This was created by Ken over at Bring It On!
Archive for the ‘Bring it on!’ Category
Let’s jump into the wayback machine for a few minutes and head all the way back to March 11, 2008. This was the day that Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, sent a memo to reporters that stated
…It is critical, as we prepare to face off with whomever the Democrats select as their nominee, that we all follow John’s lead and run a respectful campaign focused on the issues and values that are important to the American people.
Throughout the primary election we saw John McCain reject the type of politics that degrade our civics, and this will not change as he prepares to run head-to-head against the Democratic nominee….
…Throughout his life John McCain has held himself to the highest standards and he will continue to run a respectful campaign based on the issues. We expect that all supporters, surrogates and staff will hold themselves to similarly high standards when they are representing the campaign….
That oh so honorable campaign lasted until July 2008. Now McCain’s campaign is wallowing in the gutter.
The McCain campaign’s latest hairball of an ad borders on the obscene. By now you have probably seen or heard McCain’s Education ad. If not you can see it on YouTube.com. I refuse to provide free play time for the ad by putting it up on my blog.
The ad claims that Obama is responsible for “legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners.”
Here’s what FactCheck.org has to say about this ad:
It’s true that the phrase “comprehensive sex education” appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain’s claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it “medically accurate.” It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed “comprehensive sex education” to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be “age-appropriate” for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question:
SB 99: However, no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV AIDS or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.
The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape:
SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide
for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. … Course material and instruction shall teach pupils … how to say no to unwanted sexual advances … and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment.The bill passed in the Health and Human Services Committee with Democrats, including Obama, voting along party lines in support of it. But the measure promptly stalled and died in the full Senate, and no action has been taken on it since late 2005.
All emphasis is mine.
The McCain campaign’s attempt to put some sort of perverse reasoning on Obama’s support of the failed bill is disgusting.
It can also backfire on McCain.
McCain is criticising Obama for supporting a bill that would teach children to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles. David Sirota expains that logically the argument can be made that McCain is declaring “his support for child molestor rights.”
Do I honestly feel that McCain supports the rights of child molestors? Of course not. However, if he and his campgain is going to make ungrounded and disgusting claims against Obama, then he better not claim that he’s running a clean, honorable campaign.
By the way, if you’re interested in the actual article from Education Week about Obama you can read it here. If you read it, you’ll notice that it is not nearly as daming as the McCain ad wants you to believe.
File this one under “Idiots.”
Some well known members of the right wing blogosphere are in a tizzy over a black and white scarf that Rachel Ray is wearing in a Dunkin Donuts ad.
Michelle Malkin is calling the scarf “hate couture” and wonders if people should start calling for a boycott of Dunkin Donuts.
Charles Johnson over at Little Green Footballs claims that Dunkin Donuts “…is the latest American firm to casually promote the symbol of Palestinian terrorism and the intifada, the kaffiyeh, via Rachael Ray.”
Malkin does, at least, give DD and Ray some wiggle room in saying that they might not realize just what Ray is wearing. Johnson doesn’t give them that any forgiveness promoting an “acknowledge, well-know symbol of terrorism.” But does at least back peddle enough to say that he wasn’t accusing them of having “terrorist ties.”
Personally, it looks like an ugly, black and white scarf. It doesn’t look like the head wear that Arafat always wore.
Now, this whole silly fuss did teach me one thing: a scarf can also be called a kaffiyeh and wearing it makes you in league with the terrorists. At least by those who see terrorist hiding in every nook and corner.
The kaffiyeh has been around for centuries. They’ve even been worn by British troops in the deserts of Africa during World War II. They’ve also been worn my U.S. troops in the Middle East to keep sand out of their nose and mouths.
Are these right wing bloggers going to fuss at our troops?
For that matter, are they going to fuss at Meghan McCain? It looks to me like she’s wearing what Malkin calls a “jihadi chic kaffiyeh.” Or is it that if Meghan McCain wears it then it’s just a scarf?
Personally, no matter who is wearing it, it’s just a scarf.
Writing letters actually can work. Just ask the students in Constantine Christopulos‘ class at William V. Wright Elementary School in Las Vegas.
The students in this second grade class were tired of eating frozen green beans time and again with their school lunches. I can’t say that I blame them. The green beans at my previous school’s cafeteria were nasty. Over cooked and tasteless, they looked like something brought in by the cat.
Constantine Christopulos decided to use the students dislike of the vegetable to teach a lesson in democracy. The students wrote letters to the school’s lunch manager which praised what they liked while politely stating their concerns over the beans.
The Clark County School District heard about the campaign and sent some staff to the school to see what alternatives the students would like. Yesterday two dozen students tried several different vegetables and filled out a survey to help determine what they liked.
Cooked peas, another dreaded vegetable in my last school’s cafeteria, didn’t fare very well.
The district supervisor for Clark County School District, Sue Hoggan, said that the results of yesterday’s survey would be used to “tweak” school menus.
Unfortunately, green beans will still be served on occasion.
Kids take on lunch lady — and win
Crossposted on Bring It On!
Do you remember Judge Robert Bork?
He is considered on of the founders of the current judicial conservative movement. He was also nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987 by Ronald Reagan but his nomination was later rejected by the Senate.
It turns out that this advocate for tort reform believes in the phrase “Do as I say, not as I do” rather than leading by example.
Last week Bork filed a lawsuit against the Yale Club in New York City seeking $1 million in compensatory damages. He is also seeking punitive damages.
Bork was scheduled to give a speech at the Yale Club on June 6, 2006. As he tried to mount the dais to give the speech Bork fell and injured his head and leg. According to Bork’s lawsuit, the Yale Club owes him $1 million plus punitive damages because the club “wantonly, willfully, and recklessly” failed to provide adequate safe staging to the dais.
The American Constitution Society blog quotes an except from one of Bork’s articles published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy in 2002. In the quote, Bork claims that capping punitive damages in “constitutionally appropriate:”
State tort law today is different in kind from the state tort law known to the generation of the Framers. The present tort system poses dangers to interstate commerce not unlike those faced under the Articles of Confederation. Even if Congress would not, in 1789, have had the power to displace state tort law, the nature of the problem has changed so dramatically as to bring the problem within the scope of the power granted to Congress. Accordingly, proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress’s power, may now be constitutionally appropriate.
To be fair, the Yale Club had no stairs nor a handrail when Bork attempted to climb up to the dais. Does that, however, abdicate Bork of all responsibility for his injuries? Hardly.
Bork made the conscious decision to attempt to climb to a dais of “unreasonable” height that was missing stairs or a handrail. No one forced the man to make that decision. Since the choice was his, he should accept the consequences.
I don’t have a problem with Bork asking for compensatory damages from the Yale Club. The club does hold some responsiblity for not having either stairs or a handrail. It’s the punitive damages that Bork’s lawsuit seeks that makes him a hypocrite in my eyes.
A man who feels that strict liability should be eliminated and that punitive damages should be limited, is being hypocritical to ask for punitive damages “in an amount to be proven at trial.” Especially when the lawsuit claims that the Yale Club was “wanton, willful, and reckless.” Careless and stupid, yes, but not “wanton, willful, and reckless.” If anyone’s actions fit that description, it’s Bork’s attempt to climb up to the dais unaided.
Cross posted at Bring It On!
