On October 19th, 2007 at 12:06 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
News Gazette poll question, I know they are asking the question because some schools in Maine are giving 11 yearolds birth control pills. I wonder what types of birth control are distributed in Champaign Schools?
----Should school districts be allowed to distribute birth control pills to middle school students (ages 11-13)?----
On October 19th, 2007 at 03:35 PM, redstatewannabe said:
Am I reading that right - we are buyers, and scheduled to buy more?
I'd love to hear your insights into this, and the current price spike.
On October 20th, 2007 at 11:11 AM, D. Boon said:
I know it is the weekend, the Big Game, the beautiful weather, etc. but I just thought I would share something political. I have been a Obama fan for quite a while and tend to lean to the Left on most issues. I haven't like Hillary Clinton's approach to the campaign so far.
and I think I am starting to change my mind. If you've got the time, I would suggest reading it. Some parts are better than others and yes, she spends quite a bit of time dissing Bush and propping Bill. But still, it is good. The focus on labor unions, the middle class, tax rate adjustments, manufacturing jobs and economic inequality are really, really good. It has been too long since we had someone discuss the middle class in this country.
Oh, and she wants to spend a LOT of money on developing alternative energy sources. She gets that this is a huge economic opportunity.
I still don't know what I think of the woman and there is little doubt that Bill has a hand in some of these policies, but my goodness ... she does seem to get it.
On October 20th, 2007 at 04:52 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Boon, Are you even old enough to remember the Clinton years?
On October 20th, 2007 at 06:08 PM, History Guy said:
On October 20th, 2007 at 11:11 AM, D. Boon said: "I know it is the weekend, the Big Game, the beautiful weather, etc. but I just thought I would share something political. I have been a Obama fan for quite a while and tend to lean to the Left on most issues. I haven't like Hillary Clinton's approach to the campaign so far. But I just read this speech: Rebuilding the Middle Class and I think I am starting to change my mind. If you've got the time, I would suggest reading it. Some parts are better than others and yes, she spends quite a bit of time dissing Bush and propping Bill. But still, it is good. The focus on labor unions, the middle class, tax rate adjustments, manufacturing jobs and economic inequality are really, really good. It has been too long since we had someone discuss the middle class in this country. Oh, and she wants to spend a LOT of money on developing alternative energy sources. She gets that this is a huge economic opportunity. I still don't know what I think of the woman and there is little doubt that Bill has a hand in some of these policies, but my goodness ... she does seem to get it."
To mirror D. Boon, I tend to lean right on most issues (most, not all...). I did enjoy hearing something concrete from a candidate about alternative energy sources, while frowning over her section on labor unions and the Employee Free Choice Act. To summarize the Employee Free Choice Act, "When a majority of employees votes to form a union by signing authorization cards, and those authorization cards are validated by the federal government, the employer will be legally required to recognize and bargain with the workers’ union." (AFL&CIO website) This would essentially make irrelevant the previous system of starting or forming a union, namely through the secret ballot. To paraphrase GeorgeWill, if a secret ballot is good enough for Sen. Clinton (for her election to the Senate and her goal of President), why is it suddenly not good enough for unions?
I have one other question after reading Sen. Clinton's speech. Her plan to encourage saving for retirement is this:Clinton said she wants to create "American Retirement Accounts" in which each family could put up to $5,000 annually in a 401(k) plan. The federal government would provide a tax cut to match the first $1,000 for any household that brings in less than $60,000 a year and 50 percent of the first $1,000 for those that make $60,000-$100,000." She advocates this plan as another way of saving for retirement, in addition to an individuals Social Security funds. I guess I just don't get the philosophical difference between offering this new plan, versus President Bush's (now long dead) plan for privatising a portion of an individual's Social Security funds directly.(One aside: What happens if a couple divorces? Who gets the funds? 50/50 split, split based on alimony payments, what?)
My biggest problem with Sen. Clinton's speech is her section on mortgage's and the well-documented crisis. In her speech, she advocates three different proposals. In reverse order, they are the Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act, the Realizing the Dream Program, and Save Our Homes Program. My concern, initially, is with the last one. As I wrote back in September on another thread, "why is it the government's responsibility to rescue lending institutions...[and] borrowers who willfully agreed" to the exchange? No one posted any counter or answer to my question, so I'll ask it again. Why should the government rescue lenders or borrowers caught up in this self-made crisis? If one party committed fraud, lied to the other party, committed an illegal or unethical act, then punish those responsible and aid the victims; otherwise, don't use my tax dollars as a way of dealing with the mortgage crisis. Like I said earlier, unless one party held a gun to the other's head, and forced them to sign the lending agreement, both parties willfully agreed to the exchange.
Thanks for reading my ramblings all, and Go Illini!!!
HG
On October 20th, 2007 at 06:42 PM, Mike (not verified) said:
Why should the government rescue lenders or borrowers caught up in this self-made crisis?
Perhaps to prevent widespread panic and despair, and to keep the economy from tanking?
On October 20th, 2007 at 10:25 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
""When a majority of employees votes to form a union by signing authorization cards, and those authorization cards are validated by the federal government, the employer will be legally required to recognize and bargain with the workers’ union." (AFL&CIO website) This would essentially make irrelevant the previous system of starting or forming a union, namely through the secret ballot. To paraphrase GeorgeWill, if a secret ballot is good enough for Sen. Clinton (for her election to the Senate and her goal of President), why is it suddenly not good enough for unions?"
We had a lengthy discussion about this at IP several months ago. The most important phrases in your summary are "majority of employees," "signing authorization cards" and "legally required to recognize."
You have mistated the system of "starting or forming a union." Even under the present system, a union is formed by the people forming it, and its formation does not require any confirming action by the employer or the government. The idea that a secret ballot is somehow necessary to form a union is actually a common misconception. The secret ballot does not form the union. That has already taken place when the folks who are its original members agreed to form a union. You and I could sit down right now and form our own union, with just the two of us as members.
Once a union has been formed, there are certain reporting requirements to the government, but there is no requirement that the employer "recognize" or deal with the union until that union passes another benchmark: legally attesting that a "majority of the employees" at the workplace want the union to represent them in negotiations with the employer. That's what the secret ballot is for; not to form the union, but to require the employer to negotiate with a pre-existing union. Under current federal law, the clock for holding this election starts when the government verifies that a majority of employees have signed cards authorizing the union to negotiate on their behalf.
Labor's contention is that, once a majority of employees have signed legal documents authorizing the union to represent them in negotiations with the employer, the benchmark has already been proven. A majority of employees have already quite clearly indicated their wishes, and a secret ballot just introduces a further (and sometimes very lengthy) delay during which employers can and do regularly harass or fire union leaders in order to intimidate the workers and influence the outcome of the election.
The process of recognizing that the election has de facto already taken place when a majority of employees sign authorization cards is referred to as "card check," and it is already the law in Illinois. It makes perfect sense to union members and their allies.
Unfortunately, it often presents an insurmountable mental barrier to those outside of organized labor, who can't seem to get past the idea that something has been lost (a formal election by secret ballot.) This viewpoint perhaps overlooks the fact that the whole purpose of holding such an election is to reveal the will of the majority. In labor's view, the employees have already committed themselves legally to the union by signing the authorization cards, and when a majority of them have done so, the will of the majority is already clearly and legally known, and the election really is redundant.
I should serve fair notice here that I don't intend to go through the entire previous discussion all over again, but I thought you would like to know where labor was coming from on this.
On October 20th, 2007 at 10:35 PM, Mark Shelden said:
Kevin, as you know I disagree with your position, and also don't want to revisit the discussion. however, I did want clarification. Doesn't the election require less than 50% to be held? I thought it was in the neighborhood of 30. I know that it would be 50% under the new proposed rule.
