly is age appropiate sex education for even pre-schoolers. "If someone touches your penis/vagina and you feel bad or uncomfortable, tell your parents" That's what every doctor in this country is telling kids right now as part of medical checkups. It's what is called mainstream. If these idiots had any role in raising their babies they'd know this already.
One thing I've learned about kids is that they mirror us--if we don't make a big deal about "X" issue, chances are our kids won't, either.
"Yes, there most certainly is age appropiate sex education for even pre-schoolers"
There sure is. But it should be done by the kids' parents, not public school teachers. The government should have absolutely no role in it.
And since that attitude has lead to many problems, as parents are often uncomfortable speaking about sex themselves, it's having to be left up to schools. Ofocarse in an ideal world these discussions would be left to the parents. Not enough parents are comfortable or educated enough to handle it. Which turns into to more adults with the same issues and unable to teach their children.
"as parents are often uncomfortable speaking about sex themselves"
How do you know that? I believe that most parents are willing to talk to their kids about sex at THE APPROPRIATE AGE. But most simply don't want their kids to lose their innocence to fast.
Rino, I appreciate your sincere belief that parents are the answer, I could not agree with you more. But, millions of kids are in public school, the subject of sex has allways come up in classrooms, and will continue to come up. To say goverment should have absolutely no role just is not practical. Would you agree that it is better to face reality and have your local school officials ready to handle the subject according to community standards?
Sadly, for some kids, the first sex education they get from "parents" is abuse. In a perfect world, yes, keep goverment out of private family matters. In the real world, public schools have to take a role in educating children about a subject that they absolutely need accurate, age appropriate information.
"Would you agree that it is better to face reality and have your local school officials ready to handle the subject according to community standards"
I think that it should be a subject that parents teach their kids about. Schools should be in the business of teaching kids math, reading, science, and all the basic subjects. This over reaching by public schools is one reason why so many people are critical of them, and it's why many people decide to home school their kids or send them to private schools. Our public schools are reaching into areas that are better left up to parents to deal with.
Thats fine feel free to opt out. You dont really think you ought to be telling us what OUR kids should be taught do you?
The government should have absolutely no role in (sex education).
RINO Hunter / Friday July 20, 2007 12:22:36 PM EST
And when a child gets molested by a janitor or a high school helper, the parents will cry, "Why don't they teach kids about this stuff in school?" to which the principal should reply, "Because if we talk about oogy stuff, it'll be all oogy and weird. Better to just pretend EVERY PARENT has the TIME or the WHEREWITHAL to instruct their progeny in good touch/bad touch. And tell that little whiner to just walk it off!"
Randy
The Christian Broadcasting Network did a pretty good job defending Obama.
Thanx for the link, Loonz. I like to be reminded that there are a lot of Christians out there who seem to know who Christ was.
Especially since this item brought to mind a christian radio show host I hear sometimes. He doesa not too subtle job of overlapping two facts;
1. some people want to teach sex ed in Kindergarten
2. Some people want to explain how to use condoms and describe sex acts in school.
Judging by the callers to the show, there's been a pretty effective campaign to convince some that those liberals want to get your 5 year old laid.
That was a very fair appraisal on the part of Brody. Congrats, CBN. It's more than we get from the MSM
...yup and you can explain to your children how it is impossible for a Gay man to consumate a relationship with a women when he is repressing his real sexuality and trying to be acceptable to people like you. Yeah he's actually bisexual not Gay. That's a real RINO classic.
Well, I guess Scarborough was a GOP Propaganda Parrot for too long to change his spots overnight. At least he has a rational position on the Iraq War.
You don't have to be a "GOP Propaganda Parrot" to have the common sense to know that the public schools shouldn't be teaching six year olds about sex. My guess is that even many mainstream Democrats are against this kind of absurdity.
Did you even bother checking into what sorts of "sex" education is really being discussed here? You think it inappropriate for a 6 year old to understand what inapprpriate touching is? You think it makes sense to NOT clarify to children that human babies come from human parents and not storks?
