They said it on the news – it must be true

They are all saying it, so it must be true. John McCain's campaign is telling lies. That is what they are saying.

The McCain campaign commercial claimed that Barack Obama has the legislative accomplishment of voting for comprehensive sexual education for Illinois children in Kindergarten. George Stephanopoulos said it was a lie. Joy Behar said it was lie. David Brooks said it was not truthful. Mark Shields said that by saying this, McCain has become dishonorable.

Forgive whom you must. The piece of legislation in question is some years old and nearly fourteen pages long. Illinois SB0099, amending the existing law to add K through 5 to the Sex Education statute, contains this text:

 6        (105 ILCS 5/27-9.1) (from Ch. 122, par. 27-9.1)

 7        Sec. 27-9.1.  Sex Education.

 8        (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate  in

 9    any  class  or  course  in comprehensive sex education if the
     

10    pupil's
      his parent  or  guardian  submits  written  objection

11    thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or

12    program  shall  not  be reason for suspension or expulsion of

13    such  pupil.  Each  class  or  course  in  comprehensive  sex

14    education offered in any of  grades  K
      6  through  12  shall

15    include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
     

16    infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread

17    of HIV
      AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in

18    sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

19        (b)  All  public elementary, junior high, and senior high

20    school classes that teach sex education  and  discuss  sexual

21    activity   or   behavior
      intercourse  shall  emphasize  that

22    abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended
      is
     

23    the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual  intercourse
     

24    is  the  only  protection  that  is  100%  effective  against
     

25    unwanted  teenage  pregnancy,  sexually transmitted diseases,

26    and HIV
      acquired  immune  deficiency  syndrome  (AIDS)  when

27    transmitted sexually.

That is from page 1 of the amendment. Underlined text is added to the law and struck-through text is removed.

At line 9, the legislation considers this bill as regarding "comprehensive sex education". At line 13, it adds grades K through 5 to those students receiving instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. At line 19, this includes the teaching of sexual activity or behavior. Barack Obama admits to voting for this legislation in committee.

I can forgive the McCain campaign for believing that a bill about comprehensive sex education amended to include K-5 on a vote by Barack Obama for sharing that with the public.

But, on the news, they said it was a lie.

They also said that the Obama comment this week about putting lipstick on a pig was not in response to the Sarah Palin comment about lipstick on hockey moms differentiating them from pit bills. You be the judge. The audience certainly seems to know what he was saying. The pause in his delivery, the wait for the audience to get "it" isn't confusing. Only Obama's defenders, only those who wish to pick another battle will leave it alone.

Behar, Brooks, Shields and Stephanopoulos, and many others in the media, said it was deceitful and misleading to accuse Obama of referring to Sarah Palin. He later characterized his statement as a common figure of speech for him. However, consider his delivery, not only on Letterman, but also at a campaign event. In the original, he stumbles and trips over getting the line right, but nails the wait for reaction. In the last two, the words slip off his tongue without any pause. Perhaps he was nervous the first time. Perhaps he understood the certain outcry to come. I cannot know.

What do you think?

Crazy or sly?

"The definition of crazy'' we are told, "is to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result."

Patuxent Publishing's newspaper The Jeffersonian caries of series called Party Line. Each month a spokesman for the Republicans alternates with a spokesman for the Democrats, offering a partisan argument. The most recent article is one that brings the above adage to mind. Again, we have the same person, James Kehl, representing the Democrats of Baltimore County, attempting to deceive the public and indict his chosen political enemy with deceptions. Let me explain.

The title of his piece, "My encounter with Sen. Andy Harris" indicates an encounter with Senator Harris. An encounter is defined as a meeting, one that might be brief, it might be unexpected, hostile or violent, but a meeting, nonetheless. What is described? A sighting of Senator Harris. America did not encounter Senator Clinton on television at the DNC Convention. They saw her. Mr. Kehl continues to explain that he decided not to have a meeting, an encounter.

Based on this "encounter", we are led to believe that voters, bearing their Baltimore County Board of Elections issued Identification Card, swarmed to him, saying in unison, "Please tell us, oh great and wise spokesman for Baltimore County Democrats, what issue would you have confronted the Senator with, had you the courage and bravery we know you to be saving for a better opportunity, instead of the passive aggressive behavior you appear by your own words to have chosen?"

Then, Mr. Kehl tells the readers that "someone" researched the legislative records. Not him; not Joe; not Mary; not an intern; not David - "someone" - a most creditable source, we are to assume, because you used them, did the research and provided it to you.

No one cares if there is a fact or a fiction in the rest of the item. It is based on deception, and relies on unknown and unverifiable parties for the meat of the item. Like much of this author's work, this reads like a fantasy, like something for which the readers must willingly suspend disbelief for the premise, and logically, what follows.

Take away the trickery and deception, cite legitimate sources and toss away the devices of the fiction writer and we are left with a partisan attack on the chosen enemy and the praise of the hero. That, I believe, is what Party Line is for. If nothing else, people who read about politics can differentiate "stuff piled higher and deeper" from information that can help guide them in choosing their representatives.

Here is an example based on the article: Senator Harris has been elected three times by the people in his district to represent them, even after redistricting. State's Attorney Kratovil has been elected twice by the people of Queen Anne's County to represent the people of that county in criminal prosecutions. This information comes from their campaigns and is verified by the records of the State Board of Elections.

