I support comprehensive sex education: Tell kids they don’t have to start their sex lives in high school; tell them how to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy if they do. I support it, but I don’t have much faith that teens will listen, either to what they hear in school or to what their parents tell them at home. Adolescents are stupid that way. That’s why we have so many people.
At any rate, with all the talk about Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter, I wondered what’s taught in Alaska schools.
It’s hard to know what they teach at Wasilla High, but Alaska schools are not limited to abstinence-only education. An Anchorage Daily News edit praises the state for its broader curriculum.
According to a 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation publication, Alaska is in the middle on sex ed, reports a New West blogger.
. . . Alaska was in a category of states requiring only that abstinence be “stressed,†but not necessarily to the exclusion of so-called “comprehensive†sex education. On the other hand, Alaska also did not require contraception information in sex ed classes at that time.
The state doesn’t receive federal funding for abstinence-only education.
In her 2006 campaign, Palin said she supports birth control. She opposes “explicit” sex education in schools. Whatever that means.
Barack Obama had the right take on this: The candidates’ kids should be off limits. He also noted that his mother was 18 when he was born. It was six months after the wedding, I think.
Read Ed Morrissey’s story, We have walked in the Palins’ shoes. A lot of people have walked in those shoes.
Update: Off topic but funny.
Many people have walked that road. But rather fewer have made a political career of piously judging them for the choices they make.
I don’t care about the daughter’s child. I do care about the daughter’s mother, who made ‘motherhood’ her sole qualification for office.
Stephen Downes,
I’m sorry, I must have missed something. Can you point to the quote or the speech or the policy statement, or trace the career path that shows how Gov. Palin has “made a political career of piously judging them for the choices they make.”
Beginning pro-life hardly indicates that she heaps moral judgement down on others.
I think she’s made her actual, you know, qualifications, as the Gov. of Alaska as qualifications for the job.
Good God, talk about piously judging people. Look in the mirror.
Well done, Stacy.
“Palin said she supports birth control. She opposes “explicit†sex education in schools. Whatever that means.What does it mean?”
Simple “I’d rather them not have sex but if they do I’d want it to be safe sex.” It is not complicated.
Also I am not going to delve into Palin’s personal life. Her daughter is pregnant. I wish her luck and joy just as I do my students who are pregnant or just delivered (and I have a few). I wish they did not have to walk that path.
As far as qualifications, our founding fathers feared the autocrat, the professional politician. Unlike many politicians, Palin and her husband have held honest jobs, and not just try to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.
Projecting a bit, aren’t we? One of the things Palin has done which Obama, McCain, and Biden haven’t is separated her personal beliefs about how the world should socially from the duty of the government to defend the rights of life, liberty, and property for those under its jurisdiction. While I’m not personally terribly excited about her being so close to the presidency due to her limited experience (same goes for Obama), I do have to admire that she put her personal beliefs aside in vetoing a bill, HB 4001, she liked but knew to be unconstitutional.
Facts, they are good things.
Leave the daughter out. But think about whether Ms. Palin will be a mite distracted between now and November with her daughter giving birth and the Troopergate report being presented.
Put aside her approach to sex ed (explicit or not). But consider her opinion that Creationism be taught in Science classes.
I don’t see either the depth of experience (whether in politics or elsewhere), or the soundness of judgment that the job calls for.
That McCain chose her without vetting or meeting her more than briefly demonstrates that he would be dangerous in the oval office. No sane person can vote for such an unstable man.
“Leave the daughter out. But think about whether Ms. Palin will be a mite distracted between now and November with her daughter giving birth and the Troopergate report being presented.”
Hmmmmm, Do you think the fact that John Edwards’ wife was dying while he was running for president was distracting? Everyone has a personal life, politicians too. The double standards are mindblowing.
“Put aside her approach to sex ed (explicit or not). But consider her opinion that Creationism be taught in Science classes.”
The trope that she’s a creationist has repeatedly been disproved.
“I don’t see either the depth of experience (whether in politics or elsewhere), or the soundness of judgment that the job calls for.”
Based on? The fact that she was only Gov for 2 years? That she doesn’t have any national security experience? That she has a pregnant teen daughter? Or, you disagree with her basic political philosophy, making it much easier to question her “depth of experience or soundness of judgement”? What’s wrong with just saying you disagree with her politics? Why is it necessary to rationalize this?
The trope that she’s a creationist has repeatedly been disproved.
Oh yeah?
“Palin: Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information.
Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.
And, you know, I say this, too, as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution.”
Only creationists believe in teaching both creationism and real science in schools. (As a Pastafarian, I look forward to the day when one third of the science class is devoted to creationism, one third is devoted to real science, and one third is devoted to the vital matter of teaching our children about the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s creation of the world.)
