BJean

Come on Beth. You're the queen of tossing out your own personal opinions. And you do it loud and with an exclamation mark. Don't hold your breath Terri, waiting for me to run off and find links to "back up" my statements. If I run across anything that is relevant to this discussion, I will do as you have asked and I will bring them to you. But the information highway is constantly changing and new and different information is constantly being made available to us. Looking back is a waste of time if you are going to keep up with what is going on everyday. And I will tell you again, what I have said many times before: I do not care one whit if I have credibility or a strong "stand" on the issues with you all. You do not care one whit if I share your beliefs either. You say what you want and I may argue with you, just as you may argue with me. But you have every right to say what you believe and think what you will and I know that you have come by your beliefs in lots of different ways. I don't expect you to treat this as if you are writing a thesis. Some people, like Jack, enjoy pulling out stuff that he believes provokes discussion and even argument. That is his right and his style here at LBT. It has never been my style and I just don't have time for it. Life moves too fast. I post and then I move on. Please do not think that you must be moved by anything that I have to say. If you disagree with me, tell me, I can take it. I will probably argue with you though. This forum is therapy for me. I have a lot going on in my life and jumping on here and spouting off from time to time is just plain fun. So if this causes people like Beth to say bad things about me and make lame accusations about my motives, it just comes with the territory. With certain people, it is easy to consider the source and dismiss it (and them.) You're perfectly free to dismiss me and what I say without a second thought. On the other hand, if you find something I say that peaks your interest and you want to know more, try watching Rachel Maddow or listening to your president, or visiting his website, or watching some of the other news broadcasts besides the Rupert Murdock channel. Trust me, the information is readily available without any assist from me.

Gadget: "So in the years from the 1960's or the 1970's to when the horrible, evil Bush was in office (when sex ed in schools still happened, BTW), when students were being taught all about everything they need to know, why have teen pregnancy and STD rates skyrocketed? What wasn't being taught? What more do you want kids to know? I personally was taught everything I needed to know, and if I had questions I went to my school nurse." What public school did you attend that provided a comprehensive sex ed course? You're actually the only person I've ever spoken with who made a claim like that. Bully for your school district. It was not the norm though, sorry to say.

gadget sez: "I agree. What's particularly funny is that I'm being painted as someone who's against sex ed, when all along I've said I believe students should be taught about basic factual information. Anyway, I expect I will continue to be painted as an intolerant narrow-minded religious conservative bigot who believes sex is dirty and no one should do it - so be it. It's to be expected, anyway." BJean sez: Watch it gadget, your ass is showing.

It's your fault that I ranted about torture. You brought it up. :crying: You're saying that you don't have any problem with sex education in public schools. I misunderstood. I thought that you said that parents should be the ones who teach their children about sex. If you are in support of sex ed in schools, don't you believe that there can be a panel or panels of experts, with parental input, and education representatives, that would be able to come up with a realistic and beneficial cirriculum that would be acceptable to you? I believe that President Obama would support such a discussion and would listen to all sides of the issue. That is what president Bush did not do. If Obama decides that teaching abstinence-only in schools is the best route to our seeing a reduction in teen pregnancies and other sex related problems, then I am sure he would reconsider his stance on the issue. And for your information, he has said that he will listen to the abstinence-only proponents.

I disagree with the premise that good sex education necessarily encourges or promotes sexual activity. Pretending that kids are not faced with a sometimes overwhelming drive to be sexually active, is unrealistic at best. The biological drive is present no matter what people are taught, whether it is basic anatomy or that abstinence is the only acceptible behavior. On the other hand, people usually handle things better when they are equipped with knowledge. I wasn't thrilled with the kind of educational exposure my daugher got regarding how chickens and hogs and cows are slaughtered and prepared for the marketplace because it caused her to become a vegan. Becoming a vegan has put her at risk for many things, including difficulty in having children and being able to handle surgery very well and even getting injections. But I am glad that she has the information and can make her own informed and intelligent life decisions about it. As for gun training courses and all the rest, we are in so many ways an impractical society. I would be all for gun training if every child got it. I do not believe that it would increase gun deaths. I believe it would reduce them. We had vocational education courses for years that taught hair coloring, auto repair, drafting, plumbing methods, etc. It was a good thing. Not all children are mentally equipped to become rocket scientists. Besides, we need hairdressers, plumbers, auto repair people and the like. As for torture, you can't be serious. As a country, we do not believe in torture. We have signed a pact saying that we do not torture. Why would we teach children how to water board or place bamboo under the fingernails to make our captives scream? We know that torture doesn't work to get good information any better than less drastic methods. People mostly torture to inflict pain. It makes the torturer feel in control. And sometimes it actually gives them pleasure. It is frightful. (And this is your fault - you unleashed the hounds on that one.)

