Guru Goddess

Everyone is getting het up at the idea of age appropriate sex education for younger children in order to  for ’sexual predators’, I hate to say this, but the lion’s share of children who are abused suffer at the hands of people whom they know and should be able to trust=90% of children under 12 who are raped know their attacker, according to Child Help.

3 million cases of child abuse in all its forms are reported each year, out of  a total US population of approx 400 million people, and they say that they believe abuse is underreported and might actually be as much as 3x greater, or 9 million cases. About 9% of all cases relate to sexual abuse as of the 2006 statistics.

When I was living in the UK and Ireland, in conjunction with the police, doing outreach in schools and communities, I taught ’stranger danger’ to a variety of younger children, which focused on inappropriate requests and touching.

It is only by a child developing a sense of self and personal likes and dislikes that they can stand up to an adult who might try to take advantage of them. Asking for ‘respect for one’s space’ and listening to their instincts if they feel something is ‘wrong’ does not need to be sexually explicit.

It also included not just strangers, but other people in their lives that they  might have felt uncomfortable around.

The parents were taught along with the children to help reinforce the message.

In the UK, there are less than 35,000 abuse cases reported, out of a total population of approx 60 million. In terms of sexual abuse, versus neglect or physical abuse such as hitting, there are only about 2,000 sexual abuse cases reported.

So clearly there are some serious problems in the US that need to be addressed.

It is more important to protect the children, than the sensibilities of squeamish adults.  It is certainly not a subject that anyone should be trying to make political capital out of.

I am a lifelong Democrat, but the continuous attacks on Palin ever since she was named John McCain’s running mate have really appalled me.

No matter what Palin he clearly can’t win with the carping media.

If people don’t support her point of view, she is described as ‘writing them off’.

But if she continued being nice to them, even if they didn’t support her, they would call her a hypocrite.

Or is it just possible that they wanted ‘favors’ once she was in power and she refused.

Or that once you are in power, things and your life DO change, whether you want them to or not. And some people can’t or aren’t willing to accept that. Few of us have the same set of friends now as we did at 5, 10, 15, 20 years old.

It is like Obama. He first said disowning Wright would be like disowning his WHITE grandmother.

Then he rejected Wright, and all the headlines said, “look who just threw Granny under the bus.”

Only in BO’s case, he had tried to defend him a looooong time.

He threw him under the bus when he said what many, many people had been thinking–that Obama would do or say anything to get elected, that a lot of what he had said was NOT true at all, but merely political expediency.

All of the Palin headlines are fluff, gossip, trying to dig up scandal. Who are ‘they’-in other words, who are her friends, advisors, as opposed to these people who claim to ‘know’ her.  All the fake emails and blog gossip circulating, well, the people who wrote the fiction even admitted they had done it, and yet people still persist in believing in banned books and Trig is her grand-child.

It is all fluff, distraction from the real issues that are facing this country, and the democrats look like they are lining us up for more of the same trash talk.

There are 30 Obama ‘fact finders’ in Alaska–you think they are going to turn around and say, thanks for the expense account, but sorry, there is nothing to report?

Of course not.  Like they said on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago, with the hints they are dropping about ‘a big surprise in October’, well, if they can’t come up with something, I am sure they will invent it. It is all a question of timing. And damage control. NOT the issues at this point.

This election is really going to stop any average person from ever aspiring to public office. Who wants to go through the microscopic scrutiny of every thing you’ve ever said or done, and what ‘it all means’.

The election was Obama’s to lose; at this point, the polls are not looking good. The more they attack her, the more sympathy she gets.

Maybe if they backed off the feeding frenzy, things would settled down. Instead, they are throwing chum on the water, most of it rotten.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1221343324-tGxa66AkDRYq1tsNYpjoIw&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158738

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302596.html?hpid=topnews

And now with the Wall St crisis, it looks like just what it was, all fluff, distracting from the real issues.  The important issues facing us all, like how to get through this crisis the best way we can, without partisan dog fighting.

Russia is setting up military manuevers, in Venzuela, no less. Their military aircraft are on there way, though I have seen reports of 2 ’super planes’ already there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_on_re_eu/russia_venezuela_naval_maneuvers

And they will do naval training too:
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/russia-sets-war-games-in-caribbean/85365/

Bolivia expelled our ambassador on the 11th

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/bolivia/2801579/Bolivia-expels-US-ambassador-Philip-Goldberg.html

chavez expelled our ambassador on the 12th
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Venezuela-President-Hugo-Chavez-Expels-US-Ambassador-Giving-Him-72-Hours-To-Get-Out/Article/200809215097944?f=rss

We returned the favor on the same day, accusing him of being heavily involved with the drug trade in Columbia.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-expel12-2008sep12,0,1330385.story

It is indeed a mess, and it is right on our own doorstep close to an area already plagued by disasters.