As well as wanting to shove her nonsense down our children’s throats in school, Palin also wants to use her social views about how the world should be to prevent gays from marrying. It’s fine that she vetoed an unconstitutional attempt to deny benefits to gays, but remember, she wants to change the constitution so the bill would no longer be unconstitutional. Moreover, she wants to not only overturn Roe v. Wade, but also make abortion illegal in every state in all cases except when the mother’s life is danger. So let’s not hear any more about how she separates her personal views from her political views.
The best way to understand what Gov. Palin is all about is to read her own words.
Fortunately, she has been a blogger for some time.
Her blog URL is
http://sarahpalin.typepad.com/my_weblog/
that blog reads an awful lot like a parody.
Sara Palin and creationism
Don’t believe everything you read in the media.
Cardinal –
That already puts her well ahead of her own running mate and the two Democrats. I’d rather have someone who acknowledges that the Constitution bars something and would need to be changed (Palin) to someone who’s academic expertise is using legal trickery to gut the language of the Constitution (Obama). As a leave ‘em alone libertarian, I obviously oppose her social agenda, but of the four people likely to occupy the White House for the next four years, I honestly think she’d do the least damage.
And, to those arguing she has a dearth of experience, how is Obama’s experience as an legislator any more substantive than Palin’s as governor when you look at results, not time served?
Many people at my base live in Wasilla and commute to Anchorage, since it’s much cheaper to live there.
I called up my buddy who has a teenage daughter in school there, and asked him the question. He said they teach the same thing every school does. Don’t do it, but if you do, use birth control… risks… blah, blah, blah.
This is not the bible belt. People are much more likely to fish, hunt, or go snow machining on Sunday, then go to church.
Palin’s associated with dominionists. She wants to make her version of Christianity the law of the land. I don’t see how that’s at all compatible with leave ‘em alone libertarianism. Palin doesn’t want to leave women with unwanted pregnancies alone– she wants to force them to carry the pregnancies to term.
And for heaven’s sake, she raised the sales tax in her tiny town of 6000 to build a $15 million dollar hockey arena (while stiffing the library). That’s not fiscal conservatism, and it’s surely nothing that libertarians would support.
Cardinal –
I didn’t say I liked her, only that I thought McCain, Obama, and Biden would do worse because they wouldn’t even consider the constitutionality of their proposals.
When it comes to whether I’d rather see a Republican or a Democrat in office this election, I’d have to say Republican for two reasons:
1) The Democrats will still control both houses of Congress, acting as an obstacle to the McCain/Palin’s anti-liberty plans, as opposed to acting as cheerleaders for Obama/Biden’s anti-liberty plans.
2) The media coverage of Obama has been so in his favor I’m quite afraid that we’d lose the media as an effective check on the president if he were elected.
In the abstract, would you support this person/party in a perfect world sense, I in no way support Sarah Palin or the Republican ticket. The problem is that, in our two-party system, every politician has to be considered along with the offering from the other party. I wish it weren’t so, or that the major parties would collapse under the weight of their own corruption, but since that isn’t going to happen before election day, I’m stuck looking at the major party candidates as they are.
On the Democratic side, you have a presidential candidate who has almost no accomplishments to point to for his time in the Illinois legislature other than giving away tax dollars and a vice presidential candidate who’s never met an expansion of federal power he didn’t like. On the Republican side, you have a presidential candidate who’s hinged his conception of Republican ideals on national greatness and has authored bills that directly flaunt the plain language of the Constitution. McCain-Feingold anyone? Bueller?
Compared to these three clowns, Palin comes out looking better. She wants to impose her vision of the country on us using the government as the tool, but so do McCain, Obama, and Biden. The only difference is she at least acknowledged the Constitution as an obstacle to doing so. Not a big difference, but given the choices, I think it has some merit.
(Yes, before you ask, I’m fully resigned to the fact no matter who gets elected, the federal government will intrude further into our lives. It’s just a matter of how much.)
The Palin blog is a parody.
Cardinal Fang – you wrote: “She wants to make her version of Christianity the law of the land.”
That’s a pretty strong (hysterical?) statement. If you want to make an assertion like that, it’s perhaps best to back it up with some facts.
Rory’s information about what actually is taught in the Wasilla schools doesn’t make me fear the imminent establishment of a theocracy under a Palin vice presidency</i.
Here’s some more info on what has happened with social issues in Alaska under Palin’s governorship:
Palin Has Not Pushed Creation Science as Governor
I’m not worried about what would happen in a Palin vice presidency. McCain is 72 and has had invasive cancer; I’m worried about a Palin presidency.
The article: “Neither have Palin’s socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska’s chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.”
