Random Politics & Religion #00

You quite forgot 8mm and 16mm films.

Back when I was young, and dinosaurs walked the earth, I got a hold of some of our print "porn," those little magazines. They were boring.

But I spent months in Miami every year. All the sleazy little stores and all the drug stores had postcards. Among them were always Bunny Yeager's shots of Betty Paige.

Those fascinated me in ways I am unable to describe.

I should have bought 100s of them and put them in a safe deposit box.

The red states have a GREAT tendency to import more dollars from the federal government than they return.

The blue states have tendency to pay more dollars to the federal government than they receive.

So just who are the welfare queens?

Come on, Chanti. You're going to have to do better than a Mother Jones hack job analysis to make your point.

These are statistics that I have been reading for DECADES.

And not from Mother Jones.

Maybe tomorrow I will look them up. But then again both my red currants and bing cherries are harvestable. And I expect to travel Thursday.

Friday is FFXIV's early entry. It might be a bit.

The point is that it's a red herring. Naturally, states with higher revenues are going to need less from the government. This is why California, Texas, New York, and Colorado tend to take in less government money than they give. They are more self-sufficient and/or tax the crap out of their citizens and businesses.

Besides, we were talking about welfare, which only follows a red state trend if you pay more attention to colors than the compass. Percentage of welfare per state is much more accurately viewed as a spectrum from north to south, and gets much more nuanced when you realize that a very blue state like New Mexico has a much higher percentage than a very red state like Utah, even though they touch corners. Politics may play a role in general, but demographics play a much larger one.

Since the vast majority of children are teenagers in middle school why would you even go into this tantrum?

· After the Alameda County California school board refused to grant opt-out requests, parents sued the Alameda Unified School District. Opt-out requests were asked for when the school district enacted a controversial pro-homosexual, bisexual, transgender program for kindergarten and elementary school-aged kids. (Source: Oakland Tribune - Aug 2009)

During the 2008 presidential campaign Barack Obama was talking about Rep. Alan Keyes’s comments concerning Obama's previous actions in the State legislature dealing with teaching kids in kindergarten sex education and Obama said, "But it's the right thing to do...to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools." (Source: ABC New - Sep 2008)
· "We ought to have comprehensive sex education in our schools, from kindergarten through 12th grade." Former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders (Source: CNS News - Jul 2009)
·

You will not find it because people like you prefer extremes. Rational people are going to be okay with a class teaching teens about birth control and how a condom works. The problem is, that is never good enough and stuff like this happens.


Then when people want the option to pull their teens out of that class and/or tone it down they get people saying stuff like this.

Clearly you missed sex ed.

The pullout method doesn't work!

This person is 1) closed minded and 2) making an awful big assumption that only their sexual behaviors are the "normal" or "appropriate" ones.

Seriously. *** off. 13 year olds do need this education. Treating sexual topics as taboo or "off limits" just makes kids go out and ask Google about everything anyhow. Better they get the education from actual educators or -- holy ***! -- their parents* than the sex industry.

And apparently we need to go back and retroactively give it to a bunch of 30-60 year olds, too.


*But their parents are too ashamed and embarassed about their sexuality, so they couldn't possibly have an open and free discussion about it with their kids.

Apparently you don't know what tantrum means, or maybe just don't know how to apply it in a sentence.

Rest of the post is the usual garbage. Parents that think their 13 year old would never think about sex? Yeah, shocking. Too bad they're wrong and their kids are often not as innocent as they think.

That's the main problem: those kids are curious about the topic, but they're completely clueless, so the braver ones who are gonna try it out have a pretty high chance to *** up somehow.

Honestly though, maybe I should be more grateful to abstinence only and/or complete lack of sex ed/sex-only-for-babies Christian standards.

As I'm pretty sure I have those tenets to thank for my existence.

I think we should teach sex ed to babies that are about 3 months old.

At 4 months I was already dating another baby.

Your sarcasm this morning isn't fully baked yet.

Pop it back in the oven for a few more hours.

I'm just trying to help out. I mean pretty soon 10 year old girls are going to be getting pregnant. Might as well teach them before it happens.

How about forcing your children to watch the parents have sex. That cheap and informative way to learn em !

They already are on occasion, but probably 90% of the time it's in WV, and daddy is the daddy.

I agree with you Seha; sex ed should at least touch the minor bases on the subject STD's, birth control and proper condom usage throughout middle school. I've heard stories from close friends about their younger siblings (say around 10 or 11 ish) that have already had sex (anal, oral or vaginal; doesn't matter.)

