Do you trust him with your kid?

I read the SIECUS Guidelines so you don't have to!

Obama thinks it should have been legal for me to stab my baby girl in the head and kill her while I was giving birth to her, so long as she came out feet first.

He also thinks that her kindergarten teacher should tell her:

• A boy/man has nipples, a penis, a scrotum, and testicles.
• A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries.
• Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.

SIECUS guidelines, page 25 (NOTE: All quotes below are from the age 5-8 category)

• Men and women have specific cells in their bodies (sperm cells and egg cells) that enable them to reproduce.
• Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
• Babies usually come out of a woman’s body through an opening called a vagina.

page 26-27.

• Human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.
• Some people are homosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender.

page 29.

• Many people live in lifetime committed relationships, even though they may not be legally married.
• Two people of the same gender can live in loving, lifetime committed relationships.

page 38-39.

• Most children are curious about their bodies.
• Bodies can feel good when touched.

page 51.

• Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
• Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
• Masturbation should be done in a private place.

page 51-52.

• People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good.

page 52.

• There are many types of sexually transmitted diseases.
• People who do not engage in certain behaviors do not get STDs.
• The most common ways for a person to get an STD is to participate in sexual behavior or share a needle with another person who is already infected with an STD.

page 63.

This is just for the real young kiddies. The material for the older ones is shocking. The SEICUS guys apparently have quite the hard-on (sorry) for masturbation in particular. In later grades they learn that masturbation, homosexuality, and unmarried cohabitation is ok, that they can decide that religious teachings aren't personally "relevant," and that the Internet can enhance your sex life (seriously).

This is the man who wants government involved full-time in your child's life through universal pre-K and a lack of ways for people (particularly poor people) to opt out of public schooling. These are not simply academic concerns.

So I honestly to pose the question - Do you trust him with your kid?

I need to know who not to trust with my kid.

This (to me) is a HUGE BIG DEAL.

hence the use of CAPS.

I've seen, but opted out of the "I am Sarah Palin" meme because I'm not Sarah Palin. If anyone, I'm Barack Obama - someone who follows the rules, who seeks success by playing the game brilliantly, but definitely playing the game (see, e.g., "Chicago Machine Politics, law firm partnership track). I'm just sayin' - it takes a certain kind of person to go to a graduate school to learn nothing of use but to learn "how to think like." Perfecting the world comes through perfecting the self.

It trickles down, you see.

That's bad in a President though. You can't assume that the interests of the person are going to align with the interests of the country. Especially when:

Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

. . .

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

He's already proven himself willing to jeopardize the nation's foreign interests to political expediency! Forget whether you disagree with Bush's foreign policy. What about the interest America has in being able to trust its allies not to try to renegotiate everything every four years? Or in expecting other countries to be able to believe our promises?

If there is a good explanation for this, I would really like to know.

Pre-adolescent Worldview of the Obama following

Pretentious blog title aside, I'm just riffing here on a few things that occurred to me lately.

My mom's stock answer growing up was "life isn't fair," which for a kid so invested with the idea of her own brilliance was devastating. "Life isn't fair" isn't something you can reason your way around. At least not when you're 10.

When I was in middle school, my best friend was OBSESSED with the idea of becoming a Navy SEAL. Her dad, who passed away when she was very young, was in the Navy I think. Her sister was the brain, she was the tomboy (although both were brilliant), and I think she may have been trying to be the son her dad never left behind. She was desperately upset at the idea that women couldn't (can't) be SEALs. "First woman SEAL" is her "Where will they be?" caption in our eighth grade yearbook. We were practically faint with excitement when the ban on women in combat was partially lifted (I wanted to be a government assassin.) We read way too many Robert Ludlum novels.

But then we went to high school and she freaked out with hormones - slipping grades, dabbling in alcohol and drugs, boy after unsuitable boy. Lots of people, myself included, wondered how such a great girl would so willingly throw her prospects out the window. Six months later, mine hit. Catastrophically. And I wondered no more.

I think about her whenever I hear of the argument for gender segregation in the military, like this one at the Corner this morning.

