Goldberg and Guthrie

I know it's a point we bring up often here, but I was watching 60 Minutes last Sunday and was reminded what a bad President George Bush is and what a bad job the Republicans are doing at running this country. There was a report on good old abstinence-only education - and it's terrible. The federal government is spending upwards of $100 million a year to fund programs that lie to kids. There is no other way of phrasing it. They lie about the effectiveness of condoms and birth control. They lie about the correlation between sex and depression. Furthermore, they are overtly religious.

The report focused on one such program - Silver Ring Thing - and oh shit is it weird. Basically, they somehow get kids to attend rock-concert like church services about sex. The kids then get an opportunity to put on a ring, and promise that they will not have sex (again, in some cases) until they are married. A minister talks about what Jesus would like us to do - and apparently, according to the Bush administration, this is OK as long as some non-religious programming is offered as well. (60 Minutes didn't show us the alternative - my guess is the production values weren't quite as good.)

You should read the 60 Minutes report, but the story on the web doesn't fully capture how fucking weird the Silver Ring Thing event was. At one point, a group of people on stage start screaming "SEX... IS... GREAT!" Later, the head cult leader/minister said something along the lines of "and one day, I want you take this ring off, and give it to your husband or wife, and tell them you've waited for them, and then tell them LET'S GET IT ON!" Then, I shit you not, porn-like music started playing.

Said cult leader/minister of the Silver Ring Thing also had this to say:

[If] my own daughter, my 16-year-old daughter, tells me she’s going to be sexually active... I would not tell her to use a condom.

Awesome.

But surely this is just a program that gets some federal funds but that happens to have some over-zealous folks working on the ground, right?

Claude Allen is President Bush’s domestic policy advisor and point man on abstinence-only education.

"The message is very important, not just for the Bush administration, but for the country. Parents are concerned about what’s happening to their kids," says Allen. "Young people in this country are contracting sexually transmitted diseases at an alarming rate. And therefore it is a high priority for the Administration as well for American families."

"What’s wrong with telling kids, 'You should be abstinent, abstain from sex. But if you are going to be sexually active, use a condom?'" asks Bradley.

"If I were to say to that same group of teenagers, you know what, don’t drink and drive, but if you do drink and drive, make sure you wear your seatbelt," says Allen. "In the case of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, the only 100 percent prevention message is to abstain."

Really? Because that's the stupidest fucking comparison I've ever heard in my life. In fact, what telling kids to abstain from sex but to use protection if they do have sex is EXACTLY like is telling them not to drink but that if they do drink not to drive. And I'd bet there are some people who think that's wrong as well - and they are all crazy fucking lunatics who have no business teaching children anything.

Per the 60 Minutes report, a teacher in one federally-funded, abstinence-only programs is required to report condom rates as a failure rate - not a success rate. And if a student asks how to use a condom? The teacher is not permitted to tell them. Again, awesome.

I know this is an immature, obscenity-filled post, but I can't emphasize enough how embarrassed and ashamed my Republican friends should be about the fact that this garbage is being fed to American kids with tax dollars. I can't emphasize enough how embarrassed and ashamed I am that Bill Clinton allowed the Republican Congress to fund such programs. I can't emphasize enough how depressing it is that the government is funding overtly religious, cult-like gatherings.


ADDENDUM: I've been a bit hard on Silver Ring Thing, so I should give them a chance to respond. If anyone has any questions about SRT (as I believe the kids are calling it), the Q&A section of their web site is here.

And I did have some questions. For example, how are they able to talk about sex without getting too graphic for the kiddies?

[W]e are careful not to speak in "graphic" terms for three reasons, (a) the age differences in the room, (b) this is basically a parent's role, (c) this kind of information is better explained one-on-one and not in a group setting. We focus instead on the emotional, mental, and relational results of engaging in pre-marital sex.

OK - I agree with that. As a teenager, if I want to know the basics about sex, I'll turn to the folks at Silver Ring Thing. But if I want to know the logistics of exactly how a penis enters a vagina, what sort of thrusting is appropriate, what positions are most favorable, etc. - I'll turn to my parents in a one-on-one setting. Makes sense to me. And if I want to know how to put on a condom, I'll just turn to Satan.

Moving on, how does SRT keep the kids interested?

Humor and technology are the two main vehicles used for communicating the message. Humor is used to get everyone comfortable about being there and talking about sex. Humor is also used to make a point. comedy skits explore the ways teens relate to each other and the careless way they make decisions about their lives and their sexuality. The kids may be laughing but they get the message that there has to be a better way.

Oh, God bless you "comedy skits." Nothing spells funny like a bunch of evangelical Christians doing skits about the careless way teens make decisions about their sexuality. Although, in fairness, this would most likely be funnier than 90% of the garbage Saturday Night Live is subjecting us to these days.

Make sure to click on the Silver Ring Thing site - so you can answer any questions you have on your own.

I don't know much about the filibuster deal the Senate just reached - but I do know that the folks at The Corner are pissed whereas Daily Kos seems to think that while the Dems gave up something it's clear Frist lost. It also looks like Dems will have the right to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, which I think is important. Even if we just delayed the fight - I think that's good. I was reading somewhere the general consensus in the early 1980s was that after a bitter fight over elevating Rehnquist to Chief Justice, the Senate just wasn't ready for another bitter fight and confirmed Scalia easily. That didn't work out so well for Democrats.

In other news, the Reds released Danny Graves. Good. But he got what he deserved so I won't pile it on. Thanks for your years of service to the Reds, Danny. You were awesome in 1999 - what a great year that was. Good luck in your future endeavors.