If a young kid is touching another kid in an innapropriate spot, the teacher should simply tell the kid to not touch others in that spot anymore. They don't need to explain why. If a child asks where a baby comes from, the teacher should tell the child to ask his or her parents. That sounds like the reasonable thing to do to me.
Against the kind of absurdity your post promotes?
You're right. I'm against that. Who wouldn't be?
Age-appropriate sex ed means appropriate for the age and the maturity of the kids.
You've just made the same mistake as Scarborough and everybody else.
Within the scope of this topic, no one has advocated the government "teaching sex to 6-year-olds," as you say. What we're talking about is teaching kids what proper personal boundaries are, and all the "good touch" vs. "bad touch" stuff. That's what Obama was talking about, and that's what the MSM has neglected to mention, preferring instead to sensationalize it (and in the case of Fox News, create a controversy where none exists.)
I think it's an excellent idea, especially since so many parents take the same attitude YOU do, and yet are so terrified to talk to their kids about their "wee-wees" and "hoo-has" that the kids never learn anything and don't know what to do in an abusive situation.
Congratulations. It's people like you who are making the problem worse. Get out of my country.
and yet are so terrified to talk to their kids about their "wee-wees" and "hoo-has"...
Deeznutz, please tell me you don't refer to them as "wee-wees" and "hoo-has." LOL!
It appears to be true, as I have so often been assured by my liberal friends, that cons mature sexually much later than libs. Oooops - that still wouldn't handle the Foley-ish problem, though, would it?
'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"
How about...and I know this is a novel idea...the teacher tells the child to talk to Mom & Dad about it.
Or of course Mom & Mom, Dad & Dad, single parent Mom, single parent Dad, or any other family combination...
Family being the operative word.
My problem here is just whom will determine what is actually covered under age-appropriate sex education for kindergarten [through 3rd or 4th grade]
And don't use the "well parents can opt out" argument.
Sex Ed is simply not appropriate in PUBLIC schools for kids this young.
Again, let them take their questions home to their families!!!
The whole damn progressive village doesn't need to teach kids about sex....
Actually it is a GOOD argument. The fact YOU dont think its a good idea doesnt mean NO ONE does. I DO, think it a good idea. I think one of the problems we have with sex in this country is that by making it taboo it puts an aura of unaturality on sex. It should be seen as natural since it is. Since you DONT think it appropriate YOU get to opt out. Age appropriate is the key phrase and your other question was answered by the Obama campaign it would be decided by the local school boards on a case by case basis
I think one of the problems we have with sex in this country is that by making it taboo it puts an aura of unaturality on sex. It should be seen as natural since it is
And you think kindergarten is the place to begin discussing this?!?!
As you know Solon I am in agreement with Liberals/Democrats on the Iraq war, as well as several other issues. But it's topics like this one that leave me scratching my head.
Please explain to me just what a Sex Ed discussion with 5 & 6 year olds would/should consist of in a public school setting? Or why it's even necessary to implement such a program?
If for instance a 5 year old inquired, "where do babies come from?", why do you & other Liberal/Progressives feel a public government funded school should require a teacher to answer that question instead of suggesting the child ask their parent/parents. Couldn't a teacher send a note home to alert the parent/parents of the child's curiosity?
There is absolutely no reason I can think of to add Sex Ed to the Kindergarten curriculum.
Jeter, I think that by age 5 or 6 most kids have asked parents (any combo) where babies come from. And usually at that age their attention span is so short they have forgotten what you told them before they leave the room.
Yep. I asked when I was 5, and was fortunate to get a brief, yet scientifically accurate explanation. My sister and I made fun of the names of the body parts, then pretty much forgot all about the subject for the next 8-10 years.
See below. I'll just add that the minute you tell a child that you wouldn't talk about something or answer their legitimate question, you are sending a signal that they've done something wrong. That has consequences.