On October 20th, 2007 at 10:46 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
Why would you hold an election to form a union with less then a majority (50% plus 1)?
On October 21st, 2007 at 12:18 AM, Arvid said:
A majority is not defined as "50% plus 1", it is defined as "more than half". The number you cited (50% plus 1) creates an inflated threshold to pass if you have an odd number of voters, such as the below situation (which I just sat through recently with a volunteer organization and had to correct their chair because they tried to declare a rather contentious vote as having not passed under the "50% plus 1" definition):
Example: let's say you have 25 voters. The difference breaks down like this:
- A majority of this number is 13. Half of 25 is 12.5. The next number which is "more than 12.5" is 13.
- However, 50% (12.5) plus 1 is 13.5. Except for cumulative voting and other silly voting systems where you can cast less than a full vote, you can't have half a person. The next possible number which satisfies this criteria is 14, because last time I checked (and I'm pretty sure this hasn't changed in a long time) 13 is less than 13.5.
This fun vote-counting fact is brought to you by a grant from the "We've Covered This Before" Foundation and viewers like you :) Seriously, though, I'd think that people who care about local politics and/or are active in any small-body organization (boards, committees, etc.) where where elections and votes can be decided by such close margins should know better.
On October 21st, 2007 at 06:26 AM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"Doesn't the election require less than 50% to be held? I thought it was in the neighborhood of 30. I know that it would be 50% under the new proposed rule."
"Why would you hold an election to form a union with less then a majority"
You're both right in different ways. The National Labor Relations Act stipulates that one of the requirements for a successful employee petition requesting a certification election is the demonstration that a "substantial number of employees (i) wish to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative..." Title 29 Chap. 7 Subchap. II U.S.C. Sec. 9 [159](c)(1)(A)
The Act does not, however, directly define what "substantial" means in this context. In a separate section, the Act uses the 30 percent mark as a threshold for elections to de-certify a bargaining unit. As a result, the long standing policy of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been to use this figure for certification elections, as well.
It is my understanding, however, that this policy is an administrative regulation rather than inherent in the statute, and could therefore be changed by the Board at any time. One assumes that such a change would be challenged in court, but who knows how that might come out.
It is perhaps also relevant to note that the election is only required to be held if there is a question or dispute regarding representation. If the employer recognizes the union's representatives and negotiates with them in good faith, there is no need for an election, and the NLRB will not hold one.
As far as I know, proposals for card check do not eliminate any of the provisions for holding an election at the 30 percent threshold, but merely provide a mechanism for superceding it when the number is greater than 50 percent.
Finally, as run alludes to, in circumstances where an employer has been particularly resistant to recognition, it is a common practice among unions to wait until they have the signatures of a clear majority of employees before requesting an election. Conducting such an election can be a major effort in terms of time and resources, and if the union loses the election, the law requires a waiting period of at least one year before another can be held. As such, unions tend to want to be sure before they start the clock.
On October 21st, 2007 at 10:04 AM, xian said:
Birth Control Pills:
Yes.
On October 21st, 2007 at 10:54 AM, D. Boon said:
Boon, Are you even old enough to remember the Clinton years?
Ha! Unfortunately I am. And there is definitely part of my brain that is frantically waving flags signaling: "Phoney!"
And yet ... there she is talking about labor unions, protecting the environment and rebuilding manufacturing in America. It is almost like thinking, "well, if she does ONE of these things she will be SO MUCH better than the current crop of conservative clowns ..." and you know the rest. Do I trust her? Can you ever trust a politician?
Look at the other side. The best Derf Thompson can muster on the economy is that what is going well should be continued and what isn't going well should be stopped. And how many Republicans raised their hands signifying their skepticism about global warming? And talk about labor unions. To conservatives labor unions are akin to an outbreak of herpes in the lower regions. Their solution is to isolate and destroy.
No, it is time for a change. Hillary isn't perfect and I will still lug some water for Obama but IF she is inevitable then at least she seems to be on the right track. Will she break our liberal hearts by sleeping with conservatives? Probably. But I am honestly not sure if this country can take four more years of conservative rule. Seriously. Their ideas are so tragically bankrupt that anything even resembling a change will have to do. Let's just hope we make it through these last 15 months without any more children losing their health insurance or nuking Iran. If we can get out of conservative rule alive and in repairable condition this country still might have a fighting chance.
On October 21st, 2007 at 12:14 PM, History Guy said:
Re: Run and his question regarding birth control pills in middle school: I would say yes, they should be distributed by the school, as long as the child's parents/guardians agree to it and they cannot obtain her a prescription through their own means. this may sound woefully ignorant, but do girls that young get their period?
Kevin Sandefur: thanks for explaining labor's point of view regarding my post. And you were right, I was wrong to write "starting or forming a union"; what I meant by "starting" was when the union becomes the bargining unit for the employees, not when the employees join together. I just didn't explain myself well. As well, you're right regarding the mental barrier I was expressing about the secret ballot being "lost" somehow. I think that voting, on any matter, is a very private, personal matter, and a secret ballot is the best way to vote. However, I had never considered the point of view you described, that the card check method is another way to express the will of the majority. Secret balloting is still my preferred method, so i think i'll agree to disagree on this one
(and i also don't want to beat the same dead horse from a few months ago, so lets leave it at that...)
On October 20th, 2007 at 06:42 PM, Mike (not verified) said: "Why should the government rescue lenders or borrowers caught up in this self-made crisis? Perhaps to prevent widespread panic and despair, and to keep the economy from tanking?"
Restoring the general public's confidence in the overall economy would be a worthwile goal, but only if this was threatening to become a severe, severe recession or even a depression. otherwise, i would be very concerned that the "cure" (whatever it would be) would be worse, and cause more problems than, the "disease". Right now, since this self-inflicted crisis doesn't seem to be spreading and affecting the wider economy, I would be hestitant to support the federal government intervening in some form.
HG
On October 21st, 2007 at 02:05 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
I think schools should provide the pills and a nice safe environment for the kids to do it... oh, I guess that's what classrooms are for.
I'm joking obviously. What would somebody think if a father of an 11 year old girl got her on birth control and let her have boys over to have sex? You would think he's a negligent father - or some kind of pervert.
The crazy thing about this program is that the parents won't know if their daughter is on the pill. There are clear medical risks to giving the pill to girls that young, and when the parents don't even know she's taking it, that just makes things worse.
It seems to me that the public schools have become the street corner or back alley where kids can go to get all the things they don't want their parents to hear about. It's no wonder parents who are forced to pay thousands of dollars per year for local public schools still pay thousands more to send their children to a private school - which may be worse academically, but at least they will keep their kids away from the pushers.
On October 21st, 2007 at 02:20 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Yup, I've also found that thread morbidly fascinating, especially this particular anonymous comment: http://www.ucimc.org/node/2059#comment-2432 . Because asking to see someone's data must be "obsessive trolling."
On October 21st, 2007 at 03:11 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
Is the school notifying the proper authority that a child under the age of 14 maybe being molested or raped? What parent is going to publicly ok their child of 14 or less having sex, I would call the authority and see that they are arrested for child abuse. The idea we have a school district condoning sex of middle school kids is sad, they should be working help fix the problem.
On October 21st, 2007 at 04:22 PM, History Guy said:
On October 21st, 2007 at 03:11 PM, Run4cvrlib said: "Is the school notifying the proper authority that a child under the age of 14 maybe being molested or raped? What parent is going to publicly ok their child of 14 or less having sex, I would call the authority and see that they are arrested for child abuse. The idea we have a school district condoning sex of middle school kids is sad, they should be working help fix the problem."