There you have information that can help voters without misleading them.

Here is another example based on the item: Marylanders know that Senator Harris is a Republican in a minority in the General Assembly. President of the Senate Mike Miller declared four years ago that he would bury the Republican Party in Maryland. He leads efforts to stop Republican sponsored legislation from becoming law. A county State's Attorney, like Frank Kratovil, is elected independently in order to diminish political influence in criminal prosecutions. A State's Attorney might lobby the General Assembly for strong laws, but should not compromise his independence by dealing with legislators from either party.

Once again, information that can help voters make decisions about the qualities they want in their representatives. Noting there casts aspersions on either candidate. It particularly does not, as the item does, impute that Mr. Kratovil compromises his independence of office.

In the end, no one objects to partisan articles. They stimulate the readers. By the same token, no one likes to be deceived or tricked by delusional, passive aggressive activities. Please, Baltimore County Democrats, find one of your passionate, honest, members to represent you on these pages.

Or not! I am probably the only Republican to raise the objection, and that, against my party's interests.

The Democrats Opening Bell

We don't have cable television. We canned it when the kids got interested in television on the theory that without much to watch they wouldn't. They didn't. They don't.

We watch a lot of PBS. They have made some great efforts in competing with the mindlessness that fills early evening network broadcasts. We have been watching endless PBS promotions for their October series on presidential elections. Not once did we see anything about their convention coverage.

With full knowledge that the big three would only give us one hour each night, I went to PBS at 8:00 PM for Antiques Road Show. What a pleasant surprise. Jim Leherererer (I can't quite get that pronunciation, or aparrently spelling, down) and company giving us commentary during the slow spots and letting us listen to the speeches.

As enriching as the format was, I found the team of Democrat apologists, oops, Presidential Historians, to be either offensive or comedic relief. Come on guys, add something to our understanding, don't relieve yourself on our legs and tell us its raining. A little more Brooks and Shields style evaluation will let the viewers make judgments about the information broadcast.

I hope the Republican convention will not have one-sided commentary. Challenges to ideas are far my edifying than sycophants. Knowing that your ideas will be thoughtfully considered will strengthen your ideas.

How to blow a whistle

Baltimore Sunpapers columnist Dan Rodricks does a great job – of agitating reasonable folks by jumping to conclusions in his column.

For instance, he has taken up the cause of a Police Officer who was fired for not only not reporting problems he identified as part of his duties, but instead making anonymous reports to the media that were sure to embarrass his employer, Governor Ehrlich, and assist the governor's opponent in the next election.

Like all of us, Rodricks has a blog that often continues the discussions he initiates with his columns. Sometimes the comments light my fuse. Like this one.

In response to Reader Tom Ryugo's questions, I offer:

Q1. Should John Dean have shut up and said nothing?

A1. John Dean witnessed and participated in criminal conspiracy. He should have left the room and reported his observations to law enforcement and Congress, before he was caught.

Q2. Should Anita Hill have shut up and said nothing?

A2. Anita Hill should have made a complaint of facts of the harassment that occurred so that an investigation could determine possible wrongdoing and appropriate actions could have ensued. I suspect she did and we can find that record. Oops! The first we heard from her was at the behest of the president's political opponents to smear a nominee to the Supreme Court. In turn, she received a left-liberal reward; she is a college professor.

Q3. Should the Secret Service agent who spoke up against Bill Clinton (have) kept his mouth shut?

Q4. Bill Clinton was convicted of Perjury on the basis of copious testimony collected under subpoena. No agent made anonymous allegations to the media. The agents did not testify to criminal acts. They connected the dots with their observations and the testimony of the victims to otherwise unwitnessed crimes. Similarly, the Impeachment of Bill Clinton was not as the result of sworn officers leaking information to embarrass the head of the Executive Branch. In all cases, the Secret Service Agents, sworn officers, followed the regulations of the agency and the law. They did place themselves outside of their sworn duty.

Q4. Should Linda Tripp have kept her mouth shut?

A4. Lind Tripp was not a law enforcement officer. She became aware of possible criminal activity and reported it. Thinking she was protecting herself and her friend, she committed a crime unique to Maryland by secretly tape recording the evidence that would lead to incriminating evidence. Bill Clinton could have spared us by keeping his mouth shut and not inviting Monica Lewinsky to do other than keep her mouth shut.

Q5.Should the soldier who found photos of Abu Ghraib have simply burned them?

A5. Found them? What were you doing during the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib story. The soldier deserved the Courts Martial. He was aware of what he should have recognized as behavior by members of the armed forces that violated the written code of conduct. He didn't report it. he made videos and still photographs and published them on the Internet because he thought they were cool and would give everyone a big laugh.

As an obvious and blatant conservative, I defend the Ehrlich administration for terminating an employee who was charged with keeping our facilities secure and protected who failed to fulfill his responsibilities. For that, he should have been disciplined. For violating the public trust, he deserved to have his employment terminated.

As a dyed in the wool liberal apologist dedicated to defending the O'Malley administration at all costs, often with full regard for the truth, I must stand and defend the governor for not giving this unreliable, untrustworthy, unethical former police officer a job, even though his goal of embarrassing Governor Ehrlich was noble, and it probably assisted the O'Malley election.

Next question, please.