PAC tries new tactic to boost Obama run
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/21/pac_tries_new_tactic_to_boost_obama_run/
Sees way around spending limits
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | July 21, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The website has the look and feel of Barack Obama's
official page, and the headline says it all: "Bank it for Barack." The
site asks for contributions of up to $5,000 per person to help the
Illinois Democrat win the crucial state of California.
The effort employs a tactic that could transform the way campaign-
related money is collected and spent in presidential campaigns .
Romney holding "Obama, Osama" sign in photo
http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2007/07/romney-holding-obama-osama-sign-in.html
TMZ.com has a set of two photos of Mitt Romney standing next to a
woman holding a sign in South Carolina that says, "No to Obama Osama
and Chelsea's Moma (sic.)" In the second photo Romney is actually
holding the sign.
I can appreciate the fact that candidates have to deal with all sorts
of weirdos, cretins and poorly educated people who cannot spell simple
words, especially on the GOP side, but that's pretty low. That's what
passes for wit in South Carolina Republican circles I guess, which
reveals the dangers of watching cars drive in a circle for hours in
100 degree heat.
Barack Obama comes out for children's health and against molestation;
Republicans aghast
http://pandagon.net/2007/07/19/barack-obama-comes-out-for-childrens-health-and-against-molestation-republicans-aghast/#comment-434366
Published by Amanda Marcotte July 19th, 2007 in Sex, Reproductive
Rights, Education, Signs of the Non-Apocalypse
I figured with the slanted spin this is about to get, I might as well
lean on the other side of it.
Sex and the Kiddies
http://natenelson.wordpress.com/2007/07/21/sex-and-the-kiddies/
Posted by Nate Nelson on July 21st, 2007
I strongly suspect that this title will get me blocked by spam filters
everywhere. Such is life.
Since the Barack Obama sex ed story-that-wasn't and since reading this
post by Lynn Gazis-Sax, I've been thinking about sex education not
just for kindergarteners, but for students in general. I sense that
this controversy is less about kindergarteners - I think anyone who is
rational and honest knows that Barack Obama doesn't want to do the
cucumber demonstration with his or her kindergartener - and more about
contrasting attitudes regarding sex education in general. In other
words, I think it's a battle between the comprehensive sex education
folks (represented here by Obama) and the absintence only sex
education folks (represented here by Romney). We've had these battles
before and we know what they look like. "You're causing unplanned
pregnancies and killing our children!" "No, you're causing unplanned
pregnancies and killing our children! It's my job to educate them!"
"But you're not doing your job!" Etc., etc., ad nauseam.
The problem with the endless war is that both sides have good points,
and Americans feel torn. On the one hand, Americans are rightly
concerned about sending the wrong message to their children by being
too permissive in regard to sexuality, thus making them wary of
comprehensive sex education. On the other hand, Americans are
realistic and they know that the chances are strong that their
children are going to have premarital sex, and they feel like their
children should know how to prevent unplanned pregnancies or, worse,
sexually transmitted diseases when and if they become sexually active.
And both sides exploit these fears. The comprehensive sex education
enthusiasts warn parents that abstinence only sex education could get
their children killed or at least seriously hinder their life goals,
while the abstinence only enthusiasts warn parents that comprehensive
sex education will lead their children down the path of moral
decadence and distance from God.
.
|
