LowerCaseRepublican

PA, I found this article by Naomi Ninneman who explains a lot of it about the shortcomings of abstinence only education. Abstinence-only education has been in the news recently. In his State of the Union address, President Bush proposed doubling federal funding for it. But many people are surprised when they find out what the "only" in "abstinence-only" really means. It means, under the federal regulations governing these programs, that educators are prohibited from telling students that condoms can prevent pregnancy and HIV/AIDS. They cannot discuss the facts even when talking to sexually active teens who are at high risk of contracting HIV. According to these guidelines, condoms and other forms of contraception can only be discussed to emphasize their failure rates. Some programs, for example, provide students with two lists: one of diseases they can get when having unprotected sex and another of diseases they can get when using a condom. The lists are the same. Both include HIV, but the fact that condoms are roughly 96 percent effective in preventing the spread of this disease is nowhere to be found. This marks a radical departure from traditional sex education, which focuses on a comprehensive approach to preventing teen pregnancy, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases. It also makes abstinence-only programs dangerous. Perhaps that is why, despite the backing of President Bush, recent polls show that only 15 percent of Americans favor the abstinence-only approach. But do the programs work? It's not easy to answer that question definitively, since no effort has been made at the federal level to rigorously evaluate their effectiveness. The Department of Health and Human Services hired Mathematica Policy Research Inc. in the late 1990s to complete a federal assessment but directed researchers to evaluate only 11 handpicked programs, instead of a random sample of the hundreds of federally funded programs. Further, Mathematica's soon-to-be-released interim report will not evaluate any of the programs for behavioral change. In other words, it won't tell us whether these programs are leading kids to have less sex or more sex, or whether that is affecting rates of pregnancy and infection. Meanwhile, studies that looked at behavioral change have produced results that are hardly reassuring. In Minnesota, for example, a recent study of the state's abstinence-only program, Education Now and Babies Later, found that sexual activity among participating students doubled between 2001 and 2002 and that the number who said they would probably have sex during high school nearly doubled, as well. In 2001, researchers at Columbia University found that, although a limited number of students who signed so-called "virginity pledges" delayed sexual activity for more than a year, they were also one-third less likely to use protection when they did have sex -- a massive failure from a public health perspective. This year, the same researchers found that students who signed the pledges contracted sexually transmitted diseases at roughly the same rate as students who did not. In the public health community, this raises serious concerns about why the federal government is spending millions of dollars on programs that have not been proven effective. It is even more disturbing, given the research findings on comprehensive sex education programs. Numerous rigorous, peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated that these programs help teens delay sexual activity, use contraceptives when they do become sexually active, and reduce their number of partners. Here's more info. Yes, “total abstinence” has a failure rate of zero. Abstinence education sounds good on paper. The problem is that those who promise themselves total abstinence often end up practicing periodic abstinence or unprotected sex. It is not fair to compare the failure rate of condom use with that of theoretical abstinence. To make a valid comparison, we must compare actual results in practice. Dr. Clara Haignere of the Department of Health Studies at Temple University has done research on the failure rate of theoretical abstinence. Based on her empirical study, she found evidence which suggests that the abstinence user-failure rate to be around 45%. (Source: http://apha.confex.com/apha/130am/techprog...paper_49955.htm ) In March, George W. Bush asked Congress to grant him $135 million for abstinence-only education. It is interesting to note that such program was what Bush oversaw when he was governor of Texas. The results did not lend credence to what he preaches. During Bush’s term as governor, Texas ranked 49th out of 50 states in terms of teen births among 15-19 year-old females and a dead last in the decline of teen birth rates among 15-17 year olds. It should also be noted that the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy did a study in 2001 on abstinence-only programs. It found no significant impact of such education program on the teens’ initiation of or frequency of sex. Such finding led The American Medical Association, American Pediatrics Association and the National Academy of Science to oppose abstinence-only education. Your ideas that people need responsibility don't fall on deaf ears with me but abstinence only education the way it has been and is being instituted doesn't have positive effects in ending sexual problems.

If you don't trust the pussy, why are you f***ing the pussy? --Sam Kinison Don't we all know abstinence education is the only way to go? By completely denying the existence of sex drives, kids obviously won't have sex....Right?

