So, last Monday, I wrote about how John McCain's spokesperson tried to use McCain time in Vietnam as a counterpoint for people pointing out that he had access to the secret forum questions before hand. Now, just four days later, Obama attacks McCain for having seven different houses. To counter that, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers use the same POW argument:

[Rogers] also added: "This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison," referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War.

Rogers called the house story "by far the most personal attack" of the campaign, and said "it comes from a candidate who said he was against this kind of thing."

Umm...what?

Anywho, I like Trapper John's response over at Daily Kos:

Lord. McCain is Giuliani-like at this point in his single-minded determination to cling to the one positive association that his campaign retains in the public mind. You have to wonder how'd he'd react to other, hypothetical scandals:

McCain Accused Of Taking Bribes From Abramoff: "This is a guy who didn't touch hard currency for five and a half years -- in prison," spokesman Brian Rogers told the Washington Post.

2003 McCain Arrest for DWI Uncovered: "This is a guy who didn't have a sip of booze for five and a half years -- in prison," spokesman Brian Rogers told the Washington Post.

McCain Caught Cheating With 22 Year-Old ASU Intern: "This is a guy who didn't get laid at all for five and a half years -- in prison," spokesman Brian Rogers told the Washington Post.

So, a few days ago, Obama and McCain participated in a forum with Evangelical preacher Rick Warren, to test them on issues that the Evangelical voting bloc will focus on. Sen. Obama went first, while Sen. McCain was supposedly kept in a "Cone of Silence" to keep him from having time to prepare for an almost identical round of questions. Now it comes to light that McCain had not been in the building at the time, and therefore could theoretically overheard the questions on the radio. Of course, the McCain campaign denies this, and frankly I don't really care either way, but one comment by a McCain spokeswoman caught my attention:

Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said on Sunday night that Mr. McCain had not heard the broadcast of the event while in his motorcade and heard none of the questions.

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.

Now, I certainly don't envy McCain for the crap he had to endure in Vietnam, and I respect his decision to refuse an early release. But I not quite seeing how being tortured in Vietnam would make anyone more or less honest. Sure it might make some people reevaluate their lives for the better, but it'll make just as many people turn inward and become angered and resentful, as apparently occured with Sen. McCain in the years following his return.

I am concerned about the increasing willingness to treat criticism of the military as unacceptable. About a month ago, Gen. Wesley Clark drew the ire of the McCain campaign when he discussed McCain's foreign policy experience^[PDF] on CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer: (emphasis mine)

Gen. CLARK: ...[H]e hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?'

[...]

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...

Gen. CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

SCHIEFFER: Really?

The response from the McCain campaign?

In a statement released by the McCain campaign Sunday afternoon, retired Admiral Leighton "Snuffy" Smith criticized Clark's comment.

"If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates," Smith said.

"If he expects the American people to believe his pledges about a new kind of politics, Barack Obama has a responsibility to condemn these attacks."

What attacks? All Clark did was to point out that suffering from a war does not make you an expert in the field of foreign policy, yet as has happened with Ms. Wallace, this got blown way out of proportion, and McCain surrogates both put up an "argument" with served as more of a distraction that a real counterpoint.

Personally I hope Obama doesn't handle any controversy by apologizing like he did with the Clark affair, where he denounced the former generals comments. He really need to start standing up to absurd controversies like this if he wants to earn any respect at all. One can only hope.

So, I was checking my RSS feeds, and discovered a new Snopes.com article about Barack Obama apparently not placing his hand over his heart during the national anthem. Personally, I do not give a crap about what he does with his hands, as long as he is respectful. No, what bugged me about the video is the singing:

People are freaking out how Obama is so unpatriotic, but does no one care about the woman "singing" the song? What the hell is she trying to accomplish? If an eighteen-year-old computer geek who hasn't taken choir in over a year can sing better than you, there is a problem.

Seriously, I am more offended by the people who did put their hands over their hearts. I would have put mine in my ears.