She showed her tolerance by what she said about gays, in spite of her stance on gay marriage. Some of the negative talk about gay marriage has revealed a deep-seated dislike of gays in general and a lack of respect for them and their lifestyle. That's why I comended trell on her post.

Good for you trell! Tolerance and respect are important components in getting along in this world. I don't have a problem with what Ms. Cali said either. I just don't think anyone should have expected her to win the crown if she didn't play the game of pagent politics. Meaning that she needed to talk the talk of respect and tolerance toward others even if she didn't walk it. When you allow yourself to be used to represent something, you can't go all rogue and do your own thing with no regard for your title.

gadget says: "I don't want my children taught how to put a condom on. If you want yours taught that, then teach it to them. I think when a young man goes out and buys condoms, he's going to look at the box and read the directions. Plus, it's not rocket science." Then why is improper use the primary reason for condom failure? gadget says: "You think the past 40 years of sex ed has been a rip-roaring success? With all of the STDs and teen pregnancies that we have now? There are rampant STDs in our neighborhoods that were all but wiped out 50 years ago! Again, because the last 40 years of "just do it if it feels good" education has been so successful." The point that was being discussed here is that we have NOT had a successful sex ed program. And we certainly did not have any support for that under Mr. Bush because he focused all the money and attention on abstinence-only information being given to our children. So I don't know where you get that any real sex education that includes the things we were discussing here, has been taught to our children over the past 40 years. We have even given our own stories about how limited our sex education was. So I sure don't get where you're coming from on this rant about 40 years of sex education not working. and Gadget added: "I'm not naive enough to believe everyone can approach their parents, but wouldn't it be wonderful if instead of relying on outside sources to teach our children about their bodies, we instead took that task upon ourselves?" I think we all agree that if parents were equipped and willing to educate their children on this topic, there would be absolutely no need for the public schools to get involved. But teen pregnancy and all the rest are a national concern now. We all are affected by what's going on with our children. We must try to figure out a way to help them. Parents were never educated and they have no clue how to teach their children. So President Obama is trying to step up to the bar and find some help. I just hope that extremists who are narrow-minded and locked into their single minded ideas aren't able to shut him down.

gadget: "I was responding to a post of BJean's where she was complaining about abstinence funding under Bush, that it doesn't work, and that he somehow blindsided the American public by funding something that no one agrees with and is a waste of money. I thought you were agreeing with her about it? Maybe not. Anyway, I was just correcting the perception that it doesn't work, because statistically it does have an impact." What? "Blindsided" (interesting characterization)..." by funding something that no one agrees with and is a waste of money." I most certainly did not say that no one agrees with it. I didn't say that it is a waste of money. I said that it has been proven not to be an effective way to curb teen pregnancy. I didn't make up the stats. It may work for some kids, but it does not work for most of them. This has been proven time and again and one doesn't even have to cite statistics to know that. You're the one who keeps bellowing about an increase in abortion. I'd like to know exactly why you're characterizing sex education the way you are right in the middle of this discussion about ideas of how to set up sex education so that it works and covers all the bases. No one has said that we have properly conducted or perfected the curriculum for sex education classes. And how could we expect that to happen when we've had a president who has been supporting abstinence-only classes for our children? Do you really think that has made a major impact on teen pregnancies? You say that it has had an impact. Well we need a darn sight more than an impact. We need a complete 180 degrees on this. Why are people like you so opposed to kids knowing all about their anatomy and physiology, including their sexual organs? Because you think it's dirty or that kids will make jokes about it? Man, if you had a son and expected him to go online to find out about how to use condoms, you're living with blinders on. You know what is online. You know parents can't just turn their kids loose to look up anything of a sexual nature because they'll get way, way, way, more than they or you bargained for. Beth: "You and I have different values -- and that's fine. I want the ability to monitor what my kids are taught, making sure they are from my perspective and reflect my values. That's my prerogative as a parent." You are making a big mistake here. There is absolutely no reason whatever that parents cannot have a say in how sex education is taught in schools and who teaches it. Obviously you monitor your kids - they're home schooled. As for the millions of us who have used the public school system, we know that we can have a hands-on approach to our children's education. The Superintendent and the Principal and the teachers do a job for the country that is not taken lightly. It is a huge responsibility. But the biggest responsibility is for us, as parents, to get involved in our children's education. Public schools need proper sex education including the use of condoms. I don't know how you can possibly see it any other way. The rate of teen pregnancies, abortions, STDs, all point to it being a problem that is way out of control. And they've had the lecture on abstinence. Yeah right it works. In your dreams.