So why aren’t either of our presidential candidates talking about this? It happened prior to the Wall Street Crisis!

I have been doing a bit of digging about the recent article on Obama having tried to interfere with troop withdrawal in Iraq in order to make it look like the old Iraq policy has failed, and once he got into power, his supposedly new one would have succeeded.

I trying to get some sense If it is another complete pack of lies like they have been doing to Palin, or if there is some truth in it.

There seems to be a fair amount of truth in it from the fact that officials are willing to put their names to it.

This is the original editorial in his usual Op-Ed column:.

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS’ IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?&page=0

So it is an opinion piece by Amir Taheri, not a news article.

Some argue that Tahiri is noted for his lies, http://irancoverage.com/2007/11/21/the-lies-of-amir-taheri/

And I have to say I was very worried when I saw one of the items:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/cohleresses
Elena Benador, PR agent for Taheri (as well as Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Ledeen, Laurie Mylroie, Richard Perle, and James Woolsey) defended Taheri. Benador explained that, when it comes to Iran, accuracy is “a luxury…As much as being accurate is important, in the end it’s important to side with what’s right. What’s wrong is siding with the terrorists.”

Translation=”It is okay to lie about Iran.”

I am sorry, but TRUTH and ACCURACY are important and essential, not a luxury.

The post is a right-wing paper by comparison with the others in New York City.

Having said that, in his op-ed article he states:

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

So at the same time that the source is suspect, Zebari is actually willling to put his name to the story, not siphon it through the usual  ‘anonymous source’ cloak.

Journalists need to interview Zebari in more depth.

Pajamas Media is trying to sniff out more information:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-questionable-diplomacy-in-iraq/2/

and has a response from McCain’s camp.  As of their writing, Obama’s camp refused to comment. Which could be telling in itself—lack of outrage, much?

Here is the other coverage:
Wake up America

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-tried-to-interfere-with-iraq.html

and hot air links
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/15/did-obama-try-to-scotch-an-iraqi-us-agreement-on-military-forces/

als wizbang

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/09/15/during-his-july-tour-of-iraq-obama-tried-to-undermine-negotiations-between-the-us-and-iraq-for-troop-drawdown.php

They are all pretty similar but the first one is the most detailed to date.

One has to be worried on the one hand, because it was the left bloggers who started the whole stream of lies about Palin.  They would just be returning the favor.

But if we look at a reliable source on Obama’s trip in July, Reuters, this is the original Reuters coverage:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GCA-iraq/idUSL0236543520080721?sp=true

It says that Bush had already agreed to troop withdrawal the week prior, and the Iraqis were trying to pin down a more firm date.

It is fully possible, in the effort to paint Iraq a failure, that Obama might have tried to interfere with that on the grounds of gaining more power. But as the Iraqis had said to him at the time, it would have to be on THEIR timetable more than the US’s for the sake of all concerned.

That is, the Iraqis would have to be ready.

Obama met with Petraeus while he was over there, but Petraeus has now gone, so one has to wonder what diplomatic and intellligence connections Obama has had in the past, and has at present in the region.

McCain has been there 8 times, Obama only once previously, in Jan 2006. Where has Obama been getting his intel from? Who his sources and contacts are?

We should be hearing more about this if people start to winkle out the truth more one way or the other.

On the other hand, why is it not causing a feeding frenzy? I am getting ‘the politics of fashion’ on how Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin and H Clinton are affecting women’s fashions, for pity’s sake.

I also looked at the timeline–

New Yorker Magazine published this:
Obama’s Iraq Problem

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/07/080707taco_talk_packer

A week later:
Obama: My Plan for Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

and of course he went to Iraq as soon as McCain poked at his experience.

Even if the op ed piece in the Post is not true at all, the article by Obama and trip to Iraq speaks to his motives in what he is doing—literally anything to get elected. = “I’m not flip flopping, you’re the ones who got it wrong.”

I’m afraid it is looking more and more like the DNC got it wrong. They refused to seat all the Florida and Michigan delegates, which would have put H Clinton over the required number.

And Obama got it wrong, ignoring 18 million people who voted for  H Clinton, and choosing Biden as VP.

As a follow up, Taheri  stands by his assertions, and is now getting death threats:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_objects_129453.htm

The Bush Doctrine from the horse’s mouth, not the horse’s behind

The Bush Doctrine from the horse’s mouth, not the horse’s behind. Gibson acted like an overbearing ass.

I am one disgusted Democrat.

Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe

By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A17

“At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ ”

– New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

The rest is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1