Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Maybe others (those "complaining") aren't looking at just the number... but the context of what we do with our money.

    Yeah, it is a big number. (to me and you)

    It is also 42 hours of spending for the Iraq war.

    Of course, in the real world... when you spend money once it is gone. So, realistically, something should be cut if they spend the money for Tsunami relief.

    That's easy.

    Bush proposed spending $270M [washingtonpost.com] on lying to kids about sex next year. (abstinence)

    They want to spend $100M [news-leader.com] lying about Social Security
    • It is also 42 hours of spending for the Iraq war.

      You think that's interesting? It isn't. Comparing apples and oranges never is.

      Bush proposed spending $270M on lying to kids about sex next year.

      False. Even if there is some false information in there that could possibly rise to the level of a lie, most of it is accurate, whether you agree with its aims or not.

      They want to spend $100M lying about Social Security.

      False. Social security is scheduled for failure, and it begins to lose money starting
      • Not arguing about the other points... but even an understatement such as: there is some false information in there [sex education] that could possibly rise to the level of a lie denotes in itself a health hazard. Who will pay for the moral, social and medical damage of letting abstinence-only advocates enter the schools [guardian.co.uk] ?
        • by pudge (1) on 2005.01.12 11:28 (#37405) Homepage Journal
          Let me put it this way: every public school sex education curriculum I've seen has lies in it, which can constitute a health hazard (for example, I've seen the effectiveness of condoms wildly misportrayed in both directions). And I firmly believe this inevitable when politicians set such policies, instead of local school boards.

          Remember, we started seeing a lot more sex and teenage pregnancy in schools in America under Clinton and his style of sex education. The incidence of such things did not decrease.

          So you can ask your question about "who will pay?," but that question is the same regardless of which curriculum is in effect.
          • I hate getting in the middle of this, but I think that teen pregnancy actually went down in the 1990s. At least that's what I take from a quick look at this set of statistics [agi-usa.org] (Table 2 seems to be the most relevant).
            • I didn't want to get into specifics, but I was speaking more of economic/regional data than overall, e.g., that they went up in inner cities and such, where sex is more common, and sex education more relevant.

              That said, yes, overall, pregnancy rates did go down (though sex rates fluctuated, from the data I've seen [which is much less reliable anyway]); and then again, there's no reason to think abstinence education will cause them to increase.

              This gets very complicated, very quickly. For example, most of
              • I think eminem put it right:

                Of course they gonna know what intercourse is. By the time they hit 4th grade They got the Discovery Channel, don't they?

                The human sexual drive and education is the classical definition of invariance :)

                • I am against all school sex education, for my kids anyway. They will get a much better, more reasonable, broader understanding from me at home. I don't need some idiot teacher trying -- poorly -- to explain sex to my child. Another reason to avoid government schools.