Run, I'm not sure why you brought up the idea of under-14 year olds are being molested or raped? what does it add to the discussion? If you're responding to the Anonymous October 21st, 2007 at 02:05 PM comment, that post asked (rhetorically) "What would somebody think if a father of an 11 year old girl got her on birth control and let her have boys over to have sex? You would think he's a negligent father - or some kind of pervert." I'm just not sure why you made your comment.
As to the idea that school districts, by providing birth control pills to middle school girls, is somehow condoning sex of middle school kids, it just doesn't fly with me. I've never understood the idea that merely talking about sex (in sex ed/health classes), offering birth control pills, or condoms somehow magically will make kids think about sex and then act on those thoughts. Guess what? Teenagers think about sex. Often. I'd rather teenagers get proper education on sexual matters/personal health, and know where to get proper safeguards and how to use them, than have unprotected sex.
To wayward and October 21st, 2007 at 02:20 PM Anon: I read through that thread, which i think is an extension of Dolinar's "SWAT Team or Racist Death Squad?" thread from some time ago. The anonymous poster who asked for Dolinar's supporting documents did so in a neutral, respectful manner. Too bad Dolinar and his supporters are wholly consumed with their set narrative and will not allow any dissention from their accepted wisdom. And this comment, taken from Dolinar's piece, is simply stunning. Several hip-hop artists condone the "stop snitching" campaign. Wow. Thanks for providing such a solid foundation for your support of the "stop snitching" campaign (which is a pernicious and dangerous idea in itself).
HG
On October 21st, 2007 at 05:25 PM, prairie biker (not verified) said:
The top 1% of filers paid 39.4% of all income taxes, up from 36.9% the year before. Yet they had just 21% of total adjusted gross income.
The minimum AGI needed to be in the top 1% rose to a new high...$364,000.
The top 5% paid 59.7% of total income tax and made 36% of all AGI. They each had incomes of $145,300 or more.
And the top 10% of all filers, those with AGIs of at least $103,900, bore 70% of the income tax burden while tallying a little more than 46% of total adjusted gross income.
The bottom 50% of filers paid just 3.1% of total income tax. Their share is so low because payroll taxes aren't included in the figures
and because many of them receive tax relief from the earned income credit.
The data add fuel to the current tax debate. Republicans say that the data show Democratic efforts to raise taxes on high-incomers
are misguided, given that the tax burden on them is the highest in years.
__._,_.___
Boon, you're just another socialist stooge. The data completely contradicts Hillary's garbage. Why do you believe this woman? What disease causes this type of self-loathing?
On October 21st, 2007 at 05:59 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
It doesn't fly with a lot of people, kids know the difference though, just like handing someone a fork to eat cake, the suggestion is they should it the cake.
“I'm not sure why you brought up the idea of under-14 year olds are being molested or raped?” The children are not of age to have sex or to give consent, are you assuming the other person is another child that is the same age, although if they were in some states it wouldn't matter it would still be against the law.
When children are having sex which everyone knows is not healthy for them, we should help them stop not help continue in this case they are only 11 years old. Just so you know in the case of the school in Maine, once the parents sign up the student for the "health clinic" the parent has no say in what health care the child receives. I suppose if you give them a few more years they will be carting your children off for abortions, I know I am crazy but 10 years ago if you would of said that they would be giving 11 yearolds birth control pills with out parental consent you would be crazy too. Of course the all powerful government knows best.
On October 21st, 2007 at 06:42 PM, History Guy said:
On October 21st, 2007 at 05:59 PM, Run4cvrlib said: “I'm not sure why you brought up the idea of under-14 year olds are being molested or raped?” The children are not of age to have sex or to give consent, are you assuming the other person is another child that is the same age, although if they were in some states it wouldn't matter it would still be against the law.
I wasn't making any assumptions about who a theoretical 11-year-old girl (recieving birth control pills from her middle school) would be having sex with. I just didn't know why you posted what you did, namely "Is the school notifying the proper authority that a child under the age of 14 maybe being molested or raped?" Now, i think i understand (please correct me if i'm wrong, though): because the under-14 year old in your original comment wouldn't be able to legally give consent to having sex (from your post i quoted above), the perpetrator would be committing some level of sexual assault/sexual abuse; therefore, the school the students attended would have an obligation to report the incident to the police.
Am I anywhere near correct?
HG
On October 21st, 2007 at 08:01 PM, D. Boon said:
Boon, you're just another socialist stooge ... yada yada yada ... self-loathing?
Ha! That's great. Where do we find these guys?
It seems to me that the public schools have become the street corner or back alley where kids can go to get all the things they don't want their parents to hear about.
This is an interesting comment. Do you think it is because of the school's existence that the kids can get these things, or are the "back alleys and street corners" coming into the schools from the streets? I think there is a serious distinction that needs to be made: are the schools the problem or is society the problem that is showing up at our school doors?
It's no wonder parents who are forced to pay thousands of dollars per year for local public schools still pay thousands more to send their children to a private school - which may be worse academically, but at least they will keep their kids away from the pushers.
You obviously don't have any idea what is going on in private schools these days. Money = drugs. Think about it.
On October 21st, 2007 at 08:07 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
HG, both from your and others posts the issue seems to have been missed. Also it seems that news stories have also not discussed it.
On October 21st, 2007 at 08:16 PM, prairie biker (not verified) said:
c'mon Boon. I gave you the facts that show Hillary's talking points to all be a lie. Refute them. Just try it.
On October 21st, 2007 at 08:51 PM, xian said:
I seriously can't understand why they provide seatbelts in cars. It's for all intents and purposes telling people, "GO! DRIVE YOUR CAR INTO THINGS!"
We are required by law to report abuse of children. I think that's a good thing.
We also do everything we can morally do to educate children about the consequences of sex so that they can make better decisions. For the longest time, we used methods that were backed by scientific research. Of course, now we have an administration that doesn't believe in science, so we have a much harder time doing our jobs.
If you honestly believe screaming "Don't you dare have sex! Don't do drugs!" is an effective way to encourage thoughtful choices by minors, your kid is probably out high having sex somewhere.
On October 21st, 2007 at 09:04 PM, History Guy said:
On October 21st, 2007 at 08:51 PM, xian said: "If you honestly believe screaming "Don't you dare have sex! Don't do drugs!" is an effective way to encourage thoughtful choices by minors, your kid is probably out high having sex somewhere."
Great quote Xian, great quote. This is precisely what I was trying to get at in one of my earlier comments.
Do you mind if I quote you in the future? I'll give you full credit :-)
HG
On October 21st, 2007 at 09:07 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
Xian, you could at least pick a comparison that makes sense, driving is something adults need to do and should wear seat belts, 11 year olds shouldn't have sex. There was a huge story recently about the phone calls made to Planned Parenthood from underage girls who said their overage boy friends had got them pregnant. Planned Parenthood was supposed to notify the proper authorities they not only didn't, they told the callers not to mention the age of their boy friends when they came in for their abortions.
My son is working.
Their were far fewer kids out getting high and having sex before you started your little experiment now we are suppose to accept 11 year olds having sex, but you can defend it if you want. I think we should try to fix the problems in society that allow it.
On October 21st, 2007 at 10:27 PM, Narc said:
Can I just point out a few facts to set things straight:
There are no "schools handing out birth control pills." It's a separate health clinic that operates inside a middle school. Clinics in high schools have been doing this for years.
It is not done without parental consent. Parents must sign a consent form for their child to be able to use the school.
Confidentiality is mandated by state law. The clinic has no discretion in this matter.