At the FIRST Robotics Championship in Atlanta, we had some woman come out and sing an overly-glamourized pop version of the song. Is this our idea of respecting the nation? Would it seriously kill anyone to sing it correctly? Sheesh.

There is something creepy about Evangelical Christianity’s newest tactic, “Purity” Balls. The basic idea behind them is that too many girls are having sex and that the way to fix this is to take have them publicly promise their virginities to their fathers. But why should I tell you about it? Why don’t you just watch this one “trailer” for it?

What I do not understand is the ickyness people attach to human sexuality, especially to feminine sexuality. We are, at our core, sexual creatures. I cannot truly understand why people would seek to to pretend sexuality is this big, special thing, when it really isn’t.

My incomprehension aside, let me discuss why I find these programs offensive and creepy.

They don’t work:

There is no data on whether girls who attend purity balls remain abstinent until marriage; chances are many do, given the tight-knit communities they live in. But there is striking evidence that more than half of teens who take virginity pledges—at, say, rallies or events—go on to have sex within three years, according to findings of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the most comprehensive survey of teens ever taken. And 88 percent of the pledgers surveyed end up having sex before marriage. “No pledge can counter the fact that teenagers [and all people] are, in fact, sexual beings postpuberty [and prepuberty, in my opinion],” notes Cary Backenger, a clinical psychotherapist in Appleton, Wisconsin, who works with teens, including several who have taken virginity pledges. “You can’t turn that off.”

Disturbingly, the adolescent health study also found that STD rates were significantly higher in communities with a high proportion of pledgers. “Pledgers are less likely than nonpledgers to use condoms, so if they do have sex it is less safe,” says Peter Bearman, Ph.D., a Columbia University sociologist who helped design the study. For these teens, he believes, it’s a mind game: If you have condoms, you were planning to have sex. If you don’t, sex wasn’t premeditated, which makes it more OK. The study also found that even pledgers who remained virgins were highly likely to have oral and anal sex—risky behavior given that most probably didn’t use condoms to cut their risk.

Glamour

Really, would you honestly remain celibate solely because you had signed some contract to your father when you were four years old? Would you really care what you had said at some stupid ball? The “promise” was not really “yours,” so why keep it?

My complaint comes from the main premise behind this whole ceremony. The “contract” is essentially that a daughter’s “virginity” should be property of either her father or her husbands, but never of her own self. Just listen to the contract that a girl must sign:

I make a promise this day, to God, to you, to myself, to my future husband, to my children, to remain abstinent until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. I know that God requires this of me, that He loves me, and that He will reward me for my faithfulness in this life and the next.

Have these people been living in such a time warp that they still believe a daughter should be treated as a gift? Is her purpose nothing more than that of her man-folk’s sex puppet? Many of these people also criticize objectifying women, yet they see nothing wrong with treating their young daughters as gifts.

The completely overwhelming sexist nature of these events are apparent to those willing to take a step back and look at it carefully, yet no one participating in the balls seem to care that the daughter has been completely left out the equation, the father is in charge of finding the proper man, and the daughter is expected to consummate her relationship, in short, men are in charge of what goes into her vagina, but she is not. Does this not strike anyone as more than a little anachronistic?

Sexual stereotypes are further enforced in the premise that the man should protect and shelter his daughters from the evils of sexuality, and that woman must separate themselves completely from sexuality in order to remain whole. Men, on the other hand, are relatively free from any stigma relating to their sexual activities, and no one pays much attention to their coming-of-age. Some might argue that since the father is also required to also required to sign a contract promising to “be pure in [his] own life as a man, husband and father,” he is held to the same standards as the woman he protects. But I question why they wait till fatherhood to make this promise. Why have these people ever suggested having a “mother-son” purity ball? Are the boys not in need of protection from the femme fatales of the world? Should the mothers also not pledge to be pure and protective of their sons? One blogger theorizes that the principal difference is the thin piece of tissue known as the hymen, that will supposedly indicate whether or not the girl is a virgin (which is complete bull, I know, but symbols need not be realistic). The act of tearing it is a more concrete symbol than the emission of billions of sperm cells into its place.

I find the exaggerated sentimentalization of girlhood offensive. The idea behind these balls—that girls should remain as a child until they marry—is simply another form of the typical desire on the part of their parents to never see their young girls mature into women. Notice the language used by Susan Chess at the beginning of the video, where refers to the fathers as “daddy.” How more belittling can you get? Boys, on the other hand, seem to be expected to grow up as fast as possible. It is not coincidence that, until recently, women had two major titles, “Mrs.” and “Miss” but boys could get away with simply “Mr.” Girls need to grow at some point, or their bodies will get ahead of them.

Finally doesn’t anybody find it more than a little creepy that the fathers should have such a feverish obsession over their daughters’ sexuality? This isn’t really an argument, but it is something I noticed.

Please, tell me what you think

References:

• Video: Carenet Purity Ball DVD Preview (trailer) - Google Video
• Glamour article: Would you pledge your virginity to your father?
• The Father-Daughter Purity Ball

Sometimes it is hard to believe that in a developed nation like ours, we still find our schools dominated by religious zealots who try to close minds and turn us onto their ideology. And what is worse, these fanatics cannot truly defend their statements, so they rely on blatant propaganda to try and accomplish their aims. What am I talking about? Sex ed, of course. Specifically abstinence-only education, the standard our dear president supports.

What got me thinking about this (again) was the discovery of yet another wonderful program called Sex Respect. It contains all the standard elements of an abstinence-only program: a nauseous over-sentimentalizing of virginity, a statement that any sexual activity outside of marriage inevitably leads to trouble, testimonials from the "good" boys and girls, gender stereotypes presented as fact, and all of this repeated ad nauseam. What follows is an example of some of the more interesting parts:

Won’t teenagers laugh at a class on virginity?

I’ve found overwhelming interest and response in this class. A freshman girl from St. Louis responded, “I think the SEX RESPECT course is a great idea. I really enjoyed reading the part on how there is nothing wrong with being a virgin.”

This made me laugh more than anything else. I refuse to believe that a sane girl would honestly say that.

Anyway, if she tried this at Catlin, she would be chased off campus. And then we would laugh.

What are some of the side effects of premarital sex besides pregnancy?

Premarital sex breaks up couples or pushes them into bad marriages. It fools people into marrying the wrong person. It leads to unhappiness, divorce, extramarital affairs, and dissatisfaction. It denies the couples bonding experience.

The anxiety of getting pregnant or catching a sexual transmitted disease can lead to depression. Some 400,000 teens annually have abortions, a source of depression, even suicide. Teens who marry because of pregnancy are three times more likely to divorce than women who wait until their twenties to conceive. Pregnant girls are likely to drop out of school. Teen moms earn half of those who wait. Sixty-seven percent of pregnant teens are poor.

Standard-issue DOOM! DOOM! DOOM! message required of all abstinence programs. I also like how she continued to talk about pregnancy despite the question.

Is your chastity message some church-related or religious drive?

This program has been used in both public and parochial schools. Ms. Jo Jean Morris, a principal, observed that she “could find nothing in the SEX RESPECT program that any parent, depending on their own choice of lifestyle, would be offended by. “I don’t see how anyone could object to it.”

Then you clearly were not reading the website, Jo. I found lots of examples. Like here. Or here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Or this one. I don't see quite what the last one has to do with anything, but it is a nauseating kitsch version of a great text.

Now let's read some excerpts from the Six Ms.

Modesty: Avoid the problem of provoking the eye of lustful men with your clothing as you grow in womanhood and beauty. Show him your skin, his hormones rush in! Enhance feminine beauty without looking sexy so men will see you as a person rather than a body with parts he likes. The purpose of a bra is to support, protect and cover, not entice. Disrobing is only for the honeymoon, not before. She must work to keep her mind pure from sexy movies, magazines and TV shows. Her modesty protects her purity and chastity.

Yes, women, make sure you don't indicate that you are sexual beings in any way. This is the your responsibility, not the guys. You must remain pure until marriage. Watch out for those sexy movies.

OK, now where can find these sexy movies.

Mary, our model of meekness: The Blessed Virgin Mary is a role model for women. She was not aggressive, obnoxious or gossipy. Remind your daughter that she will see many girls become louder and more immature when they physically develop if they do not know that a girl has to work spiritually to become virtuous. Meekness is inner strength without impulsiveness. Look to Mary, your heavenly mother, for guidance.

How do you know she didn't gossip?

Now let's journey over to the boys section...

Form a conscience well, and go to Confession regularly (every two to four weeks). Hopefully, Dad is the leader in this. Don’t let your soul get wimpy because it’s full of venial sins. Seek your confessor’s advice on doubts or temptations. Avoid 'occasions of sin.'

Man, why must are you so insistent that we feel perpetually guilty about ourselves?

Your job is to train yourself to keep your mind pure by turning your head away from these ads, avoiding those magazines and movies and being quick with the TV remote control to turn off any images of immodest women. Control your curiosity because you love God. Be quick to turn your eyes away from a girl who is dressed immodestly, too, and you will gain for Christ, 'custody of your eyes.'

Tee hee...a little late for that...

I wonder if this woman realizes that this will only make these boys less able to resist it when it comes. Arousal is like sleep, in that way. Go without it for too long, and you will no be able to stop it.

Concentrate on developing your character: Apply the virtues and character traits to your studies, sports, skills and home life. Diligence, patience, honesty, kindness and self-control are good places to start. Changes in your body will turn you into a physical man. You must work each day to become a better man spiritually and emotionally. Develop your will power by doing things that are challenging. Seek out hard work, tough sports, large mountains to climb; look at bad weather as a chance to get tough, not to stay inside; do more difficult tasks to help out at home, never complaining or being disagreeable. Strengthen your body and your will power and flee from laziness.

Control your behavior, no matter what your emotions are feeling. Emotional maturity is the ability to THINK before you act. Human beings have this capability. As Christians, we have the grace of God to help us. Angry feelings should not lead to violence…passionate feelings should not lead to lust…jealousy or hatred should not lead to revenge. Just because you like a girl doesn’t mean that you have to take her out or kiss her. Do not act impulsively or ‘however you feel.’ Practice the strength of self-control and pray that God will help you desire only those things which help you become a strong Christian.

Choose to take care of the body God gave you. You have been a temple of the Holy Spirit since Baptism. You will be growing to physical adulthood over the next ten years. Eat wholesome foods, avoid junk and excess sweets. Avoid temptations to smoke or to drink alcohol.

Good advice perhaps, but I cannot help but wonder why this only applies to boys.

Here are some modesty guidelines for the "classy lady." Check out the rest of it if you have time.

Shirts:
-the neck line should be no lower than 4 fingers below collar bone
- no very thin or sheer material
-may not be tight in the bust area
- should not allow the shape of bra to be seen in the back (if you can it’s too tight)
-can not be spandex or very tight shirts
- the backs should be modest" i.e.: no strappy backs, halter or missing backs!

Pants:
-should not be too tight" especially in the seat or the thigh area
-should fit well, but not be skin-tight" one should be able to pull them away from the leg
-shorts should be modest- no very short and/or tight shorts; if you put your arms down straight at the side" and the bottom of the shorts is higher than your longest finger, then the shorts are too short.
(Remember" we will be on an elevated runway" and everything will look a bit shorter to the audience. )

Skirts and Dresses:
-can not be very tight fitting (follow shirt guidelines)
-should not have too thin of material and if needed a slip should be worn.
-can be no shorter that 4 fingers above the top of the kneecap
-Dresses only:
-must have a modest neck line (no lower than 4 fingers below collar bone )
-no thin straps (such as spaghetti straps)
if necessary a dress with straps two fingers wide may be worn, if the whole dress is very modest and no bra straps can be showing, but must be worn!

This woman would have a field day at Catlin. A field day or a heart attack.

I'm going to miss wearing my spaghetti straps. And going braless.

Finally, in case you were wondering how kind you were, she has a quiz, which I failed, most likely because I do not do completely ridiculous stuff like "listen patiently when someone launches for the fifth time into the same tired old story or the same stale jokes."

Well, that is about all I can say regarding this. It is times like these that make me really glad I go to Catlin.

I support our troops. Believe when I say that I the deepest amount of respect for those who will willingly put their lives in danger for their country. They do deserve respect. But they also deserve something else, something the current Administration has been slow to admit.

When we send the selfless soldiers out in potentially lethally situations such as keeping the peace in Iraq, we have signed a contract. Not one of ink and paper, but an implied moral contract. We agree that we have carefully considered the risks and benefits of sending them abroad. We must have a clear and pressing reason for using military force. We must make sure our intelligence is correct, that is, we should carefully evaluate the veracity of each source. The current administration has failed to adequately do so.

Furthermore, the Administration has refused any acknowledgment of its own errors. We initially invaded the country to get the supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction, but when we could not find them, suddenly we had invaded Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein and bring the blessings of democracy to the poor Muslims. That the army would make a mistake concerning the presence of WMDs is one thing, that they would try and cover up their mistake by changing the issue is almost unforgivable.

The current Administration has refused to see issues in grayscale, preferring instead to label everyone as either against the terrorists, or with them. Besides the obvious insulting nature of characterizing someone like me as a supporter of terrorists, if anything, they have it backwards. I cannot understand how the Administration's have accomplished anything beyond increasing the anger among potential terrorists. The nation itself is no more secure than before.

I am sick of having my patriotism called into question by one who I feel has done little to bring respect to my country.

—Em "the Patriot" Ess

So the other day I was sitting in Spanish class, and Ron gave us a little quiz on the conditional sentences. Only they didn't really require any knowledge of the conditional or present perfect subjunctive at all. You just had to drop the "s" at the end of the verbs and add some random phrase on the end. Example:

¿Si tuvieras tiempo, qué hicieras?

And a correct answer:

Si tuviera tiempo, hiciera mi tarea.

And what did this quiz prove? That I know how to copy sentences and remove letters? Am I actually learning anything from this experience? I doubt it.

In my humble opinion, more traditional style methods of instruction are not very effective for teaching languages. I learned the most when the classes were just plain fun. If only I could return to that...

It's your responsibility to keep your baby from annoying others.

I say this because during assembly today, we had several African speakers for Francophone week. In the middle section near the back was a woman with her toddler and her baby. Her rather chatty baby. The kid wasn't exceptionally loud, but in the quiet theater, the noise carried quite well. The speakers were not all exceptional at English, and these repeated interruptions kept me from understanding them. Plus it was completely distracting. Not just for me, everybody in the theater kept looking back at her. You would think that the mother would get the message with hundreds of eyes upon her, especially after the baby screamed.

To her credit, she did seem to notice that her baby was annoying. But instead of taking the baby out of the theater, she simply told the baby to shush. This never worked, of course, but she kept at it. The Upper School Head was sitting next to her, but didn't say anything, which bugged me.

I love babies. Our 8^th grade English teacher had a baby, and had a lot of fun with her. But as much as I like babies, there are times when I don't want them around. Asking a person with a baby to keep the baby quiet is no different from asking people to turn their cell phones off. If they cannot handle it, they can easily leave. In this woman's case, she could have easily listened from outside the theater room. If she could not afford to leave the presentation, she should not have brought a baby.

Flushing. It requires one single friggin' press of the button. And yet, it would seem this simple step is rather difficult for many men. Anyway, I entered the men's room at the Memorial Coliseum during the second day of the Portland Robotics Regional, and to my general disgust every single one of the 12 or so urinals was unflushed.

Perhaps one man had forgotten and others had to out-slob him. Perhaps men are all just slobs. Whatever the cause, I have no interest in staring at everyone else's piss, and I went down the line, flushing every single one. Which probably didn't last for very long, because doubtless they'd get yellow soon after. Oh well.