Pangloss

If you read the articles, they talk about this. It wasn't so much that they didn't realize that kids would learn about sex from other sources. It's really about a long-standing conservative belief (which these studies may very well be disproving) that if you tell children not to have sex and hand them a condom at the same time, that will be interpreted as wink-wink/nod-nod permission. There's some logic to that, if you consider the behavior of some kinds of parents, and it is at the very least a mixed message, transmitted to minds at their most impressionable stages. Remember, when we talk about children, we're not just talking about mature teenagers. We're also talking about immature teenagers, mature pre-teens, immature pre-teens, and everything else down to toddlers. So you can't just blanket everything with "well they're all having sex anyway so why hide the truth?" In fact, it's intuitively obvious that every single child learns about sex at a different exact age. So it's reasonable to assume that if you have children of a variety of ages participating in a program, that some of them will not yet have heard about sex (especially if you're talking about middle-schoolers). Of course, that theory may well break down when you put those kids in a room together, or send them back to school a few weeks later. So it may ultimately be a pretty daft idea, but valid scientific investigations have been conducted over far stupider ideas than these, Bascule. That's what you get for not reading your own studies -- in fact they show a direct benefit to including abstinence recommendations in these programs.

They'd better watch statements like that, or it'll be a cold day in hell before they host again. Of course, the way things are going they may be telling US who's hosting the next one.

This is a partisan ideological argument, not a demonstrable establishment of cause. Oh look, people are hurting, quick, blame Friedman and the market types, before they can blame the Keynsians! It must be true because we've gone market and look what happened! This is no more of an answer than the mainstream media's "Bush's failed economic policies" meme.

Apparently President Bush has decided to attend the opening ceremony of the China games. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7488858.stm Makes sense. It's about sport, not politics.

Yah, it's a popular meme, kinda like "tipping point". Was real big a couple years ago, not so much recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seachange

But you didn't know that before the studies were done; their theories were just as good as the others. They didn't get the same respect, though, for reasons that were political, not scientific. That certainly appears to be the case. Nope, the context discussed here. Only a partisan would suggest actually throwing this data out or ignoring it.

I like the comparison, but it doesn't quite go deep enough. The main problem isn't people having sex, per se, but people who aren't well-established enough to care for children either emotionally or financially (i.e. children). I'm not sure if there's anything analogous in the food comparison.

How about: "...a deep, abiding faith..." That's one of my personal pet peeves. Also "sea-change" gets under my skin for some reason.

There was a case here just a few miles from my house yesterday that shows the importance of gun ownership. A man and his brother and his wife and their kid were home when two men entered and tried to rob them. The men were armed with knives. One of the men who lived there grabbed his gun, drilling one of the robbers as he came out of the master bedroom. The other one (I guess after he heard the shot) grabbed the child and dragged him out the front door. The shooter followed him out and drilled him on the front lawn. Both criminals died. No charges were filed in the case, the police considering it self-defense. Neither of the perps had a gun, but does anyone want to tell me how those people would have been better off if they hadn't had that gun in the house? You could argue that nobody would have died, but frankly those two got exactly what they deserved. You could also argue that cases like this are relatively rare, but I don't know that that's even relevant (or true). This statistic about suicide -- I just don't see how that's my problem or concern. It seems like we put too much stock in numbers sometimes. I admit I've come around on vehicle safety (I wear my seat belt). But on some issues we just take it too far.

That's fine, you've got another study to add to a growing pile, and I agree that they seem to be generally showing that abstinence-only programs don't work. But they shouldn't be condemned for trying the abstinence-only approach. They had a theory, that if children were more rigorously encouraged to not have sex (by not including any indications that sex was something their peers were doing), they might cut down on the numbers. They tested it, but it came up wanting. Isn't that what federal funding is for, testing scientific theories on a massive scale? One of the things I like about Obama is his general inclination against the desire of a lot of other people around here to not only prejudge conservative concepts on ideological grounds, but to throw the baby out with the bathwater when they do have a point. Before these abstinence-only programs the politically correct approach was best described as "education only", in which the idea of abstinence was generally ignored or even discounted. Some idiots even went around proclaiming "have sex" or "have all the sex you want" or "the earlier the better". Perhaps the right overreacted to that with abstinence-only programs, but if you read these articles coming out now, they all talk about the importance of including abstinence advice in whatever programs we end up with. The right had a point, and the science backed it up.

