Agreed with the sentiment, but I don't know if I agree with the party-less voting part. I think it'd just lead to random ignorance, rather than directed ignorance. The thing I have a problem with is local/state elections where you're quite literally restricted to voting down one party line or another. That's how they do it around here, I'm not sure how it's done in other parts of the country.
I've never been forced to just vote party lines only, even when I voted in Wisconsin. Where do you live? That's really fucked up.
So some have resorted to putting pancakes on people heads and bad photoshop work.
Damnit, I should have just left it alone!
She actually did say something about "no sex before marriage." So... it would be relevant.
But really, we can't question her, remember? Because its sexism.
Holy shit this comment is funny, but it takes a little bit of thinking to understand why.
She's for teaching abstinence-only as the method for birth control. But not only did this method not work for her 20 years ago, it didn't work for her own daughter as recently as 5 months ago.
Just because she was out of high school for 6 years when she proved that abstinence-only is a failure of a policy, doesn't mean that she's pushing a policy that she personally has experienced to be a failure.
The broader counterpoint is that sex ed (or "health class" as they call it now) isn't just to prevent teen pregnancies, it's to educate kids so they're informed enough to make the right choices (defined by the religious types to mean "no sex before marriage") later in life. If they make the wrong choices anyways, either they failed or their teaching failed, and in Palin's case, either one is an indictment of her policy.
I take offense to having sex being the "wrong choice".
I agree that this pejorative look at sex is a part of the problem. Telling kids that something that can be done responsibly and safely is wrong even if you take proper precautions is transparently stupid and will cause kids to tune out. In my opinion, there are plenty of 17-19 year olds who are responsible and mature enough to be having sex. Unfortunately there are plenty of 25-40 year olds who are not. This is why comprehensive, well-rounded sex education is so important, both in schools and at home.
Frankly i don't understand why people persist on this idea that teenagers need to be shielded from sex. It's no longer necessary to make sex taboo, not to mention telling them that sex is bad or wrong whilst telling them that if they do do it, they need condoms and pills is sending mixed signals. You shouldn't be telling them how immoral it is, and just that you wish they wouldn't, that there are serious consequences if the condom and or the pill were to fail.
Well, there are also psychological consequences to sex that many teenagers aren't prepared for, but that's more wrapped up in relationships and social anxiety than just sex itself.
I'm assuming we read the same study on this, but wasn't the conclusion those "psychological consequences" were positive?Well, there are also psychological consequences to sex that many teenagers aren't prepared for, but that's more wrapped up in relationships and social anxiety than just sex itself.
It showed kids who had sex earlier tended to be more functional adults, well those who "waited"(and not cause they were fugly) tended to develop dysfunctionalities the longer they waited.
John Stewart just fucking annihilated McCain on his show. I mean, hooooly shit. We won't be seeing McCain on the Daily Show ever again after the swings Stewart took tonight. I wish the Democrats could get away with some of the shots he took, good God, it was amazing.