When I look back at how fervently we believed, how much our own self-worth was tied up in the idea of life being fair, as in EQUAL, I almost can't recall the feeling of uncomplicated faith in our rightness and righteousness. There is such a beauty and wonder about the way children - even the girls - dream about their future.

But I think we were wrong then, because we don't live in the kind of world where an uncomplicated faith can be sustained. Children can look at the shining ideal of "equality" see it as more than a value, but as a means, end, and entire belief system unto itself. Only children can honestly believe that men and women are the same. When they become men and women, they know better.

There's been a lot written about the Democrats in politics or Hollywood that root for Obama because their children do. Their worshipful treatment, his Messiah-like image, all of it has a kind of childlike wonder, bright and full with their dreams. Should he lose, there are very, very many people who are going to be distraught in a way they would not for other political candidates or races.

What do they expect to achieve with him though? Other than "hope" and "change" and "a new political discourse"? This is the real world, and real life isn't fair. It won't let us choose the purest of candidates and follow wherever he may lead us and trust that he will not lead us astray. What does Obama stand for? The only real political record we can look to is his lockstep vote with Democratic Party leadership and 100% record of voting against the unborn. It isn't fair that these are choices we have to deal with. Life isn't fair. I have yet to have a conversation with an Obama supporter that can tell me anything about what concrete actions they expect Obama to take in office. Their obligation to the world stops at their support.

The Utopia children dream of is simple and pure and uncomplicated. It's also arbitrary and uninformed and rote. The world of adults is harder. It's dirty and unexpected and infinitely complicated. But it's better.

I hope my old friend is happy, even though she isn't a SEAL. And even though I'm more June Cleaver than La Femme Nikita, I'm happier this way too.

Who makes the case? Judge DePaul makes a ruling.

I'm a litigation attorney, and that frames the way I generally approach political issues. In politics, though, the one-on-one debate isn't as effective as an adversarial legal argument because there isn't a judge there to call bullshit and make you actually argue the same point as your opponents. In this new bloggingheads, Cohen and Loury (indirectly) tackle the question of how to attack the Palin pick. I'm going to judge who's got the better advice for the Obama campaign.

COHEN: "This is someone who is obviously unqualified."

Lawyering Practice Tip: Anytime I submit something to a court, I ALWAYS make sure to remove any hint of the word "obvious." It's argumentative, and the argument is: "You should just know." The corrolary is: "Therefore I should not have to engage in the substantive facts." The argument that things are obvious is always a loser. The unwillingness to engage in the facts undercuts Cohen's critiques right out of the gate, as it's not obvious to me that, based on criteria set by me or criteria set by the Obama campaign, that Palin isn't qualified.
ADVANTAGE: Loury.

They talk about the Palin stating in response to a press inquiry in 2007 that she hadn't given much thought to Iraq because she's been focused on her governorship.

COHEN: "It had the virtue of being an honest answer. . . rather than get some moronic version of the party line. . . That's the problem with it that it's an honest answer. . . You don't really have a view of the war the country is involved in."
LOURY: That answer is unremarkable for a governor of a small state who wasn't running for president.

Both men discuss their firm belief that it was an honest answer. Both take great pains to point out that Palin is remarkable (so as not to condescend), yet neither addresses the possibility that it's a politically calculated act. It looks like Palin had just won her governor's race with 45% of the vote vs. 44% to her opponent. Neither addresses the possibility that Palin could have been purposefully treading lightly so as not to lose a slim majority (approval ratings don't last forever and Iraq incites the crazies). Cohen asserts that you can prove she doesn't care about Iraq by contrasting her answer to an affirmative answer on a climate question. Palin was the chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, which seems like it would make it more difficult to demur on a climate question. Neither man fully explores the assumptions underlying their arguments, but Loury at least mentions the context.
(slim) ADVANTAGE: Loury.

During this part of the discussion, there was also this.

COHEN: She was not one of these people who thinks there are human sources of climate change. She didn't say I hadn't thought about it very much, but it was obvious. . .

Again with the obvious, plus most judges don't care for assholes.
ADVANTAGE: Loury.