Is it time to throw 'under the bus' under the bus? http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08184/894024-51.stm The Wikipedia entry on the phrase has an amusing sidebar, fleshing out a tidbit from the above article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw_under_the_bus ROFL! There's also a great example from the same entry: Anyway, the Wikipedia article cites an NPR story saying the phrase has been used in over 400 political stories over the last six months. Time to throw it under the bus!

(This was to iNow, I cross-posted with swansont's above.) Again, quit cherry-picking, guys! Also from the same article: And this quote is sourced: But look, don't you agree with my larger point that if Obama does decide to close down a faith-based program, it should be based on logic and reason, and not ideological pressure from special interest groups like MoveOn.org? That's really all I was trying to get at here.

Apf. I'm sure it's ONLY liberals who use sarcasm!! (Or was that irony?) But serially, the Japanese seem to have a strong penchant for the use of sarcasm in personal titles, which is kind of interesting. In watching anime programs and movies, it's always interesting to see the interplay between the uses of "-san", "-sama", and "-chan", which is sometimes used sarcastically as "-chin". Sometimes they use no suffix at all, which also has meaning. It's not really all that different from stuff we do in English, though, it's just perhaps a bit more formalized.

Okay. I don't know that that automatically applies in all situations, but I don't mind the example. Sorry I misunderstood.

Exactly. And if I could extend that a bit with my own opinion (not trying to put words in Bascule's mouth, but just in addition to what he said), I would say that if there's as much uncertainty and counter-evidence as we now know existed and was reviewed by the administration, it seems clear that you don't invade. You keep the pressure on, you keep the information out there and transparent, and you await further developments. I think it's awful what the Iraqi people were dealing with under Saddam. But dammit, I'm tired of being both the scapegoat and the paymaster for all the world's ills, and I think if the world wasn't willing to step up OR support us, then we should have waited, even if it meant another WMD attack from Saddam (which I'm SURE would have been followed with a tirade of blame against the US, but at least I'd be several thousand dollars richer).

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Swansont, you're the one making definitive statements. All I'm saying is that many of those people (including some (not all) in your own links) stop well short of definitive statements, talk about the need for additional studies to look at key factors that those studies didn't look at (such as whether pledges were a factor, when they were made, whom they were made to, etc, which was in fact one of Heritage's complaints), and other very equivocal and less-than-100%-certain positions. All of which you thoroughly dismissed, issuing us a couple of stone tablets that you now expect us to carry around like the Ten Commandments. That is an opinion and a political statement.

Well that post is a good example of the kind of thing you do that puts you at loggerheads with certain people here. You clearly misconstrued and misrepresented most of what I said. Let's see... I did NOT say your views are no different from O'Reilly's... I wasn't saying I don't post my opinions here... I'm sorry you don't find it hospitable (but I see insufficient evidence for a policy change)... all discussion is NOT opinion... I specifically welcomed your opinions... I'm perfectly happy with your "damned with faint praise", since I don't see it that way... I'm perfectly happy being situated between two groups, and I see them as more relevant and reflective than you do... and I'm not trying to "placate" the situation. And frankly your whole point IS that we have to change our behavior in order to continue to be graced by your presence. But since you don't want this discussion to continue, I will happily oblige, especially since I've accomplished my purpose anyway -- giving you a chance to air your grievances in public and giving me a chance to make it clear to everyone here where I stand with it (which in the end, frankly, is more important than your grievances anyway). So it's over. If you want to discuss it further, you can return to PMing me.

Swansont, rather than try to push you off your anti-abstinence soap box, all I really have to do is point out that even sex education approaches tell students about the value of abstinence. Definitive policy statements after a mere couple of studies, some of which used questionable methods, is about making a political statement, not a scientific one. Some of those questions raised by the Heritage Foundation are pretty darned relevant, and they are questions YOU would be raising had the study conclusions been the opposite. So you've just made a political statement, NOT a scientific one. And that brings me right back to my point: Phi's Obama quote ("...And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.") seems to be intended to give us the impression that he will make his decision STRICTLY along a scientific, logical rationale, with no ideological input whatsoever, but I don't think that's clear at all, nor is it what I think many on the left actually want to see.

Whether abstinence programs "work" is very much a subjective and debatable point, not an easy, absolute judgment. For one thing you have to decide what constitutes "working" -- if you've prevented one pregnancy, isn't that SOME level of success? I agree that may not be efficient, but that clearly shows that "work" is a subjective, relative value, not an absolute.