You're absolutely right man. You can read anything. It used to be that if something was in print and reported as news you could pretty well trust it. That's long gone. Now you can even find writings that claim that Dubya is a genius in disguise and that Rush Limbaugh has the country's best interests in his big ole' heart. Yeah, right. No way can you trust everything you read. It does take some intellect to separate the truth from some writer's wet dream. (In the mood to be crude, sorry.)

rodriguez you're very lucky to have had a sensible and enlightened mother! No wonder you are the person you are. I am proud of you and Carrie for being smart when you were that young. My mom pretty much gave me some brochures and told me that I could ask her anything. She obviously had a few hangups of her own to overcome and I never really asked her much. I was very involved in church activities and I waited until I was married, as they told us we should, those many years ago. To be honest, I was always sorry that I did. I got married when I had barely turned 19 and he was 20, we were in college and had no business getting married that young. I didn't really know him as well as I should have but our hormones got the better of both of us. We got married in a beautiful religious ceremony and both thought that God would take care of the rest. Turned out that we were incompatible sexually and in nearly every other way. It was a painful nightmare. Fortunately we divorced 4 years later and I met the man of my dreams. During those 4 years I made up for the years I didn't have sex and I learned the things that no one had taught me. I'm very lucky that everything turned out so well in my life. Many less fortunate women have stayed trapped in dysfunctional marriages, wound up having affairs and have also wound up slapping their kids around in frustration. So it isn't just teen pregnancy that the lack of sex education can cause.

I just read an article in USA Today that says that President Obama is going to cut funding for abstinence-only sex education. I had no idea that Bush had thrown money at a program for abstinence only sex ed for the past 7 or 8 years. I guess that's his idea of giving our children a good education, eh? Being the "education" president and all. Research has shown that abstinence only sex ed does not reduce the incidence of teen pregnancies. President Obama is staying open to the discussion with some abstinence only proponents, but he wants to use the money to do something that actually works to reduce teen sex and teenage pregnancies and STDs. It is so wonderful to have the voice reason in the White House - and someone who will pay attention to statistics and research instead of going rogue and quietly doing his own thing no matter what the country actually needs.

I understand patty, and how's that workin' for ya? What we HAVEN'T done is to give all of our young people a good basic education about all things sexual. We give them a smattering of information that even now parents complain about. And it's the churches and religious people who very vocally fight it and the ability of people like Planned Parenthood to distribute condoms. What we HAVE given them (in lots of cases because the majority of Americans are Christian, eh?) is the information that you suggest. We've taken our kids to church. We've read them the Bible. We've explained that there should never be any sex before marriage. Just like Sarah Palin probably did with her daughter, Bristol.

Would they belong to the same bogus organizations as those few scientists who claim that global warming really exists? :mad2: Yeah Beth... good point. Am I going to believe you or my lyin' eyes? In all seriousness, to answer all ya'll's comments, I choose to believe what my intellect and my research tell me. And I listen to and believe people whom I think are credible right after I listen to people that hold opposing views - like you all. It is like believin' my lyin' eyes. plain, you and I obviously do not expose ourselves to the same information. You keep asking me to cite my sources. I have lots and lots of sources. I am constantly open to hearing the news and learning what experts are saying but I sure don't spend my day looking for stuff to use as rebuttal to comments here at LBT. I think that if you don't believe or listen to what many authorities have said publically on the subject anyway, why would I waste my time trying to give you sources that you're just wanting to use to tell me how wrong I am and they are? You do not seem to have a mind that is closed like a steel trap, but you continue to wonder where I got my info. Look around dude, if you really want to, you'll find all kinds of information just as easily as I do.

Beth: Two wrongs don't make it right. You state your case very well, patty. I just do not believe everything you say is true or God's will.