Loury argues that Democrats shouldn't try to attack her on qualification grounds because it reinforces the Republican culture war theme that casts Democrats as arugula-eating metropolitan snobs. I think he's right, conservatives are always bitching about that. Cohen responds by saying that you can tell this is the case because Dobson and Limbaugh are all over the Palin pick "like stink on shit." He ignores the fact that lots of people listen to and agree with Dobson and Limbaugh. Plus, it's gross.
ADVANTAGE: Loury.

Loury points out that people are invested in Palin the way people are invested in Obama.

LOURY (paraphrase): Republicans just defined their own niche - fundamentalist pro-life red America red-blooded American girl. She embodies the hopes and dreams of a derogated social group. There are probably comparable numbers of people who will be voting for Obama for the same reasons.

Interestingly, unlike almost all other Democratic analysis I've seen, Loury RIGHTLY gets that Palin is not an appeal to women, but to conservatives!

This is, I think, the most significant part of this debate:

COHEN: When he picked Biden I thought ok, when he was making this decision, somewhere pretty high up on this list in things he wanted from a vp is confidence that the person could do the job as president. . . When I think about what was on McCain's list in making the decision I don't see that it could have been anywhere on this list that she has the qualifications to do the job.

(So much for not condescending.)

LOURY: I have to object. I think its a nonsequitur. 'Obama choice made for decisions that are credible, weighing the well-being of the country high. The McCain reasons for choosing are dishonorable and weigh the choice based on more dishonorable purely partisan motives.' I don't think there's any difference between these campaigns in what they'll do to win. Obama's decision not to participate in public funding was a serious shift. The motivations were "what does it take to win."

Cohen shows a total inability to understand his Republican opponents. (I read a blog recently that theorized that Obama supporters seem not only to want to prove he's a better candidate, but that he's a better person. I wish I could remember who wrote that!) His "McCain is putting the country at risk" argument is not going to convince anyone that doesn't come preloaded with a hefty set of assumptions. It requires you to ignore any tactical political advantage in Biden, but I can think of several (he can attack without dirtying Obama's hands while retaining his regular Joe likeability for the most part, he brings, if not gravitas, then staidness to the ticket. He fills the holes in Obama's resume where people have concerns - they may think that a 28 year Senator isn't about to advise his young friend to be too radical.) These are not assumptions that voters just tuning in are likely to have.
ADVANTAGE: Loury.

They then discuss a point raised elsewhere (I think first by Begala), that Obama's experience is off the table because 18 million voters thought he had enough, whereas only 1 person has ever expressed confidence in Palin. I don't really understand this point, as Palin obviously hasn't gotten the chance to have the nation vote on her. Does that mean if she ends up as veep they will never question her suitability in the veep role?

OVERALL ARGUMENT: Cohen seems to be saying that she's unqualified and McCain is risking the country unduly by picking her. His whole argument on her qualifications is a condescending assumption that she doesn't think about Iraq and a refusal to deal with the substantive facts of Obama's resume (because he feels that the judgment of Democratic primary voters should suffice). Loury seems to be saying that attacks on qualifications raise questions about Obama and his own criteria for being president which is a losing battle because Obama may be more qualified but he is, after all, running for the top of the ticket. He also points out that separate from the double-standard argument this kind of attack seems to raise, it reinforces a theme prevalent on the right that there is a culture war and that the Democrats don't understand or care about them. He's right about this too.

THE WINNER (In a surprise upset!): REPUBLICANS!
Loury has convinced me that the best way to go after Palin is on the substance of her policies. In a head-to-head, conservative principles are better than modern liberal principles.

So we win.

Good for Obama!

Today:

I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits, and people's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics, it has no relevance to governor Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president.

I don't think Obama is sexist, despite the virulent misogyny of his supporters. It just goes to show you that you that just because really awfulpeople hold a certain view, it doesn't mean that everyone who holds the view is awful. [Come to think of it, this has come up recently.]
Let's watch and see if the media remembers this fact next time any high-profile evangelist says something awful.

But in the meantime: thank you, Barack.