The US has been categorically against human rights (hence our non compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) except when it suits us. The Milgrim test shows that people can be pressured into doing crazy s***. (The test where almost all the subjects "lethally shocked" a test subject when he demanded that they do so during a shock training session) As to the contractors, if one has followed the Libertarian run site www.antiwar.com they would have seen the stories on the news wire that showed many of the "contractors" in Iraq are actually mercenaries brought in to protect oil supplies. http://allafrica.com/stories/200404190944.html [snip] A security contractor killed in Iraq last week was once one of South Africa's most secret covert agents, his identity guarded so closely that even the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not discover the extent of his involvement in apartheid's silent wars. Gray Branfield, 55, admitted to being part of a death squad which gunned down Joe Gqabi, the ANC's chief representative and Umkhonto weSizwe operational head in Zimbabwe on July 31 1981. Gqabi was shot 19 times when three assassins ambushed him as he reversed down the driveway of his Harare home. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/...8464637030.html A Pentagon contractor has begun recruiting former commandos, other soldiers and seamen, paying them up to $US4000 ($A5300) a month to guard oil wells against attack by insurgents. Last month Blackwater USA flew a first group of about 60 former commandos, many of whom had trained under the military government of Augusto Pinochet, from Santiago to a 970-hectare training camp in North Carolina. From there they would be taken to Iraq, where they were expected to stay between six months and a year, the president of Blackwater USA, Gary Jackson, said. "We scour the ends of the earth to find professionals - the Chilean commandos are very, very professional and they fit within the Blackwater system." Granted there are some independent contractors who are actually contractors but many of them are independent mercenaries who are armed and fighting the Iraqis. Kinda puts a different spin on stories like the Iraq maiming if the guys were mercenaries looking to take some of the Iraqis out and if they happened to be armed. I'm not saying that's the case...I'm just saying, it makes things a helluva lot more interesting to think about.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...11&in_a_source= A story came out in the Brit press discussing how one of the smiling douchenozzles in the photos actually has a history of abusing prisoners. So of course he's put in charge a prison. Great move. With the Taguba report, Rumsfeld knew months ago about the torturing going on and didn't do a damn thing until these photos came out. Either that's deceit in wanting to cover it up or just plain stupidity in not handling the situation. It's his responsibility. Let's hear it for the good troops like Hugh Thompson (Vietnam...the one who exposed My Lai) and the guy that exposed this torture bulls***. If the Taguba report is to be believed then this torture was vast, expansive and is the fault of Rummy if he knew about this previously, which a lot of information coming forth seems like he did and yet waited to deal with it.

My my...how defensive we get! Rush and Hannity said we are going to "hammer these troops" for "having a good time". Now, I don't normally think of good times including taking smiling photos while beatings of naked prisoners is going on. Dogs biting prisoners...is that a frat hazing too? http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E2703,00.html (no pics, just a story about how dogs were used to inflict pain on prisoners) And hey...I know Rush isn't a conservative. He's a neo-con shill like Bush. They've sold out real conservatism in the name of greed. If you're interested in real conservatism, get in touch with your local Libertarian party. They're the closest thing you've got left to conservative sanity in this country.

Poor little Brando. You know, I got offended when you start pointless threads demanding that Rooney die and call him a "cocksucker" and Gload a "POS Choker". So I guess it goes both ways.

First off...graphic photos? I didn't post a photo of somebody with their head blown off at all, you've got the wrong person there Sparky. But thanks for blaming me for s*** I didn't do. I appreciate much.

The British government said they were fakes. Maybe they just don't want a scandal breaking out? Let's face it, this war was not good foreign policy and the administration has been wanting to invade since before Sept. 11. It was shortsighted, moronic policy and misappropriation of troop efforts. Governments have a tendancy to lie when they want something to go a certain way (see: Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, the Pearl Harbor documents saying FDR knew of the attack et al.) Read the New Yorker story that I posted...link is in my previous post. A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski’s brigade headquarters.) Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing: Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee. There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added—“detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.” Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their “extremely sensitive nature.” To say that Bush is a conservative and fighting this war is an oxymoron. It is one thing to have conservative beliefs but Bush is the antithesis to the conservative movement. And abuse of Iraqi prisoners that sparked worldwide condemnation may have been ordered by US military intelligence to extract information from the captives, and was possibly more cruel than officially acknowledged, The New Yorker magazine and Britain's daily Guardian reported on Saturday. Seymour Hersh, investigative reporter for The New Yorker, said that Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick, one of six US military policemen accused of humiliating Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Gharib prison outside Baghdad, wrote home in January that he had "questioned some of the things" he saw inside the prison, but that "the answer I got was, 'This is how military intelligence wants it done'." So, the evidence coming forth that the torture was an order.

