Obama and the sex education in schools debate

Everyone is getting het up at the idea of age appropriate sex education for younger children in order to protect children from ‘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 abused 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.


Coverage of Palin 2

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 does or does not do, she 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.



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 on our own doorstep?

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.


And they will do naval training too:

Bolivia expelled our ambassador on the 11th


chavez expelled our ambassador on the 12th

We returned the favor on the same day, accusing him of being heavily involved with the drug trade in Columbia.

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!


Obama tried to interfere with Iraq troop withdrawal

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 am 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:.


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:

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:


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


and hot air links

also wizbang


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:

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


A week later:
Obama: My Plan for Iraq

and of course he went to Iraq as soon as McCain poked at his (in)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:



Tar and feather all politicians and public figures?

It appears that nothing has really changed in the USA in the over 400 years since it was first founded.

It is clear from the media treatment of Sarah Palin and her daughter, that many of you want the same treatment for people you disagree with.

It’s just that depending on what you label yourself as, democrat, republican, white, black, latino, feminist or chavinist, you want your ‘opposite’ to be attacked, reviled, and punished.

So, since this is an equal opportunity country, I have the PERFECT solution:

Let’s TAR and FEATHER ALL of them

Clearly this is the only thing that will make all of you bloggers and media people happy on the internet.

So let’s look at them all in turn to see what they are ‘guilty’ of:

Joe Biden-a Catholic-unthinkable to have one in office til JFK paved the way-tar and feather

Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton -Women? They have only had the vote for 80 years in the USA.  How DARE they try to win public office!

Tar and feather!

Hillary Clinton for clearly being a “closet lesbian” because of the pantssuits, tar and feather

Bristol Palin, pregnant teen daughter of ‘bad’ mother Sarah Palin, tar, feather, and stone her too while you are at it.  Well done, all of you.

Sarah Palin and her Down’s syndrome afflicted son Trig,: a second helping for her for having him, according to Alan Colmes, Trig for being ‘different’, disabled, tar and feather.

Barack Obama-African American, there are STILL counties in this country where he could not own a home, or marry the woman of his choice if she happened to be white-skinned. Tar and feather.

John McCain, -according to Letterman’s constant jibes, for being elderly!

Tar and feather

John McCain  for being a military man,  Tar and feather

John Edwards, adulterous liar, tar and feather

Bill Clinton- semi-adulterous liar, tar and feather! him AND the cigar!

Mike Huckabee, a Baptist, tar and feather!

Mitt Romney, a Mormon, tar and feather!

Ron Paul, just for being boring, tar and feather

Governor Bill Richardson for being Latino, tar and feather

Ralph Nader, multiple time presidential campaign loser, tar and feather!

Rudy Guiliani, dumped by his first wife when he had cancer, remarried, but it smacked of adultery, and comes from New York, tar and feather.

Joe Lieberman, Independent and Jewish, tar and feather!!

Elliot Spitzer, for reasons too numerous to count, plus the obvious one, tar and feather! Him and his knee-high socks!

The media, for their lies, bias, sexual orientation, and anything else we like or dislike, tar and feather!!

And for keeping us so distracted with ‘fluff’ stories about Sarah Palin that we are losing sight of the economy, the war, the housing crisis, the high food and gas prices, the unemployment crisis (after 18 months, they drop off the listing, and all the others who also dropped off– over 30% of people are self employed now, because their jobs all vanished)

TAR and feather the homeless, the tax man, and Arnold Schwarzenegger just because he is German and such a bad actor!

There, does that make you ALL happy?

Hope I haven’t left anyone out to hate, tar and feather?

So now you can all tar and feather yourselves for being ‘different’ according to the others’ point of view.

Newsflash-we all suffer, and all wish to be happy and fulfilled and protect our families.

Choose the party that you think will help bring that about for EVERYONE in the USA, not just yourselves.

Choose a leader you are willing to follow, not the media hyped personalities that some want to award sainthood to, while others want to tar and feather.

And then get involved. Nothing will change if you all do nothing except sit complaining, and stirring your pots of tar.

Create a country you can be proud of one day at a time. Not one so bogged down in negativity that we might as well all be tarred and feathered.


The Bush Doctrine?

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:


Media versus politics


I have been wondering why I am so galled and appalled and really deeply disgusted about the recent events regarding Sarah Palin, when I am a democrat.

I think I finally hit the root of my deep perturbation. And yes, I am a woman, and loathe the way her family life has been paraded all over the place, but it goes way beyond sexism.

If we are supposed to believe that a political candidate can go beyond their own PERSONAL opinions and self-interest to work for the benefit of EVERYONE in the country, regardless of political affiliation, or even whether they can vote (eg, those under 18), we can and should be able to expect no less from news-related journalists.

They are supposed to present us with FACTS, regardless of which way they have decided to vote.

This election has shown that we need to hold BOTH up to high standards from, now on, and make them accountable for all their words and actions.

And that includes the internet bloggers and email writers who have produced wholesale FICTION on both sides. Which was then reported as FACT by no less than the New York Times.

Why? Because it was what that journalist WANTED to believe. Because the “FACTS” were filtered through their biased lenses based on their own PERSONAL point of view.

Gibson snapping EXACT WORDS was the last straw for me.  They were NOT her exact words that he was quoting, nor was his definition of ‘the Bush Doctrine’ accurate.

The media are actually making themselves MORE powerful than the people meant to govern this country.

The Geraldo Rivera fake war reports in 2002, Dan Rather letters in 2004 and the coverage of this campaign all proves they can build a person or issue up, and equally easily tear it right back down–after all, it makes for great headlines, and viewers, and readership.

Obama was up 14 points in the polls, he is now down 4. Up, down, up, down.

Who benefits from these ‘lies, scandals, and poorly edited videotape’?

The media moguls benefit. They sell ads, they get more and more money. They win no matter what.

We are still left wondering when someone is going to talk about REAL issues, real suffering by real people all over this country, like homeless women living in San Francisco in organized, patrolled car parks to try to stop them from being raped or worse, being homeless because they have been foreclosed upon.

Kids who can’t afford to go to school if they lose their free bus pass, unless they choose not to eat.

REAL people, real suffering.

But the media (and some of the candidates) would rather rant about pantsuits, lipstick, pitbulls, who can or can’t use a computer, and scrappy kids from Scranton.

On Monday, one harmless, inexperienced journalist, with the help of Google, a 6 years old news article,  and his own lack of checking of the facts, nearly brought down United Airlines on the stock market in less than an hour from the time his story hit the Bloomberg newswire.

He was NOT badly intentioned. Just think if he had been intent on mischief, though.

Which demonstrates that the media has TOO MUCH power.

Freedom of speech is a positive value, but not if it is being used against the American people to manipulate in order to achieve their own agendas, be they those of the left, right, green etc.

And not when a personal attack becomes indistinguishable from a political one, and vice versa.