There are many excellent resources to teach children as young as 2 about babies and where they come from. Children benefit enormously from having age-appropriate information about procreation, especially when they are the older siblings.
You can teach a 2 year old where babies come from?
I guess the memory is still fresh in their minds.
Yes. Please tell us you did not raise any children?
The age appropriate answer to that question would be from your mommy and Daddy if they want more information there then you tell them to talk to their parents. I am not advocating teaching five year olds about the mechanics of sex only that the entire subject not be avoided to the point of making it seem like it is something mysterious and unnatural. When I was in first grade I asked my mother where babies came from and she gave me the whole story, I wasnt scarred by the experience. This is far from my area of expertise, I would be willing to leave it up to the schoolboards and still teach my children in my way. I am pretty sure they are going to take the age appropriate part of this fairly seriously.
Solon, I agree with you on the Taboo angle.We've still got that puritanical history running things, and it has a lot to do with how misinformed and out of control some of our fellow Americans are with their attitudes towards sex.
I don't have kids, so I don't have to have that talk (whew!), but I was a kid, and I remember thinking it weird even then that in school we learned about the body and it's systems; The heart pumped blood using the veins and arteries, the lungs took in air, worked with the blood, etc., all pretty gross and only mildly interesting to your average kid.
But when the digestive system got towards the "Big Finale", all the descriptions got pretty vague.
And when we got to one of those systems, the one about the naughty bits. we had to take a note home to be signed by the parents, the boys and girls were split up, and there was a strange aura of tension and evil in the air.
I couldn't wait to get started! If it had been treated as dryly as the other bodily functions, I may have drawn dragsters and zombies on my notebook through the whole thing.
Growing up in Sweden, I can tell you that this was never even an issue. We had sex ed in 3rd grade, and it was the most dreadfully boring and explicit way to teach it. They showed a picture of a penis, a vagine, how they "connected" and all that. I assure you, after that, nobody wanted to have sex ever.
Ok, the Swede's may be a bit slow but here in the south when I was 9-10 the neighbor kid was telling me how he and his sisters would play "gas station" they were 7-8-9 whatever. Never saw it...dont know. Here is a shocker....kids have sex at very young ages....all over the world....Yikes. Yes kindergarten kids should be taught in the proper words that adult touches are always wrong.
Ok, now I am 100% convinced you grew up in OC. My mon left a copy of "What kids need to know about sex" laying around the living room when I was growing up, worked pretty well. Led to a lifelong obsession with sex.
There are shared values all Americans must have to maintain the social order, and it is, believe it or not, the job of teachers to convey those values.
Teaching young children that they are in possession of their bodies and no one has the right to violate them is an essential moral education. Teaching them that babies do not come from storks is a necessary first step toward having them develop a health attitude toward their own sexuality.
You worry who will determine the curriculum - it will be the same state and local boards that determine the curriculum in every other domain.
The idiotic stories about out-of-control "liberal" schools that pop up on circuses like "Morning Joe" are designed to attract the sort of low-level thinker who can easily be sold beer or sugary cereal. They do not reflect the reality of American public schools, which have many, many safeguards in place to keep inappropriate material away from young children.
In other words, no one is saying 1st graders should have explicit knowledge of sex. But they should not be receiving false information ("Babies come from the hospital!") that will lead to bad choices later in life. The media, however, has a vested interest in creating a controversy where none exists.
But they should not be receiving false information ("Babies come from the hospital!") that will lead to bad choices later in life.
Oh please tell me you're joking.
Finding out that babies don't arrive by stork, or get picked up at the hospital or are plucked out of a pumpkin patch is no more earth-shattering for a normal kid than finding out Santa Clause doesn't bring the presents, the Tooth Fairy doesn't replace your tooth with money, or the Easter Bunny didn't hide the eggs & chocolates.
Children survive these revelations!
Jeter, I don't know about that Tooth Fairy business. I'm still pissed that I was shorted 2 bucks. :)
I was ticked off that people lied to me about Santa. Really. I thought I couldn't trust the whole lot of adults again, being they were a bunch of liars.