As run4cvrlib seems to be trying to make this sound as extreme a situation as possible I will specifically point out that there are no 11 year olds having sex at this school. So his comment that "we are suppose to accept 11 year olds having sex" is completely without basis. There are 500 students at the school. Five reported being sexually active. They were all 14 or 15 at the time. So there are no contraceptive forcing, dildo wielding, evil liberals after the 11 year olds.
Here is the article I used, from the America-hating, baby-eating New York Times.
On October 21st, 2007 at 10:49 PM, Narc said:
See, when I read stuff like that, my first question is why are we comparing adjusted gross incomes? The wealthy have a lot more access to wealth-hiding and income-minimizing techniques that the middle class and the poor just don't have access to. I'm curious as to what it would it look like if it was total income and not adjusted income?
From Fortune earlier this year:
Tax-cut cheerleaders, like the Wall Street Journal editorial page, focus exclusively on the income tax. And it's true, the top 5% of earners do pay about 58% of federal income taxes. But the income tax is only 47% of federal revenue today-something Republicans never want to discuss. When you throw other federal taxes into the mix (especially the regressive payroll tax disproportionately borne by average earners), you find that "all in," the top-earning 5% make about 30% of the income and pay about 40% of overall federal taxes. In other words, we have a modestly progressive system.
On October 21st, 2007 at 11:04 PM, xian said:
Their were far fewer kids out getting high and having sex before you started your little experiment now we are suppose to accept 11 year olds having sex, but you can defend it if you want. I think we should try to fix the problems in society that allow it.
I have no clue what you are talking about. There is no such "experiment". Your side already won. That's why we have mandated abstinence only programs and tons of kids with STDs.
My comparison did make sense. You just didn't understand it. It is not necessary for people to crash their car. However, it is worth having a safety belt in the off-hand chance that you drive your car into something.
Condoms have been shown to cause sex as much as wearing a seatbelt has been shown to cause accidents.
Anyone who thinks that depriving kids of protections and knowledge on sex prevents them from having sex has not been paying attention for the last million years.
Our ideal should be children who know enough about sex and are prepared enough for it that they can make good choices. This protects them from predatory adults. It protects them from opportunistic peers, and it raises the likelihood that they will remain abstinent.
Does this mean that there are no children who would be served by abstinence only programs? Of course not. It simply means that such a uniform program is likely to damage a large section of the population.
On October 21st, 2007 at 11:11 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Hey, how about you just stop trying to shove your values down my kids' pants...
That'd be nice. I promise to reciprocate.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 AM, ILvoter. (not verified) said:
Xian, I totally get it! My only question is when is your school going to provide a free needle exchange program for its students? Children are going to do drugs anyway, most of them are probably doing it right now, so why not give them a safe place to shoot up with safe needles that won't spread diesease? No parental consent should be needed since mom and dad's "Don't do drugs" message is SO ineffective. Actually, since so many street durgs are laced with things that the user doesn't even know about, perhaps the school should just provide the drugs to the students too? A pure and safe dosage on request. Xian, you're really on to something here!
On October 22nd, 2007 at 05:39 AM, xian said:
Good. I'm glad you get it. If research shows that needle exchange programs lower or do not affect the incidence of drug use and improve safety, they are a good plan.
Using research rather than just making up illogical arguments and forcing your values on to others--I can see why that's worthy of mockery.
Also, that wasn't your only question. You asked two more stupid questions after that.
There are already some schools that are pressuring students to take behavior modification drugs. I'm opposed to that. What are you doing on that issue? Moral outrage doesn't fix societal problems.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 07:35 AM, D. Boon said:
No parental consent should be needed since mom and dad's "Don't do drugs" message is SO ineffective.
While I am not comfortable with some of the implications inherent in putting birth control in a middle school, it is true that providing access to birth control lowers pregnancy and STD risk. Furthermore, I hardly think parents whose message is effective will see their kids in the line for the condoms or the pill. You can mock Xian all you want, but if you are doing a good job with your kid then most likely he or she will not need a needle exchange program or birth control. If you aren't then they might.
my first question is why are we comparing adjusted gross incomes?
We are comparing adjusted gross incomes because this is the same argument that has been rehashed over-and-over again. Folks like prairiebiker are not interested in having rational discussions about tax burdens. He wants to cherry-pick statistics, call you names, and then refuse to listen to any counter-arguments. It is a little worse than watching paint dry, but not as bad as having a tooth removed without anesthetic.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 07:54 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
When I was 14 all i could think about was sex. I didn't get any but it wasn't for lack of trying.
Most radicals like run4cvrlib either forget what it was like to be 14, or were just very abnormal.
You don't protect children by scaring and scolding, you protect them by teaching, something that eludes people like rub4cvrlib.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 08:16 AM, ILvoter. (not verified) said:
"Using research rather than just making up illogical arguments...I can see why that's worthy of mockery."
- You mean your seatbealt analogy? I agree, that was stupid. Your soapbox is getting smaller by the minute.
"There are already some schools that are pressuring students to take behavior modification drugs. I'm opposed to that."
- I oppose dispensing any drugs to students without parental consent, whether for behavior modification or contraception. You support dispening some drugs, based on your moral evaluation, which you believe is somehow better than the evaluation of parents. Maybe instead of calling you "teacher" they should call you "daddy".
On October 22nd, 2007 at 08:25 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Thanks for that screaming line Xian. i looked in the thread and couldn't find a single person who advocated screaming at their kids about sex. Maybe you have a link. Or perhaps you were just setting up a straw man.
But let me throw one back at you. If you really think convincing your kids about the moral propriety of an action can be achieved by lying about the motives or actions of others, you're probably a liberal.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 08:54 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
The question here is not whether or not hot 11 year olds should be getting action or whether they should be protected so their teacher doesn't knock them up. It's whether the 11 year old child's parents should have even the right to be notified of the steps the school is taking to protect their horny, sexually active 11 year old girl. We're not even discussing whether the parents should have the right to decide what drugs go into the child's body - that has already been taken over by the state. Now it's just down to should dad receive a letter from the school nurse that says, "Your daughter came in my office and asked for the pill. I had her get naked, felt around, checked her out, and I think that it's ok for her, so I wrote her a prescription, and the school pharmacist gave her 6 months worth of birth control pills. Just so you know." The idea of an informed, critically thinking 11 year old making adult decisions about sex is ridiculous - that's why legally they cannot give consent, no matter what they scored on their condom-cucumber test in health class. Eleven year olds on the pill having sex is like eleven year olds driving with a seat belt. You could argue that it's better than if they didn't wear a seat belt, but that's lowering the bar quite a bit. Believe it or not, children benefit from high expectations.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 09:01 AM, redstatewannabe said:
It is not done without parental consent. Parents must sign a consent form for their child to be able to use the school.
Confidentiality is mandated by state law. The clinic has no discretion in this matter
If confidentiality is a state law, then it should be changed. I don't want my 12 year old to have any secrets. I guess my kid would not be able to get a band-aid in that school, because I would never sign that consent form.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 09:35 AM, Glock21 said:
I actually bought into the idea of "no sex until marriage" when I was in high school. Part of my partial Apostolic Christian upbringing. Heck, our "sex ed" teacher in Junior High was an elder preacher at the local Apostolic Church. Got to see that sex meant horrifying pictures of disease, death, and a sure-fire way to end up in poverty as young unmarried parents.
Abstinence teaching worked for me!
Until I was 15 and very convincing woman convinced me otherwise. My parents/family did everything right. The school/church tried to put the fear of disease/babies/god/etc in my head. But I was a young naive idiot teenager in "love." Logic? Reason? Responsibility? With a teenager? Oh my. Teenagers can use logic. Can be reasoned with. Can be responsible. They just really suck at it off and on. Especially when sex is on the table.