So, she does have conservative views. She hasn’t put them into policy as governor. However, the religious fundamentalists aren’t cheering her because they think she’d have the same hands-off attitude as President. If she were to become president, she would be appointing Supreme Court Justices.
Americans’ ignorance regarding sex is just a symptom of Americans’ ignorance in general. Though the U.S. isn’t the only country in this position – most of Europe and Japan are the only two exceptions that come to mind, as far as sexual knowledge and acceptance goes.
The irony is that sex is as much a part of the human experience as eating and sleeping are.
Hmmm…
Among the comments I’ve read and heard, here and elsewhere:
* Palin’s personal life may be a distraction, what with imminent grandmotherhood and all — though Hillary’s apparently was not; we were, however, treated to any number of hagiographic screeds about how hard it was for her to balance a high-powered legal and political career while raising Chelsea. To her credit, Palin seems not to be convinced that somehow it takes a village to do anything.
* Palin has no experience — though she’s been the governor of a state with trade mission offices in China, Taiwan and Korea, among other places, and has engaged in meaningful discussions on Alaska trade matters with those countries. Obama has made a few speeches overseas, notably the one to a crowd waiting for the free beer and rock music at the Brandenburg Gate. The crowd was wildly enthusiastic; too bad he’s not running for president of Eruope. Biden’s foreign policy experience is undistinguished, unless you count his proposal that Iraq be configured in a three-way partition.
* With Palin the Republicans, say all the usual talking heads, are trying to pander to middle- and working class women. Would someone explain how that differs from the entire Hillary campaign, or from the fact that the Congressional Black Caucus and others ahve been shamelessly pandering to the black vote on behalf of Obama? Or is that somehow “good” racism and sexism?
* Obama and Biden, two men who live in mansions, are lawyers who went to exclusive schools, wshose cronies and associates are lobbyists and political insiders are quick to cite their claims that they are of “the people.” One wonders how such underprivileged pariahs did so well in such a cruel country. Particularly when they and other insiders now seem to be quailing at the specter of a woman with a real middle class upbringing who engages in all the outdoor stuff that most Alaskans engage in.
Gee, if only she had gone to Radcliffe and Harvard, had the obligatory two kids and wasn’t personally pro choice, we could get to hear all about her gravitas and stature.
Bill
“Americans’ ignorance regarding sex is just a symptom of Americans’ ignorance in general.”
Is that you Barack? What are you doing hanging out here? Aren’t you supposed to be in Switzerland with George Clooney?
“Gee, if only she had gone to Radcliffe and Harvard, had the obligatory two kids and wasn’t personally pro choice, we could get to hear all about her gravitas and stature.”
Nah, all she had to do was be a Democrat…. Oh, and the pro-choice stuff would help too.
Does anyone really believe “she tried to get her sister’s loser ex-husband fired” is going to cost her votes? (Failing to do so might.)
Apart from dead people (who apparently can vote but not nominate in Obama’s Chicago), politics is about people.
Whenever some nitwit ie. Deval Patrick pretends he’s a big hero by refusing abstinence only ed funds because they’re not effective I wait for him to refuse comprehensive sex ed funds as well because they don’t work. But it’s not about what works – it’s about cheap political points.
It’s always a hoot to listen to others rail about US ignorance. That’s obviously how we got to be the richest, freest and most powerful nation on Earth. Unfortunately for Europeans and Japanese they are too depressed to procreate.
Seems like the important thing to ask about Ms. Palin–who if nothing else can keep a crowd engaged when speaking–is whether someone with her credentials would have been considered had she not been a woman. A first term governor with previous experience as a small town Mayor and PTA president.
I admire her chutzpah (loved the jet on e-bay), disagree with her politics (anti-choice, believes that religion can be presented as an alternative to science, not so much on preserving the planet), but in the end she comes up real short on experience in the political arena. You can diss politics all you want, but government in a democracy is about a political process, having the ability to listen to many sides and bring them together for the good of the country, in response to problems within and without. I don’t see that in her resume.
That is an important thing to ask, and the answer is probably no. The question I’ve got is whether people will start asking whether Barack Obama and his limited experience would’ve had any shot at the White House had he been a caucasian with an ordinary name…
having the ability to listen to many sides and bring them together for the good of the country, in response to problems within and without. I don’t see that in her resume.
Guess she forgot to put on the part about her 80% approval rating from the Alaskan citizenry. Sheesh.
“but in the end she comes up real short on experience in the political arena”
I’d rather have a VP with little experience than a President with little experience. At least her esperience is in the Executive Branch of a government.
“…government in a democracy is about a political process, having the ability to listen to many sides and bring them together for the good of the country, in response to problems within and without.”
Ah, yes, soma’s a wonderful thing!