People in Europe have much better sex ed and they in turn have much better stats on everything from STDs to unwanted pregnancies. It pays to be informed.
I will tell you that based on considerable experience in working with children and adolescents that you are wrong.
Human sexuality is not like the Easter Bunny. When children learn at a young age that sexuality is a taboo subject, and that they can't turn to adults to get information, they wind up believing fairy tales that have far more serious consequences.
If you've ever taught at a middle school, you know sexual misinformation runs rampant. I've known far too many adolescents who've had to deal with those consequences, and it's not pretty.
I wish every child had at least one responsible parent at home who could give them appropriate information in a way that would allow them to make good choices later in life. Again, I will tell you from first-hand experience, many do not.
When that is the case, it is incumbent on us as a society to make sure those children get the education they need.
Frankly, I don't understand your objection. No one is saying sex education should be explicit at a young age; no one who works with kids would advocate the same curriculum for a 14-year-old as for a 5-year-old.
But teaching a child that a baby needs to have both a mommy and a daddy? Or that babies grow inside their mommies for nine months? Or that no one is allowed to touch them in a way that makes them feel bad?
Shouldn't all children learn this? If you are teaching that to a child at home, why would you object to it being in the school?
Anyway, to get back to the larger point:
You and I can have a legitimate discussion about this, and we can hash out what is and is not appropriate for kids. I suspect that we - and most adults, even those with reservations about sex ed - probably don't see things too differently.
But we can't have this discussion if rabble-rousers like Joe Scarborough continue to misrepresent policy positions and misreport what is actually going on in schools. Most of that noise comes from the right, and it's keeping us from having serious discussions about the health and welfare of our children.
And it's all so GE can sell a few more piece of crap to the sheep who watch this nonsense. I find that very disturbing.
Very good points. I wouldn't be surprised if those most likely to have teenage unwanted pregnancies are those who received little or no sex education, and were led to believe that even talking about it is wrong.
So you were a "Blue Light Special" at K-Mart?
Jeter2,
You really interested in education or just trying to turn this into a wedge/gotcha issue? Read what the man said fer hell sakes! That's the whole point - he didn't say anything unreasonable.
I don't care what the 'flat-earthers' think about when sex education comes up. If anyone can arm a child with enough knowledge to avoid contact with or effectively deal with a would-be-abuser, I want that child to get the information in real time-RIGHT NOW and I want that for YOUR child and mine! I don't want any silly teacher of the 'conservative' persuasion going all mooshy and sweaty and sending the kid away to speak to their parents, because you and I both know the matter's likely to 'fall through the cracks', while the child could be abused on his way home that very night! When it came time to bring it up with his parents he just might have parents whose attitudes made it harder and now, he's left with the strange 'guilt' feelings from the teacher's brush-off, added to the mix.
It does 'take a village', although leaving the village idiot out of the loop is probably a good idea!
Assuming the child has asked a question and opened the door, who better than a professional teacher to arm the kid with the knowledge to deal with potenetial abuse? Any adult who knows a smidgeon about sex ecucation knows to be guided by the child's questions and to be brief and succinct, light on specific deails.
When it comes to questions about where babies come from a partial answer - 'the stork doesn't bring them' , they don't grow in the pumpkin patch' - and ' you should speak with your parents about that' seems quite appropriate for the very young child.
Finally, if it weren't for 'progressives' in our society, people like you would still be wondering where there own children came from and we'd be living with similar knowledge gaps in many areas!
A hot tip: you can't control your children's behavior by'protecting' them from knowledge. I know from growing up in a conservastive, religious family myself, that this is what's going on here with 90% of this argument in such households. When they say 'I want to educate my own child regarding sex', they really mean, 'I wnat to protect my child from any knowledge, regarding sex as a way of keeping him/her innocent.'