I didn't say that. And I really don't think you can construe what I did say as an insult. It certainly wasn't intended that way. Again, that wasn't my intent and you clearly missed my point. I wasn't trying to pigeon-hole you, I was trying to point out why you may be frustrated, and that reason had nothing to do with your ideological viewpoint, but rather your butting of heads with other people. The specific ideologies involved are just backdrop to that problem.

Oh geez, Lance, that's almost as poor an argument as the notion that people commit suicide just because there are guns lying around. Those regimes aren't repressive BECAUSE they have widespread gun ownership, they're repressive AND they have widespread gun ownership! You know better than such an obvious fallacy. Yeesh. And it's not a question of "accepting the existence of other free nations" (though I guess you meant that mostly as a joke). The point is moot because it's written into our Constitution. We keep it in a big stone container with little statues of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington on top, and we carry it around to all of our conflicts and it zaps our enemies with lightning from heaven.

I just don't think that's accurate. Other countries were basing their intelligence assessments off ours. That's because no western intelligence agency had anything like as complete a picture as we had. And we were cherry-picking our facts. Have you read Bob Woodward's trilogy of Bush administration books, jryan? I recommend Plan of Attack first and foremost. You know who else recommends them? George W. Bush. He gave Woodward unprecedented access, and complimented him numerous times on his accuracy and integrity after he read Woodward's books. I believe there's a subtle message there -- he may not entirely agree with Woodward, but he's going to admit someday that he was wrong about invading Iraq, or come darn close to doing so. You heard it here first. That he did. But in my opinion that is insufficient reason given the other inputs we were receiving and should have been heeding.

Really? That's interesting, because I came here to listen to what other people had to say. I already know what I think, what I don't know is what you think. I'm certainly not here to listen to myself talk! (Contrary to popular opinion!!!) Well again, I realize it may not seem that way to you at the moment, but I don't approve of personal attacks, and I'm doing everything in my power to stop and prevent them. Sometimes I'm less successful at that than I would like to be, and I've even been known to participate now and then. But that is my intent -- I want this to be an hospitable place for open discussion. But no, I don't think people who are in the minority should post things they don't believe just so they can fit in. I often find myself stating my opinion and then simply shutting up because repeating myself just to get the last word is a waste of my time and the time of others. I also tell myself that opinions are like a-hole's -- everybody's got one. What's the point of arguing opinions? So I focus on exposure to evidence, interpretations of that evidence, pointing out fallacious reasoning and hypocrisy in certain ideological groups, and so forth. It seems to me to be a much more valuable use of my time than telling somebody they're wrong (not that I don't end up doing that quite a lot, but it isn't my purpose). But that's just how I see it (since you asked). I imagine there are other ways to look at it. I definitely don't think this sub-forum is a "breeding ground for partisanship". If anything it's the opposite -- more like a clearing house for misconceptions, and if it's a breeding ground for anything it's "finding the middle ground", something I think we actually do pretty well here. That's the legacy I'm trying to accomplish in my tenure here as moderator. Whether I'm successful at that is up to each member to decide. But most of our members who've posted in Politics deliberately and consciously avoid specific familiar ideologies. That's one of the things I like about this board -- it may have a leftie bias, but it's refreshingly receptive to well-constructed (and politely phrased) logic. For me it's the best of all possible words (hence my handle) -- a crop of liberals that actually (usually) acknowledges your point when you're right and they're wrong. Ever try to win an argument at Democratic Underground or MoveOn.org? Are you KIDDING? And the funny thing about your "insular and partisan" comment is that there are a few people here who agree with you -- they think it's too conservative! In fact we probably have more members here who think this board is too conservative than we have members who think it's too liberal. But you know what? The fact that some people think it's too conservative and others think it's too liberal tells me we're probably doing it about right. My belief that your arguments are being exposed to the "cold light of day" here has nothing to do with board consensus or its generally liberal lean. It has to do with the specific arguments you are exposed to and how you react to them. But I'm not going to harp on this because I feel like I'm kicking you while you're down, which is really not my intent. I was just trying to help you out with a little insight as to why you keep breaking down in these discussions. For you to dismiss it as pure trolling on iNow's part is missing most of the picture. I think that's a very insightful comment and it reminds me of why I enjoy reading your posts. I hope you work through this and stick with us. (Edit: Dammit iNow, stop great-minding me!)