Thanks for your response, Jack. Actually they say true costs are hard to pinpoint. There has been lots of creative calculating going on during these long years of the Iraq war and the numbers vary pretty widely depending on who you're reading. The Iraq war is projected to cost into the trillions. And as far as I know, that was first revealed in 2008. The numbers have probably gone up since then, especially if you add in Afghanistan. Interestingly the Bush administration tried to gloss over the true cost of the war and even cut taxes during the time when billions were being spent over there every month. That added fuel to the fire on our road to a deep recession. There are creative numbers being reported everywhere today about everything the government has done and is doing and is even planning to do. However, most credible economists all agree that the steps that the Obama administration has taken are vital to a recovery.

ten little Indians, plain.

Carrie you're absolutely right. And teaching teenagers that their only option is abstinence when they are dealing with their sexual urges, is not the answer. Giving our kids a very good, basic sex education that covers everything and includes but is not limited to: * basic anatomy and physiology of the sexual organs and the sex act itself * information about the emotional turmoil that sexual activity can cause * information that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent sex * information about sexually transmitted diseases * information about birth control methods and their success rate * the anatomy and physiology of conception, pregnancy, labor and delivery and how it changes a girl's body * a reality class on parenting and what becoming a teenage parent really means * an elemental bookkeeping class on what it costs to feed, clothe and raise a baby * a class on the responsibility of parenthood and the fact that once someone becomes a parent they will be resonsible as a parent for the rest of their lives For the life of me I cannot understand why any parent would be averse to their children having the information that I've listed above presented to them in a clinical classroom situation - with the understanding that the teacher is qualified and screened, of course. Any of you have additional topics that would be beneficial?

Yup plain, that's right. Pretty obvious that our brains do not allow us all to perceive things in exactly the same way, eh?

Jack, how much money has been spent on the Iraq war to date?

Patty if you were held to the religious standards of the Puritans, you would be living a very different life in America today. They came here because they were being persecuted for religious reasons. They did not set out to have a country that operates the same way as the country they fled. That is why separation of church and state is the right thing to do for a Democratic nation. No one is telling you that you can't worship the way you wish, believe what you want to believe and be very vocal about it if you so desire. But if you want a country that incorporates one particular religion, one religious doctrine that governs everyone, then you don't want a free democratic nation. On the surface it seems that the gay marriage argument revolves around the term "marriage" which some of you believe can only defined by the language of the Bible. But I'm afraid that the real problem won't be solved by changing the term from marriage to legally wed or legal union, or any other term. Many of you just have an aversion to gays living together and don't want your country recognizing their lifestyle as legal in any way.

We'll see. We'll see.

Bonk, bonk, bonk. That's me, hitting my head against the wall trying to talk to you. oooz, ooze, dribble. That's blood running into my eyes. Blink, blink. The country has every right to use the word marriage to refer to a civil union of two people in this country. If YOU have a problem with that, then YOU can get it brought before the citizenry for a vote so that your religious sensibilities are soothed. You do not have the right to tell people that they cannot get married down at the courthouse, just because they do not fit within YOUR definition of marriage. Clarify the terminology if you wish, but don't try to deny gay people their rights. By barring them from civil unions because the government uses the term "marriage" instead of "civil union" (or some other acceptible term to you), you are abridging their rights as citizens of the United States. NOT because of the actual marriage or civil union or legal joining of two people of the same sex, but because the government uses "marriage" to identify couples and apply the certain rules to them. When the government uses the word marriage, it must be careful not to discriminate. They cannot exclude couples by using it to disallow all couples all the same rights that marriage affords. I dearly hope you're just yanking my chain and not really this obtuse.

Btw, I really didn't give a rat's patootie about Clinton's transgressions or who gave him a b.j., but when it came to involving an intern in the White House, even I had to draw the line. I will never forgive that rat for that. And I still don't feel too great about the little missus either. As a side note, my feelings had nothing to do with the religious inappropriateness of Clinton's behavior, or the fact that he made a mockery of his wedding vows, it had to do with compromising the office of the president of the United States and the way it could have jepordized the safety of this country.

Duuudes, I can't tell you how many times I helpfully listed all of Bush's transgressions, in fact I even helped out by listing some of Bush I's, but you all booed and hissed and said I was all wet. Interesting how it feels when the shoe's on the other foot, eh?