When no one else wanted to, I took responsibility for my own sex education - somebody's gotts do it! That experience put me firmly in the pro-sex-education-in-schools camp! Having said that I know we're speaking of very young kids here, but the man did say 'AGE APPROPRIATE' and I fail to see how he got it wrong.
You really interested in education or just trying to turn this into a wedge/gotcha issue?
That right there almost made me decide to just blow you off without a reply. Why can't I have a difference of opinion without you assuming I have an ulterior motive.
I don't care what the 'flat-earthers' think about when sex education comes up.
More insults. Now I ask myself why bother explaining my point of view to you? You've labeled me & anything I say will be discounted anyway. But hey I've got a minute or two to waste before lunch...
When it comes to questions about where babies come from a partial answer - 'the stork doesn't bring them' , they don't grow in the pumpkin patch' - and ' you should speak with your parents about that' seems quite appropriate for the very young child.
I've no huge problem with that but shouldn't parents be the ones to decide when & how this subject is broached? Apparently you believe the STATE has a say in how to raise our kids & how this must be handled.
Finally, if it weren't for 'progressives' in our society, people like you would still be wondering where there own children came from and we'd be living with similar knowledge gaps in many areas!
Funny guy. Yeah without them progressives our species would have died out centuries ago. I've only a hazy memory of being 3-4-5 years old. I think I thought storks brought babies. By 9-10 I knew better. I've gone on to father 3 children....somehow I managed this without Sex Ed classes. Golly I must just be a natural.
Sex Ed programs for older kids [9-18] is fine. I just don't think Sex Ed should begin in school in any form or fashion for the younger kids of 5-8 years old.
And I do believe that abstinence should be a part of the Sex Ed curriculum.
I live in Massachusetts. When Romney was Governor he directed money towards including abstinence in Sex Ed programs. Our new Governor Deval Patrick, a Liberal Democrat, has removed abstinence as part of the school's Sex Ed program.
What's the problem here? Why do Libs fear teaching kids abstinence as part of Sex Ed?
BTW, my wife's best friend is a first grade teacher. She told us that in her 20 years at that grade level not one child has ever asked about sex or even where babies come from.
Sex Ed is simply not appropriate in PUBLIC schools for kids this young. --- Jeter
Age-appropriate sex ed for kids this young IS "appropriate" for kids this age. Age-appropriate schooling is appropriate for kids who are the age the schooling is aimed towards. I don't understand the confusion among the righties on this site. What part of "age-appropriate" baffles you?
"Sex Ed is simply not appropriate in PUBLIC schools for kids this young."
This is your opinion and that's why there's an option to bow out.
What's considered "elected regularly"? Assuming FDR is the dividing line between conservative democrats and liberal democrats, stats say 40 years of Democratic presidents to 34 years of Republican presidents is still tilted in our favor. Maybe Joe is only counting since Regan?
Why is it that MSNBC wastes a perfectly good morning slot with the likes of Joe Scarborough? This guy is clearly a Republican hack (a week ago he was defending Dick Cheney saying that there was nothing in Cheney's conduct of the office that would even remotely be inappropriate). He is purely and simply "Limbaugh Lite" by taking things out of context (as with Obama) or simply repeating untruths multiple times so that even he begins to believe them. On a funny note - Scarborough reminds me of those talking paintings first made famous on Monty Python's Flying Circus - when he talks his face is expressionless and only his lips move.
Frankly, the only people who are going to make a stink about this are the people who wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.
My daughter is five and I have told her about appropriate and inappropriate touching. If this is reinforced in school, fine by me.
Insanity was trying to make a big deal about this on Insanity and Colmes tonight, and he got his ass handed to him by Alan for a change ... ended up as a blithering idiot, muttering about Alan's "values."
"Frankly, the only people who are going to make a stink about this are the people who wouldn't vote for Obama anyway"
Not really. Most people are culturally conservative on issues like this. My guess is that most mainstream Democrats don't want their kid taught sex ed when they're five. This is the problem that many people have with Democrats. I'll admit that people tend to be economically liberal overall, but they also tend to be culturally conservative. Democrats do the Republicans a favor when they take such extreme positions on these cultural issues.
