Krugman of the NYT Redacts History in Liberal Terms on Sex Education for Kindergarteners

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [1] has a 90+ year history of apologizing for Communism, fostering any form of anti-anticommunism, defending despots like Fidel Castro, World Wars started by leftists, the USSR, Cuba and their interminable endorsement of far left political types who would run for high office in the United States. They always have praise for any left-liberal tax whore who wants to raise taxes and increase regulations and will condemn any politician that is even moderately to the right. In a frequent departure from his role as non-economist of the Times Paul Krugman[2] now graces us with his ‘clarification’ of some stupid and disgusting comment made by Barack H. Obama on sex education of kids.  He senses that the election, once again, is lost and rushes to the pulpit to cobble together a suitable response. He leads some kind of truth squad. Let us see how he handles ‘the truth.’

In today’s screed, we read like this:

“Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies” [3]--Blizzard of Lies by Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: September 11, 2008 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.  This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted.]

In propaganda terms, this is known as ‘correcting the record’ or other such phrase that really means: we need some urgent damage control and must enlist the help of trusty spin doctors to dissect and reshuffle the original words to show that the original text did not contain the original thought but needs to be redacted and supplanted with the politically correct connotations to correct the blunder. This is the lie.  Ultimately, the stark facts must be rehabilitated into a politically appropriate set of words that conveniently fits into the instant political context and some spin doctor is needed to perform this surgery. Krugman has experience in this area as he mixes numbers from disparate sources with intellectual and scientific abandon to show that, for example, tax cuts are evil in all circumstances and that supply-side economics doesn’t create growth and prosperity. He is a political hack who dutifully serves up dissected analyses that conform to the desired leftist political tenets.  He can turn a silk purse into a pig’s ear on command. If politics could be defined as a hurdy-gurdy then Krugman would be the monkey with the tin cup groping the customers for odd change. The song generated by the crank would be the leftist version of the theme songs and poetry of the Second International[4]or perhaps, in more modern and stricter political terms The March of the Volunteers.[5]

So, let us get down to the actual words and using the tools of exegesis extract the original and then compare it to what the Walter Duranty Papers thinks it should have said:

The Obama Statement:

“[Obama mocking Alan Keyes] I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me,” …

“‘[Obama mocking Alan Keyes] Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,’” said Obama mimicking Keyes’ distinctive style of speech. “Which — I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter).”

“[Obama’s exact words] But it’s the right thing to do,” Obama continued, “to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”[6] –see footnote for full text of this. See also, the ABC News report.[7] You cannot watch this video clip as it has been conveniently removed: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492

So, teaching sex education to kindergarteners isthe right thing to do.

This comment seems so straightforward and logical given the politics of the left and the speaker.  The comment, while apparently true as spoken, is now politically unacceptable in a political contest and needs to be retracted in some way.

Here is a search that contains 3100 references to this comment. [8] Why were these references and videos deleted? Political reciprocity? The video can be found here: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/obama-promotes-sex-ed-to.html

Okay, now let us see what the NYT wants this to mean:

“Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.”[9]—Krugman Published: September 11, 2008

The site that contained the original wording and theories on his topic [Developmentally Appropriate Practices in Early Childhood Education ]has numerous missing links.[10] We now wonder what those words meant.

The missing question here is: at what age is his education appropriate?

Krugman suddenly sums up with no explanation of how Obama’s words were warped by the right—only this:

“What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.”

This is just spite and hokum.  This is a caustic diversion from the topic. That is like saying “We cannot raise taxes because Cheney is a Nazi!” There is nothing here! The monkey’s cup is empty! The explanation of what Obama rally said, or meant, is omitted and only spite and vituperative rants are inserted where a logical and studied analysis of the original text ought to be.

We are to take Krugman’s word that the Obama ‘clarification’ defines the original meaning of the statement. Sure.

Obama’s forces ‘clarified’ his statement with this:

“When Obama’s campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers “age appropriate” for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had “moved to clarify” in his Senate campaign that he “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. … ‘Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,’ Obama said. ‘If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing.  Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.’”

In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an “opt out” provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about “inappropriate touching,” according to Obama’s presidential campaign.”—full quote in this footnote: [11]

Here, the monkey kicks the stork off the stage.

It appears that Obama is just tooting the old liberal line about government control of ‘education’ and that includes sex. Here is advice from the sex guru Dr. Ruth Westheimer :

“In her book Sex for Dummies (For Dummies, 2nd ed., 2000), sex therapist Dr. Ruth Westheimer gives this example about telling kids what they want to know: After a girl in his class expressed that she was different from him, 5-year-old Jimmy asked his mother what the girl had meant. After speaking awkwardly for 10 minutes about the differences between boys and girls, Jimmy's mom asked if he wanted to know anything else. "Yes," he said. "Kim said she was Chinese. What does that mean?" Although Mom told Jimmy more than he wanted to know, experts agree that he'll be OK because he has a parent (and maybe two) willing to have a frank discussion about sex. That's the key to shaping a healthy sexual attitude, they say.”[12]

What better place is there to have “a frank discussion about sex” than in the public schools where abortion, contraception, free love and other hot topics are integral components of the leftist social engineering agenda? We can bash some white males and teach our kids that the automobile has killed off our planet and we will all boil in the oceans as well. Is it too early to teach them that taxes are ‘investments?’

We should take what Obama said as defined by a reasonable interpretation of the original text and ignore both his ‘clarification’ and the unfounded notion that somebody in the McCain camp has lied about this utterance by a 100% left liberal.  Obama’s comments fit well into his far left-liberal beliefs and political objectives.  I conclude that Obama meant that 5 year olds must be taught sex education. The parental op-out provision could be nullified by the courts anyway. The use of condoms and birth control pills are a top issue with the left—along with abortions—and that fits the leftist mantra. The population must be truncated. Euthanasia is next, particularly for the old folks who have wealth, as a confiscatory inheritance tax was mandate by Marx and that makes sense to the left. Kill off the unwanted babies and the oldies and grab their loot.

Next, we will hear that feeding red meat to a youngster is child abuse. Cars are a crime against humanity!

The editors at the New York Times are frantic as the polls are sinking their candidate. Joe Biden is a dud. [13]Chucking feces at the opposition about ‘lies’ with no proof is just gutter politics, the old and proven path used by The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [14] Krugman is no better at this jaunt than his narrow views on economics.

You cannot spin away truth and reality except in the minds of the leftist manikins.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com