Then once they're in high school the subject should get more in depth.

Like when kids first ask where babies come from around 4 or 5 and you tell them just vaguely: "They come from the stork." Then when they ask again around 8 or 9 you get a little more in depth "They come from two people who love/care for each other."

Is that making sense to anyone else?


While I agree that younger children should be taught to be a little more open-minded towards the LGBT community. I don't agree with teaching them about sex toys. Who in their right minds would teach KINDERGARTNERS about using sex toys..? That's a little too much.

No one is doing that. Altima is being a rightwing moral crusading fearmonger again.

It's 11 year olds not 10. Dr. Phil even had a show about it!

Yea but kindergartners love sex toys !

To be fair, some of them are sort of floppy and silly looking.

And let us not forget that Barbie started life as a German sex toy.*

*

You mistake me.

I didn't say or mean the number of people on welfare.

I meant that the red states themselves are welfare queens.

On the subject of sex ed, we didn't have sex ed in schools when I was a kid. But my mom started explaining human biology and sexual function to me when I was 6 or 7.

And no, she never once used the birds and bees analogies.

Named Lilli.

Bild Lilli doll
Wiki.

Teen pregnancy and STD contraction have declined significantly since the early 90's. Much of that decline can be attributed to implementation of sex ed classes that put an emphasis on safe sex and contraceptives. The states with the highest teen pregnancy are also the states that teach abstinence only or delay sex ed classes until high school. I don't think it's enough to claim a causal link, but there is a strong correlation between sexual education and sexual health.

As far as teaching about LGBT, until there has been more concrete links between prenatal or genetic triggers and orientation/gender identity, I'm ok with leaving it out of sexual education. However, they are part of our society, and have been as long as we've been recording history. I see no reason why they should be put in a black box in other areas of education. Kids are smart, way smarter than most people give them credit, and even passive exposure to other lifestyles affords a mountain of acceptance.

My mom didn't even touch in a roundabout way the topic of sex, like it doesn't exist. Although the story of the stork bringing babies(that's the most common here)always sounded suspicious to me. Then I noticed some kids in school who were secretely giggling at a child who openly admitted she thought babies were magically placed in the mom's belly from a stork. I thought their behaviour was suspicious too so I decided I have to delve deeper into this matter!

And that's when I started buying girls magazines, at first I was hella confused, but eventually things started to fall into place.

Some years later when I was 14 my dad's wife urged him to talk to me about sex and my dad was like "sigh WHY she's a kid!" but his wife knew better that I wasn't anymore and so we talked about that a little. I remember he started like this "so..how much do you know about sex?" and I showed off my knowledge. His response to his wife was "she already knows too much".

In school we had one single class of sex ed when we were 15 and it was a mess cause they pretty much gathered everyone of that age in one room while some unknown person talked about it very vaguely. Ended up being a chaotic gigglefest. "LOL SHE SAID PENIS!" *everyone laughs*

It's bad to not have a decent sex ed. Most guys and girls at the time were completely clueless of what they were doing, and you can bet they were indeed doing it.

she is talking about this...
state dependency

which of course doesn't take into consideration ROI (return on investment) and the difference between government handouts and expenditures

so new mexico, as an example, is one of chanti's "welfare queens" but the money spent there is for the military personnel etc.

in the liberal mind. people risking their lives to protect our freedom are in the same category as people receiving welfare for doing absolutely nothing.

since they both receive money from the government >.>

Yeah, I read the Wiki too, Chanti. I just was holding out hope that they took the design from some earlier thing to validate the urban legend.

What about the people who have risked their lives as such in the past but are on welfare now because *** off, veterans, we don't care about your PTSD, other health issues, or inability to find legal work with your killing skills, you're not in the budget?

Not to reduce the sacrifice that our servicemen have made, but they haven't been protecting our freedom in many years, basically since WWII. At least, not in a direct capacity other than the tactical missions to take out people who presented a real threat to American citizens.

I think that actually makes it worse that they're treated so poorly when their service is over.

don't say that in public, didn't you see gran torino? some of those old vietnam / korean war vets could probably still kick your / my *** in their 70's / 80's...

She's not criticizing them. They did their jobs.

The problem she's criticizing is the government's decades-long policy of using our military to deal with things that have little to nothing to do with us directly, and our troops dying for it.

what about them?

we are talking about the difference between spending money on self/laser guided bullets from Sandia labs vs giving away obamaphones