So did any of that teaching, etc do any good? Sure it did. Teaching abstinence and why is not necessarily a bad thing. But avoiding the topics of contraceptives and their pros and cons and avoiding dispelling the various sexual disinformation that notoriously spreads among the young will only make matters worse. Even the good kids will screw up and make bad choices sometimes. The bad ones will still do whatever the hell they want (do you really want them breeding?). And the kids who just had horrible parents will likely make all sorts of screw ups and lousy choices. Is a school nurse with rubbers in her office going to make that problem worse? Better? Or have little effect outside of slowing the spread of STDs and perhaps stopping some teenage pregancies?
I didn't start wanting to have sex because Planned Parenthood was handing out free rubbers. Planned Parenthood was just a nice discrete resource once kids were already having sex. It's not like most kids were going to go to their parents for information on proper contraceptive usage once they were sexually active. A kid who walks into the nurse's office for rubbers is obviously already sexual active or is planning on becoming so soon. Would it be better that the kid avoid it because his parents will be notified? Would it be better if the kid doesn't have a resource for contraceptives? Would he be less motivated to have sex? Or just try to be "really careful" about it. It's been a while since high school now but if memory serves, nobody was ever less likely to have sex once the option was available and they decided to do it.
Now on the bright side it would give the school nurse an opportunity to intervene in a situation where the parents are almost always kept in the dark. A chance to warn, educate, and talk to a kid who might be getting in over their head. It would also provide an opportunity to intervene if there are signs of abuse. Obviously any criminal behavior that comes to light would have to be dealt with appropriately. This is where the needle exchange for kids analogy doesn't seem to fit. There's no real good option for that other than to ensure they get to a treatment center. I think it is safe to say that an 11 year old asking for such things would absolutely set off alarm bells and red flags.
As far as 12 year olds having secrets, the fact that they'd be asking a school nurse or planned parenthood due to the confidentiality agreement means that A) They have secrets that their parents are in the dark about. B) They intend to keep it that way. C) The nurse wouldn't even find out if there was no confidentiality and the situation would continue in secret without any chance of a responsible adult intervening.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 AM, IlliniPundit said:
"Boon, you're just another socialist stooge."
Unnecessary. Sorry it took me so long to catch it.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 AM, D. Boon said:
We're not even discussing whether the parents should have the right to decide what drugs go into the child's body - that has already been taken over by the state.
True dat. But I wonder if everyone who is against handing out the pill at a middle school is also against mandated vaccinations? We already know that shooting kids full of diseases to try to help them not contract the same diseases later is medically risky and often completely useless. Yet the AMA and the medical establishment continue to force these shots on our children. I actually know a couple who refused the Vitamin K shots for their newborn at Carle and quickly received a visit from DCFS in their hospital room. So much for medical choice.
The only difference I see between the issues is that the person receiving the the pill is actually asking for it. It is not being forced on them by DCFS, the hospital's legal team, or a culture that refuses to question why the Hell a newborn needs five different shots before the age of two days.
Interesting topic.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 AM, akibare said:
Glock21 says: "As far as 12 year olds having secrets, the fact that they'd be asking a school nurse or planned parenthood due to the confidentiality agreement means that A) They have secrets that their parents are in the dark about. B) They intend to keep it that way. C) The nurse wouldn't even find out if there was no confidentiality and the situation would continue in secret without any chance of a responsible adult intervening."
That pretty much sums up what I was going to say. Like it or not, there ARE a lot of kids who will not seek any advice at all if there is any hint that their parents will be notified. Everyone wants to think that of course THEIR kids won't be that way - if that's truly the case, more power to you, but then your kids are not the ones these programs are targetting.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 10:17 AM, redstatewannabe said:
the confidentiality law puts the school/clinic in between the kids and the parents - and endorses the situation at the same time. I don't like it. The school is supposed to be helping me as a parent - not replacing me.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 10:19 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
"That pretty much sums up what I was going to say. Like it or not, there ARE a lot of kids who will not seek any advice at all if there is any hint that their parents will be notified. Everyone wants to think that of course THEIR kids won't be that way - if that's truly the case, more power to you, but then your kids are not the ones these programs are targetting."
Ok, it's fine that's what you believe, but is it right to then to have the government create an avenue for kids to get prescription drugs without their parents knowledge? You may believe that some kids might be worse off if they didn't have access to the pills, but what about the kids who might be better off if their parents knew? Is there no end to what the government can do to undermine parents' authority as long as enough other people believe that it's good for the kids? We've gone from "it takes a village" to "The village WILL raise your child, whether you like it or not."
On October 22nd, 2007 at 10:54 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
I was so threatened about vaccines. For instance, I refused the Hep B for my child... the risk factor is 0 for a newborn with normal parents. They gave us endless crap about it. They finally threatened DCFS over that and other stuff... I explained the legal definition of extortion, they backed off.
Some mandated vaccines make sense... some should be good options... others are just silly. I can't think of a really good case why you need to pump a newborn up with this stuff, especially fresh out of the NICU.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 11:14 AM, xian said:
If confidentiality is a state law, then it should be changed. I don't want my 12 year old to have any secrets. I guess my kid would not be able to get a band-aid in that school, because I would never sign that consent form.
I disagree entirely, but I want to commend you for taking a thoughtful position without resorting to disgusting, thinly veined connotation that exists in much of the thread.
I was especially nauseated by this one that describes a routine physical examination as:
"Your daughter came in my office and asked for the pill. I had her get naked, felt around, checked her out, and I think that it's ok for her, so I wrote her a prescription, and the school pharmacist gave her 6 months worth of birth control pills. Just so you know."
But there's a lot to choose from in this thread.
Of course, I agree entirely with the above argument about confidentiality reducing adolescent secrets. It's funny, because it's been shown that just having one trusted adult in a child's life whom the child can share with without ulterior motives substantially reduces the likelihood of molestation at the hands of an adult. Basically, positive adult attention is necessary for child development, and if they don't get it somewhere, they'll look for it in all the wrong places.
If I was half the posters in this thread, I'd just call you all wannbe child molesters, but that's not really my style. So I'll just appeal to the fact, that deep down I'm sure you are all good folks who want what's best for all chlidren, even those who might be beaten to death by their parents if they were completely honest with them.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 11:19 AM, prairie biker (not verified) said:
my first question is why are we comparing adjusted gross incomes?
We are comparing adjusted gross incomes because this is the same argument that has been rehashed over-and-over again. Folks like prairiebiker are not interested in having rational discussions about tax burdens. He wants to cherry-pick statistics, call you names, and then refuse to listen to any counter-arguments.
A better question would be, Why wouldn't we use AGI? It is, after all, your taxable income before the standard deductions.
Boon - You haven't made any counter-arguments. I'm still waiting. I am interested in having a rational discussion, but you haven't offered one yet. You posted Hillary's pack of lies and then ran away except to snipe from the fringes.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 AM, akibare said:
Anon 10:19 asks: "Ok, it's fine that's what you believe, but is it right to then to have the government create an avenue for kids to get prescription drugs without their parents knowledge? You may believe that some kids might be worse off if they didn't have access to the pills, but what about the kids who might be better off if their parents knew?"
You're missing the point. If your kid has a good relationship with you, your kid will talk to you about important issues of this nature without getting the school nurse involved. It's just easier anyway, not to mention more private.