They got some very conservative journalists that work for them. It's an interesting read and they are fairly pretty fearless to print about any story.

The UN f***ed over the Jews. This much I agree with you. Damn, I agreed with I4E. ::faints:: The Jews lived just fine with the Palestinians owning land, going to work, etc. until the UN said "The Jews now get 55% of the land and there will be no discussion on it." You and I both know of the overt anti-Semitism of government during that time period (i.e. Russia's treatment of the Jews, Dulles and other major players in the US government that made extreme anti-Semitic comments and employed former members of the SS etc) and these countries made up the Security Council. The reason the Balfour Declaration was made was, essentially, to kick the Jews out of Britain.

From what I saw on Haaretz, it was about the death of Rantisi and not so much Yassin plus part of the clashes that resulted from the 8 year old being murdered. These people who were murdered were settlers in Gaza (among the 7,500 that were there) and it is those sorts of reasons that Sharon wants to remove them from Gaza and the 4 WB areas. These people knew what they were getting into (see photos of fenced in settlements with razor wire on top etc. that they have to protect themselves) Not saying their murder was sanctioned by any f***ing means at all...but I don't tend to move into an incredibly violent neighborhood myself because I value not getting a bullet shell lodged in my skull. From Haaretz: Islamic Jihad and the Fatah-related Popular Resistance Committees claimed responsibility for the attack. The Israel Defense Forces later attacked a Hamas radio station in Gaza City, apparently due to the assumption that Hamas was also behind the killings. The Popular Resistance Committees issued a statement saying the attack was a reprisal for Israel's assassination of Hamas leaders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Other stuff I saw said a lot of the clashes were about the 8 year old getting whacked. And I4E, here's Haaretz's story on the murders...see they do cover everything. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/422750.html

Pre-1948 it was. I4E, if they never wanted Jews in their country and the such as you claim, why then was there peace and prosperity with Jews moving to Palestine pre-1948 in the late 19th and early 20th Century and living there buying property? The militarism didn't start until the UN stuck its nose where it didn't belong (as I already stated) in 1948.

Actually if you got to the Haaretz web site in a different story on the page, it discusses the 4 people that were murdered. It just was not in the story that I cited. As for the 1963-64 attacks. Research and most scholars believe that it had to do with the result of the UN redistributing the land without consulting the people living in the country. It was a mandate laid down from high by the UN Security Council (mainly because a lot of people in the Security Council countries did not want Jews in their own country. Oddly enough, the creation of Israel had an anti-Semitic basis. Look at the treatment of Jews at the time in the countries of the security council and you can see that the Jews were ostracized. That's why they helped to create Israel...so they would not have to deal w/ the Jews in their own countries. That even extends to the Balfour Declaration) Then the 1948 war began and no further negotiations began on the topic. I do indeed believe that is why, I4E. If the UN would have kept its damn nose out of it, I do think things would have been fine.

That was in response to the 8 year old being murdered. It's a tragic cycle of blood soaked revenge. Not saying at all what the HAMAS people did was right, I'm just saying that a rag tag force of guerrillas can't go toe to toe with a military getting millions in aid. It's deplorable that they'd kill kids. Collateral damage on both sides is a terrible loss and it doesn't really DO anything to further the cause on either side. Each body falling to the ground on both sides just cements further the sentiment against the opposition. But saying Arafat is in control of all the Fatah movements within Palestine is a statement that is incredibly ignorant because individuals and small factions are going to do things that not a lot of people agree with. I mean, its equivalent to saying that Bush controls all the troops so therefore he must have endorsed the torture that took place in Iraq by the US forces. A leader's control only exerts so far. Under occupation, there comes extreme militarism in certain veins of the population. Not saying that it is right...but is simply a byproduct of authoritarian regime control. I mean look at 1917 Russia and the Feb. revolution with the toppling of the tsar to Central American military dictatorships and the militarism of rebels against them from the Zapatistas in Chiapas to the FARC/ELN in Colombia (Note: I don't endorse what the FARC/ELN does because I know they kidnap random people to get funding and met a few people who had relatives kidnapped by the FARC, some of whom were killed) Militarism is a response to authoritian regimes, right or wrong...it occurs and has occured throughout history.