And since no one is talking about teaching five year olds sex your strawman means once again...wait for it...YOU. HAVE. NO. POINT.
SCARBOROUGH: OK, I'm gonna tell you why Democrats don't get elected president regularly, all right? Because they say things that lend themselves to the type of headlines, this Associated Press headline, and you gotta be careful.
In other words, the reason democrats dont get elected is because they say things that we can twist to say what we want. We're going to keep doing this so you need to somehow avoid it because we just cant help ourselves.
Geeeezzz......... He's not talking about teaching them the full monty. He's just saying prepare them for a world that is quite disturbed. Read the full story! Kids get molested or worse abducted every day in this country. Should they be prepared to protect themselves? There are tens of thousands of convicted pedophiles out there!
It's possible to have age-appropriate sex education...especially including discussions about what's appropriate and what's not. Or would these right-wing folks like to keep the kids ignorant so they can be easier prey?
A lot of the stuff will go over the kids' heads at first anyway -- when I was 4 I asked my mom when the mailman was going to bring my aunt's babies, because I heard all the adults talking about "delivery" this and "delivery" that. When my mom told me the real story, my reaction was, "You're kidding!" :)
Sheesh - how unreasonable for sex EDUCATION to be taught by trained educators?
And what I can't grasp is this term "Government Schools" - what happened to public schools and private schools?
More right-wing corporate news bunk...
Can you imagine these 3 chuckleheads going bug-eyed like this over something one of their con pals had said?
These guys are a joke.
Jeter2 - That right there almost made me decide to just blow you off without a reply. Why can't I have a difference of opinion without you assuming I have an ulterior motive.
Scarborough and his guest were clearly, only interested in creating a sensational wedge issue and you seemed to be defending that point of view! Beyond that you created that linkage in your own mind. My apologies if I assumed too much but that's precisely what the M M article is about and you stepped right up to the plate, swingin' for the 'conservative position'! If you re-read my post carefully you'll also note that I didn't characterize YOU as a Flat-Earther.
As to my remark about 'progressives' I might have been more sensitive and said '... people like you AND ME, would be wondering where our kids came from... ' but I didn't expect you to be so 'touchy'! That aside, you can't deny that 'Progressives' have been responsible for artistic, scientific, philisophical, educational and social progress - notice the relationships in the words! - but since public education is a shared social endeavor this discussion is still open. People like Scarborough with a huge bully pulpit should speak a lot more responsibly however and there doesn't seem to me to be too much you can defend in those comments!
As to this discussion still being open, and regarding the issue of teaching the youngest kids to recognize inappropriate touching and abuse, I'll simply re-iterate: If anyone can arm a child with enough knowledge to avoid contact with or effectively deal with a would-be-abuser, I want that child to get the information in real time-RIGHT NOW and I want that for YOUR child and mine! I don't want any silly teacher of the 'conservative' persuasion going all mooshy and sweaty and sending the kid away to speak to their parents, because you and I both know the matter's likely to 'fall through the cracks', while the child could be abused on his way home that very night!
I can't say it any better than NOMOBUSH said it (above)!
Everyone's experience , growing up with their own sexuality is different I'm sure, but I find 'abstinence only' a total waste of tax dollars. A mix might be somewhat more acceptable but some folks always want to 'draw the line' way before practical, realism sets in! I always suspect that they must have been blessed or cursed with a very low sex urge as teens and can't really understand what some of those kids are dealing with.
Again, I apologize if you saw yourself in any of my characterizations...
I don't know why you're trying to argue with these people who buy the Scarborough line.
Joe seems to be a pretty astute guy which leads me to believe he intentionally mischaracterized what Obama said.
But it's red meat for the base. The people who buy the Scarborough line believed it before Joe uttered a word and are going to believe it whether Obama said it or not.