If your kid does NOT have a good relationship with you, or has decided to cut you out of important decisions in his/her life for whatever reason (and yes, this does happen, and it's not always noticeable to the parent) and really does not want you finding out about these decisions, then having the school nurse mandated to report the questions/prescriptions to the parent only ensures that your kid won't ever go to the school nurse, nothing more than that. The kid will likely continue the crazy behavior, only without any sort of protection (yeah, we know a condom/pill doesn't solve all the issues by any means, but having one is better than not), or any actual educated advice. It's not just birth control they're handing out. It's advice and counselling too.
Kids are quite adept at clinging to any shred of superstition they think will pull them through. If they just hope hard enough, the odds won't strike THEM down, and because they're worried they'll happily put trust in whatever old wives' tales their friends come up that sound like a prophylactic, because they WANT to believe. They'll try to get their friends to buy them stuff.
Face it, you can't force your kid to disclose stuff if the relationship is already broken. The trick is trying to keep your kid talking to you and not afraid of telling you stuff BEFORE the fecal matter hits the whirling metal blades.
If your kid respects your authority, you do not have a problem. These programs aren't FOR the kids who will talk to their parents. These programs are about giving the kids who won't talk about this stuff with their parents on pain of death (real, or merely imagined) a place to go. Cutting the nurse off doesn't mean the kid will give up and talk to the parents, it means the kid won't talk to anyone except POSSIBLY some similarly uninformed friends.
Ideally some of the "talks" going on with the nurse (or whomever) will be of a counseling sort, so that YES the nurse too can try and tell the kids that hey, maybe you're not going down the best path. There are emotional pitfalls, and good reasons to not be having sex so early, sure, many people are pressured in. Ideally the nurse will try and convince the KIDS that really, they should talk to their parents, or to another sympathetic known adult - but by letting that be advice, and leaving it to the kid to do the telling (while the nurse keeps tabs), the paranoid kid is at least willing to seek out some help. It's more "the village is stepping in as a last resort because for whatever reason the link between you and the kid isn't working."
Even reading the original article I just don't see this as a program where the nurse will merely say "yeah, good for you! Here have some birth control" to an 12 year old without digging in quite a bit as to why they want it - privately. I don't think this is an issue of Teh Evil Gubmint Skools trying to force kids to have sex or encourage promiscuity. Once the 12 year old comes into the office, there will be some discussions.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
The school doctor should give the 11 year old girl a pelvic exam if she is having sex. If that's unpleasant for some to think about, that's too bad. A routine physical examination is not sufficient for prescribing the pill. Especially to an 11 year old who you know is not in a committed relationship or marriage.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 AM, akibare said:
Not to mention, I don't think it's all that easy for a kid to go to the school nurse and up and ask for birth control either, PARTICULARLY girls. I just don't see this opening some magic free-for-all where all the 12 year olds are going to up and say "woo hoo! Free birth control! Sweet! Now we can get it on and hump like rabbits!"
On October 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 AM, Narc said:
Ok, it's fine that's what you believe, but is it right to then to have the government create an avenue for kids to get prescription drugs without their parents knowledge?
OK, say it wasn't birth control pills at all, but condoms. A simple device, available over the counter. They might need some quick counseling on how to use them properly because improper use is the main reason they fail. Frankly, I think they're a better choice anyway, since they actually protect the health of the individuals involved rather than preventing pregnancy. Would your objections go away if it was condoms being provided?
On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 PM, D. Boon said:
You posted Hillary's pack of lies and then ran away except to snipe from the fringes.
So take it up with Hillary. The point of my comment was just to mention that I admire her speech and I like her focus on issues that have been neglected under the conservative rule of the Bush Administration. The point was not start a tit-for-tat on tax burdens in America. Let me tell you the outcome of that debate right now: we agree to disagree, or worse.
Not interested. Have a good day!
On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 PM, Narc said:
the confidentiality law puts the school/clinic in between the kids and the parents - and endorses the situation at the same time. I don't like it. The school is supposed to be helping me as a parent - not replacing me.
I'm not saying that's an invalid point. But is there no point where a minor has any medical privacy rights? Even at 17.9 years old? In Maine, a minor can legally consent to sex at 16.
There was a case discussed over at Respectful Insolence about a 17 year old minor with cancer. This was a reemergence of a cancer he had when he was much younger. Then, his parents wanted to try some woo-woo ineffective treatment with Vitamin C and powdered goat pelvis or something. The doctors sued to get the kid real chemo. Unfortunately, the cancer came back when he was 17, and this time the parents sued so they could use the naturopathic remedy. There was a lengthly discussion over there about how the wishes of older teens need to be taken into account when deciding medical treatment and to what degree and at what age.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:10 PM, redstatewannabe said:
that might come down to "tough cases make bad law". I am just bothered when the rights of parents to raise their kids is being challenged by the State.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 PM, prairie biker (not verified) said:
"So take it up with Hillary. The point of my comment was just to mention that I admire her speech ... "
No Boon, I'll take it up with you. I already know Hillary is a power-hungry , lying, communist loser. But I'm glad that you admire her lies. That tells everyone here exactly what kind of person you are. I won't feel the need to ever address you again, unless someone else decides to take you seriously and they need some edumacation.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:50 PM, Glock21 said:
What part violates the "rights of parents"? A kid talking to an adult about problems in confidence? A kid getting contraceptive products from a nurse instead of a store? Does the clerk at Walgreens have an obligation to notify the parents if the kid buys rubbers in order to avoid violating the "rights of parents?" Does a shrink have to notify the parents that their kid became sexually active if it violates no laws and if such information was revealed in confidence during a therapy session?
How is the school replacing the parent? By the parent not developing a trusting relationship with that kid? Sounds more like a parent having problems with being a parent. Not the schools trying to replace them in any way. If anything it is the kids trying to replace their parents. How is that the school's fault?
Maybe the reason why the kid is scared to talk to the parents is because the parents are abusive... and the kid doesn't want to get beat/raped by mom or dad for their behavior. Given that the situation is due to a problem in parenting is it far fetched that kids should have an alternative available for dealing with personal problems of such a sensitive nature? Who knows, maybe the nurse will discover the reason that some of these kids who are sexually active at such a young age is due to sexual abuse by family members and it can help parents get the dirty scmucks thrown in prison for it.
No Boon, I'll take it up with you. I already know Hillary is a power-hungry , lying, communist loser. But I'm glad that you admire her lies. That tells everyone here exactly what kind of person you are. I won't feel the need to ever address you again, unless someone else decides to take you seriously and they need some edumacation.
Yep. Just as I figured – WAY too angry to have a rational discussion.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 01:02 PM, ILvoter. (not verified) said:
"I'm sure you are all good folks who want what's best for all children, even those who might be beaten to death by their parents if they were completely honest with them."
- Exactly, Xian! Schools should be providing prescription drugs, recreational drugs, and heck, even abortions for middle school children and all without parental consent. After all, a few parents might be dangerous if they knew what their children were up to, so schools must therefore replace all parents. Big Brother becomes Big Daddy!
On October 22nd, 2007 at 02:12 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
prariebiker, you are a troll.
Hillary is of course power hungry, that's why she's running for President. It is obvious that any president, or any other elected "leader" of any organization is "power hungry".
She might be a liar, but everyone is, that's why "Thou slat not bear false witness" is one of the biggies, if people didn't do it, we wouldn't have to have had that big reminder etched in stone next to the burning bush, if you get my drift.
Communist. No, she's a liberal. Communists are reactionaries, not progressives. A quick scan of history will prove this, if you even bother, instead of shooting from the hip.
Loser? I thought she was an elected Senator from one of our most populous states. What have you ever been elected to?