It seems like the Likud party is getting the idea... But Olmert, the principal proponent of Sharon's plan, went further, vowing a "supreme effort" to implement the plan in some form. "Will we make a supreme effort to continue in the correct direction, because that direction is unstoppable? I have no doubt that we will, and that in the end there will be a disengagement in Gaza, because the alternative to this disengagement is more murder, terrorism and attacks, without us having a wise answer for what 7,500 Jews have to do among 1,200,000 Palestinians," Olmert told Israel Radio. "What can we do there beside more wars, more army, and more victims?" Gee...1.2 million Palestinians in an area that is approx 24 miles long and 8 miles wide (if I remember the spacial data correctly otherwise it's the other way around) while 7,500 people get over 30% of the land and the majority of the resources in the area and hardcore Zionists have to wonder why Palestinians would be angry about it to the point where they'd support military action. I4E, you never did respond to me how during the 19th Century and early 20th Century when Jews were purchasing land in Palestine and living there going about their lives co-existing there were no suicide bombs, no military action taken against the Jews. It was only after the UN gave Israel 55% of the land and then the 1948 and 1967 wars that gave Israel 77% of the land that Palestine got angry. They were co-existing fine until the UN decided that it needed to do something without consulting the Palestinian and Jewish people that were living there.

It was a 60-40 vote within the Likud party not wanting the pullout of Gaza and 4 West Bank areas. I'm just amazed that 40% of the Likuds were supportive of a pullout. But then again, only 51% of the Likud party voted in the referendum according to Haaretz. Haaretz had a really good story on it yesterday. Haaretz reporters even saw Likud party supporters that were against Sharon verbally and physically beating Sharon's son to the point where he had to be escorted out of the area. In the same story it discussed how the IDF killed an 8 year old kid by shooting him in the head and arm when he didn't do anything (and this is according to an Israeli newspaper too)

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,...1520513,00.html It seems that the torture might have been an order. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

WTP for Crede. 2 gone.

6-5 MIGUEL OLIVO! YOU f***ING SONOFAb****! I LOVE YOU! ...and no I won't get a tat of that on my right ass cheek /espn story earlier today

new sig

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/ Memory Hole comes through again with more photos. This time of the tortured Iraqis. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/ is also a really good Libertarian view of the torturing of the Iraqis

Shooting a missile from a helicopter at a paralyzed old man in a wheelchair isn't nearly as ballsy as it is to take an explosive, attach it to your chest and detonate it. So what's more cowardly again Nuke? And Nuke, according to technicalities like international law, when there is an occupying force in your land it is legal to use military means to get rid of them.

The IDF has admitted to blowing up schools. Nice try though, skippy.

Probably? Taking the word of the nephew of Binyamin Netanyahu exactly ZERO have been arrested in the IDF for murdering Palestinians (especially kids, blowing up schools etc.) and statistics showing zero IDF people being prosecuted for murdering kids.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell In this guy's very dumbass way, I think he did make the point that these foreign policy moves did not do anything to substantially increase the security of the United States. Al Qaeda membership is drastically increasing with the collateral damage, the stories of US troops torturing prisoners, the huge increase in opium exports from Afghanistan etc. In my conversations with Nuke, he even told me that we had/have no clue what the f*** we are doing in Fallujah and had no real plan. Do I think what the kid wrote was pretty damn moronic? Yes. Do I think he made a point that the military should be used to defend us and not necessarily be sent halfway around the globe to attack a country that never attacked us and was not a threat to us? (i.e. Iraq) Yes. Personally, I'd like a little bit better cause for the war than what we were given for the war in Iraq to send off people to die. What the military does is important but I don't think that we can totally trust rulers that are beholden to different lobbies/industries that gave them campaign contributions to make certain foreign policy maneuvers. This isn't just a knock on Bush...it's throughout our history.