Just saw it. I warn you that at this time after watching Attack of the Clones, I thought it was good. Then on closer inspection it turned out to be mediocre, at best. Having said that, this movie was awesome - very, very good - maybe the best in the series except Empire - certainly better than any of the other prequels and Jedi.

I really thought that the stuff about it being dark and violent was just hype - but I have to admit that seeing crippled, burned, limbless Anakin was somewhat disturbing. It's not often you see a major character in a movie mutilated in front of you.

I'm sure I'll have more to say on this topic shortly.

I - unlike my co-blogger- don't usually post long posts from other blogs on here, but Kos has posted something that I think is important, and awesome. As Kos says, there is a recruiting crisis in this country - for some crazy reason, young men and women don't want to join the army. Recruiters are resorting to questionable tactics and even threats - click on the link for the details. But this is the part I love:

Before Bush's War, there was no need for such tactics. War supporting politicians could lend a hand by urging people to join up, but they won't. Can't have a call for sacrifice.
Religious Right preachers could use their pulpits to urge their flocks to fight their "just war", but they won't. No parent wants their preacher telling them to send their kid to the grave.

The 101st Fighting Keyboardists could urge their readers to enlist, and then follow suit themselves. But they won't. The un-American cowards make a mockery of our anthem's "home of the brave" line as they hide behind tough talk.

TV blowhards could use their cable channel platform to urge their listeners to head to the nearest recruitment office and put their words in action, but they won't. "Supporting the troops" means nothing more than empty words...

Nearly one in five recruiters have been investigated in the past year alone for recruitment improprieties. All because no one wants to fight Bush's senseless war. And those who still defend it against all reason are the last to put either their words into tangible action, or urge their followers to do so.

There is a recruiting crisis in this country. Our troops in the Gulf need reinforcements. Yet those who claim to support them the most refuse to lend a hand. Such cowardice has no place in this country. I think we all know who the "surrender monkeys" really are.

I am not saying that supporters of the war are hypocrites because they won't enlist themselves. I am saying that people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Jonah Goldberg, Jerry Falwell, etc. etc. are hypocrites when they refuse to use the platforms at their disposal to aide the recruiting effort. But they never will. Their livelihood depends on creating daily outrage - and the enemy is always the liberals, the Democrats, the mainstream media.

Sean Hannity has to make his listeners feel as if, somehow, the mere act of listening to his show is an act of subversion - if he actually asked them to make a real sacrifice, they would become uncomfortable and stop listening - and his show isn't really designed to change anything, it's designed to make people comfortable. It's much easier to call Ted Kennedy a traitor than it is to ask people to actually sacrifice something. These people don't even think we should pay fucking taxes to fight this war.

After watching the ABC News Primetime special "Fallen Idol", I am now convinced that Paula Abdul sleeping with an American Idol contestant is the most important news story of our time. That contestant, Corey Clark, has written a heartbreaking song about the incident called "Paula-tics." In light of this, I will now focus the discussion of this blog on Paula-tics, rather than politics, which are stupid and boring and involve too many dead people for my taste.

So - anyone have any thoughts on Paula Abdul?

Not sure it's as funny as it once was, but this week's What Do You Think? is about women in the military. One of the men offers this opinion:

“Women are too docile to serve in front-line combat. Their place is back at the prison, sadistically torturing detainees.”

Click on the link, because those are always funnier when you see the picture.

First thought: Danny Graves sucks.

Second thoughts: I posted the comment below on this conservative blog that Andrew Sullivan linked to. I thought I'd post it here as well, since there has been a dearth in posting lately and since I know everyone is dying to hear my thoughts on this issue.

The Post:

My response to this analysis has always been: who cares? It’s true, conservative minorities (both Democrats and Republicans) in the 1950s and 60s did not filibuster judicial nominations - they were too busy filibustering civil rights legislation. The point is, there’s not that much that a minority in Congress can do. You have to pick your battles. Conservatives in the 50s and 60s realized that it was very important to their constituents to live in a segregated society - and this was the battle they were willing to fight. Democrats in Congress today have had no choice but to allow large chunks of the Bush agenda to become law - No Child Left Behind, tax cuts, drug benefits, a war, Bankruptcy Bill and more. They have focused their resources on the issue of judges. It is very important to the Democrats’ constituents that they live in a world where the government cannot force women to give birth, where the federal government can fight discrimination and protect the environment, where the New Deal remains Constitutional and where a child-like literal reading of the Constitution is not the means by which important judicial decisions are made.

Obviously, I don’t agree at all with the conservative viewpoint in the 50s and 60s, but nobody can deny that racism was extremely important to the minority in Congress and their constituents - so important, that they were willing to shut down the Senate to prevent civil rights legislation from being passed. Well, the Democrats are just as passionate about protecting the integrity of the judiciary. (We also have the advantage of being correct on this issue, unlike the Senate minorities of the 50s and 60s.) We are willing to shut down the Senate to stop Bush from nominating very conservative judges. If the Republicans want to take away the filibuster on this issue, Democrats can and should shut the entire Senate down.

I’m taking these statistics at face value and assuming that they’re not misleading in any way (although that’s possible). These statistics could just as easily be used as evidence that Republican Presidents nominate more radical and unacceptable judges - something that is too subjective for statistics to capture.

The bottom line is, minorities in the Senate only have the ability to use their limited powers - especially the filibuster - on certain issues. Just because no minority has found judicial nominations important enough to filibuster in the past doesn’t mean that doing so unconstitutional.