On October 22nd, 2007 at 03:12 PM, justkem said:
Glock,
<< By the parent not developing a trusting relationship with that kid? Sounds more like a parent having problems with being a parent. If anything it is the kids trying to replace their parents. How is that the school's fault? >>
We looked over the terms and conditions of parenthood on our daughter's birth certificate (you need one of those fancy red decoder thingys to read over them), and it said that somewhere around the age of 13 or 14, she is likely to go nuts under the influence of hormones and assume that we are completely clueless about everything worth knowing about. Leaving the doors of communication wide open, fostering a close relationship, and respecting and supporting her as she explores the world are good preventative measures, but they certainly don't gurarantee that she will do the right thing when the opportunity to make decisions that have Grave Consequences comes around.
If, for whatever reason, she feels she can't trust us, I at least want her to know that there are other adults that she can turn to. Ones who won't rat her out. The wider her support network in this crazy, messed up world we live in, the happier I am.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 03:35 PM, redstatewannabe said:
If, for whatever reason, she feels she can't trust us, I at least want her to know that there are other adults that she can turn to. Ones who won't rat her out.
I would like my child to have a similar network - but one that I know would rat him/her out if they thought it was important that I know. A school nurse, given a legal gag order, would not be that person.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 04:36 PM, D. Boon said:
If, for whatever reason, she feels she can't trust us, I at least want her to know that there are other adults that she can turn to. Ones who won't rat her out. The wider her support network in this crazy, messed up world we live in, the happier I am.
vs...
I would like my child to have a similar network - but one that I know would rat him/her out if they thought it was important that I know. A school nurse, given a legal gag order, would not be that person.
Wow. Great issue. It is important to have a wider network with more support, no doubt. On the other hand as a parent I agree that I hardly want my child starting birth control without my knowledge. God forbid if she ever became pregnant and could have an abortion without me even having a clue?
Tough call but, even though I am supposed to be a liberal, I think I go with RSW on this one. If a kid needs birth control I think it should be a family decision - at least a grandmother, aunt, someone in the family. I just don't like taking this decision out of the hands of family. It just seems wrong.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 04:50 PM, xian said:
But trolling aside, that's where my earlier point comes in. This is a system that has to fit all kids. Not just kids who won't be attacked or killed if their parents find out. I'm not exaggerating either.
As for recreational drugs, there's only one person in the thread who appears to have an affection for them, and that's the person who keeps randomly interjecting it into the conversation.
Of course, every child does better if they have someone supportive within their family with whom to discuss these issues with. But if wishes were fishes...
Sometimes there just isn't an auntie or grandmother or uncle or cousin who can help on these things. That's when a caring, trained professional can really help the situation. Now, it's fun to pull out examples of apathy and incompetence (not to be confused with incontinence), but those don't speak to the merit of the policy. Any provision or policy is a failure when you assume negative motives or lack of ability to those applying it.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 05:05 PM, Glock21 said:
"If a kid needs birth control I think it should be a family decision - at least a grandmother, aunt, someone in the family. I just don't like taking this decision out of the hands of family. It just seems wrong."
The decision isn't being taken out of the hands of the family by anyone except the kid. Kids can get contraceptives elsewhere if they so choose. The decision isn't in the hands of the school... it's in the hands of the kids, whose parents apparently don't have enough control over their behavior to decide for them. To be fair to parents, it's probably not their fault in most situations.
How is this violating "parental rights" or removing any parental power again? Hard for something to be a family decision if the kid intentionally ensures his family knows nothing about it.
Honestly, I understand the other side of the debate perfectly and I think you have very legitimate points. Yes, kids will be kids and any chance we have to protect them from their mistakes we should take. On the other hand, as a parent, I don't want to find out from my kid "Oh, I've been on the pill since 6th grade. I get them from the school nurse."
Yuk! Plus, the pill is serious medicine that can really *F* a kid's system up if taken at an early age. I assume my kid will know that (her mom is a nurse) but still ... there is just something about it that doesn't sit right.
I don't think it is an easy issue, and I really do understand the other side. I just think it might be a step too far. Just my two cents, that's all.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 05:24 PM, Dan Fielding said:
"She might be a liar, but everyone is,"
That ought to be her campaign slogan.
"Loser? I thought she was an elected Senator from one of our most populous states. What have you ever been elected to?"
The notion anyone has to be in high office to have the right to criticize anyone in high office is asinine. Although I like the idea George W. Bush cannot be a loser because he was twice elected Governor from one of our most populous states.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 05:37 PM, Glock21 said:
Boon... I agree that the pill shouldn't be taken without proper medical precautions, and I agree the age range here (as opposed to an older teenager) is pretty disturbing. I'm not even sure if a doctor would prescribe it to someone that young honestly. But as far as other non-prescription contraceptives that are available at any drug store, gas station, Planned Parenthood, friends, etc without penalty... well if the kids aren't telling the parents, they don't need the school nurse to dish them out if the kids know the nurses are obligated to rat if you ask. They'll avoid them like the plague, and have sex anyways, ironically putting them in greater danger of contracting a plague.
The key reason to have confidentiality is to ensure that people who need help but fear others finding out will still seek help instead of dealing, probably improperly, with the issues on their own. Social conservatives seem to look at this issue as kids having sex or not having sex... with the schools/contraceptives merely enabling bad behavior. Social liberals tend to look at bad behavior that kids will either seek help for or not seek help for... with parents/conservatives merely helping to keep the problems a secret that will only make things worse.
I just don't see these policies as enabling bad behavior as the behavior is already there if they are asking for help about it. I do however see the break in confidentiality as helping to keep these behaviors in the dark and potentially causing the kids greater harm.
If anything a kid carrying around condoms or birth control pills, etc will be caught a lot sooner by the parent than one who has unprotected sex in order to keep the secret. Except for the ones that get knocked up or get extremely sick, of course.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 05:43 PM, redstatewannabe said:
Social conservatives seem to look at this issue as kids having sex or not having sex... with the schools/contraceptives merely enabling bad behavior.
I think social conservatives see the issue as the school endorsing the behavior, not just enabling it. The school has a special status in a students life, way higher than Planned Parenthood, the gas station, or Walgreens.
On October 22nd, 2007 at 05:50 PM, Glock21 said:
RSW... I don't see it that way. endorse: to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially: to express support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral candidate> b: to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation <shoes endorsed by a pro basketball player>
On October 22nd, 2007 at 07:31 PM, redstatewannabe said:
Well, then we disagree on this one. Scary - because I am on the side of D. Boon. :-)
On October 22nd, 2007 at 08:16 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"Scary - because I am on the side of D. Boon."
So, does that make you a socialist stooge, too? :-)
On a related note, I just did a Google image search on "3 stooges" and "socialist," and at the bottom of page 7 there was a picture of Scott Tapley from a December, 2005 IP thread about Rex deciding to run against Naomi. (I am not making this up.) Apparently both words appear somewhere in that lengthy thread, but why Google chose Scott's picture is a mystery to me...
On October 22nd, 2007 at 09:15 PM, xian said:
I just don't understand the leap to "endorse": Are you endorsing setting fires by handing out fire extiguishers? Are you endorsing sickliness by having hospitals? Does carrying an umbrella constitute an endorsement of rain?
On October 22nd, 2007 at 10:41 PM, Narc said:
...the confidentiality law puts the school/clinic in between the kids and the parents - and endorses the situation at the same time.
Like others here, I don't get the leap to the "endorsment" of teenage sex. A lot of the discussion here has focused on the prevention of unwanted pregnancy via the Pill, but need I remind everyone that there are STDs out there that can kill you? I've heard from a number of sources that it's a good idea that a teenager have an emergency word that they can call and use for a ride home if they get into a stupid situation, no questions asked. No, teenagers shouldn't be going to parties and drinking, but sometimes they do screw up, and they do get drunk. I hope we can all agree that the most important thing is that they get home safely and not do something even stupider like drive home drunk so as not to get into trouble with their parents.
I found out that a friend of mine all through college had been HIV positive. He had contracted it in high school, perhaps earlier. This wasn't some inner city kid, either, but a pretty normal looking kid from South Carolina from a good family. By about two years after we graduated, he was dead. There are worse fates in this world that losing your virginity early.
What I am saying is I have a dear, sweet, funny friend -- 24 years old, not very much older than the kids we're talking about here -- and he came to me this week and asked me to help plan his funeral because he's dying.....from AIDS -- something that he got before he even knew what it was or how to prevent it. I've been thinking about his mother this week, and what she might give for the opportunity that I have tonight -- that we all still have here tonight -- because now we know how to prevent AIDS. And I think it really shouldn't matter what your personal views are on birth control, because we're not just talking about preventing births anymore. We're talking about preventing deaths.... More important than what any civic leaders, PTA, or Board of Education thinks about teenagers having sex, or any immoral act that my daughter or your son might engage in... the bottom line is I don't think they should have to die for it.
That quote is from a TV show from 1987. I can't believe we've still having the same discussion.
On October 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 AM, justkem said:
Glock:
<< Except for the ones that get knocked up or get extremely sick, of course. >>
Brutal. But yeah, that's pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell. There's way more at stake here than parents' concerns about trust and control. In the end, it's very much a question of life or death for these kids.
Narc:
<< There are worse fates in this world that losing your virginity early. >>
Indeed. Thanks for sharing a painful memory in the hopes that it might provide a bit of perspective.
In an ideal world, I would trust the parents to do their jobs, and all would be well with the world. I don't trust the parents because they are patently not always doing their jobs. My daughter might just fall for one of their sons or daughters. Loving parents don't always get the message across because kids don't always listen... even the good ones who are bright and sharp and not too terribly emotionally damaged. It failure happens from time to time under the best of condition because the biological soup is too overwhelming, what can we say about the kids who grow up in less than ideal circumstances?
More avenues for teaching our children how to avoid ruining their lives (and, lets not forget, the lives of others whom they might come into contact with) are a very good thing.
I would like to address the "endorsement" issue. I don't think this is the same thing as fire extinguishers. There is a not-so-subtle message that is sent to kids when we introduce anything into the school environment. Pepsi machines mean more than a way to fund the student council. Birth control in the nurse's office at a middle school means more than a fire extinguisher on the wall. It may just mean "we know this is going on and we want to help protect you". But it could also mean "this is normal behavior". There is a big difference there.
Secondly, I don't think the moral equation is going to be arguable much further. Some think it is wrong, some have no problem with it. Fair enough, I doubt any minds will be changed on that one. But what about the medical angle? Oral contraceptives have been linked to various forms of cancer and heart disease in women, ESPECIALLY when started at an early age and continued for a long stretch of time. There are real risks involved in allowing a young woman to start the pill at an early age.
I bring this up because I believe this should be a family decision. Neither my wife or I want our daughter to take the pill. It is harmful to the system overall and it carries too many risks. It is crude, barbaric science designed (imo) for convenience over health. We also don't want her having pre-marital sex (yes, a bunch of simpletons we are). Now we may not be able to control the sex part beyond our nurturing and our prayers, but I would sure as hell hope I would be able to control what medications go into my daughter's body when she is only 11, 12 or 13 years old. THIS is the crucial point for me – systems like this take autonomy away from the parents and the family and turn it over to the state or, more specifically, the medical establishment, who I trust about as far as I can throw.
And frankly, the argument that poor kids in the cities are going to be shot if they come home pregnant is overly dramatic, classist and borderline racist. I have no doubt that there are isolated incidents where this happens, but anyone who has worked with or studied the family structure of the poor knows that family, as crude as it may be, is the core value for poor youth. Poor families are much more likely to "rally around" (to whatever extent that can be done) a pregnant girl instead of throwing tantrums and demanding abortions (which you are more likely to find in middle and especially upper class households).
On October 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 AM, xian said:
And frankly, the argument that poor kids in the cities are going to be shot if they come home pregnant is overly dramatic, classist and borderline racist. I have no doubt that there are isolated incidents where this happens, but anyone who has worked with or studied the family structure of the poor knows that family, as crude as it may be, is the core value for poor youth. Poor families are much more likely to "rally around" (to whatever extent that can be done) a pregnant girl instead of throwing tantrums and demanding abortions (which you are more likely to find in middle and especially upper class households).
I'm sorry that my daily life is overly dramatic, classist and borderline racist.
I don't think this is the same thing as fire extinguishers. There is a not-so-subtle message that is sent to kids when we introduce anything into the school environment.
Ok, so you think it's the same as fire extinguishers in the school enviroment.
We also don't want her having pre-marital sex (yes, a bunch of simpletons we are).
Don't be a dick.
THIS is the crucial point for me – systems like this take autonomy away from the parents and the family and turn it over to the state or, more specifically, the medical establishment, who I trust about as far as I can throw.
This is the rhetoric that is bothering me. I disagree with, but understand your argument that parental decision-making should take precendent over child-decision making in these circumstances. What I don't understand the need to cast those of us who spend most of our lives parenting those children who do not have the family structures you describe (I'm sorry if that sounds racist, but I'm not talking race--you are) as crazy pill pushing abortionist. I just spent fifteen minutes of homeroom discussing with the students personal decisions to avoid drugs. It's a common theme. So are good decisions in one's sex life. If you are presumptuous to make assumptions about my sexual decisions in the same way you have in other areas of my life, I suppose I'll share that with you as well.
One thing I notice is that for a lot of you, this is about YOUR kid. For me, I feel the same way no matter whose kid it is. But I would suggest some empathy for students from different family situations.
On October 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 AM, redstatewannabe said:
What I don't understand the need to cast those of us who spend most of our lives parenting those children who do not have the family structures you describe (I'm sorry if that sounds racist, but I'm not talking race--you are) as crazy pill pushing abortionist.
I think that comes from the secrecy.
Serious question - Would you feel better as a teacher if you had the option to tell, or were required to keep all secrets?
On October 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 AM, xian said:
As an individual, I DO have the option to tell. As an impartial outside observer, I understand why the confidentiality guarantee is necessary. But yeah, it would be nice if I could tell within the law.
On October 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 PM, D. Boon said:
This is the rhetoric that is bothering me. [...] What I don't understand the need to cast those of us who spend most of our lives parenting those children who do not have the family structures you describe (I'm sorry if that sounds racist, but I'm not talking race--you are) as crazy pill pushing abortionist.
I don't think I did that and if I sent that message it was a mistake on my part. You are right that there are large groups of kids who are at-risk youth and who need services. No one is questioning that. My concern is that opening the door to dangerous medications without parental consent at this early of an age is taking more power out of the hands of parents.
Essentially the argument seems to boil down to this: the benefit to giving the at-risk youth of America contraceptives in middle school without parental permission outweighs the cost of taking away the right of parents to monitor what goes in and out of their young, developing children's bodies.
I understand and sympathize with your position more than you know. But I am also a parent who does not want the government giving my kid permission to take medications behind my back. Is that personal, or just about MY kid? Sure. Are there millions of other parents who feel the same way? I guarantee it.
As I said, this is a tough issue. But at the end of the day I don't see the benefit to society by letting the unfortunate circumstances of at-risk youth dictate the legality of distributing dangerous medications to pre-teens without parental consent. And believe me, the conversations you are having with your kids about drugs and sex are the same conversations that are or should be happening in all the schools across America. