posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:07 PM
There are a couple of points I'd like to make.
1. If the ad is indeed a lie, there is a perfect way to expose it as such and get a lot of free publicity for doing so. Someone from the BO campaign
should start a libel suit against the McCain campaign. The news media would eat it up with free 24/7 coverage of the court proceedings.
Main Entry: 1li·bel
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
Date: 14th century
1 a: a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought barchaic : a handbill especially
attacking or defaming someone
2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation
published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3):
the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4): the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a
2. It does appear, at least to me, that in a narrow reading of the bill in question, the ad is truthful.
The emphasis in the preceeding paragraph is entirely my own.
I have removed the deleted text for easier reading. The full text can be found
full text of SB0099
13 Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K through 12 SHALL
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
What concerns me is the use of the word "shall". I find it difficult to imagine a way to educate someone on preventing the transmission of sexually
transmitted diseases without some mention of the sexual act itself or at least of the body parts involved. If the word "shall" were replaced with
the word "may" this portion of the bill would have a whole different meaning.
If the intent of the bill was to educate kindergarteners on the good touch/bad touch principles, the bill was poorly written to say the least.
I wonder if half the people who voted on it bothered to read the entire text of the bill. I wouldn't be surprised if they did not. Not because they
are lazy, but because of the sheer volume of text that must cross their desks in the execution of their duties as Representatives/Senators. Some of
these bills are even more verbose than I am.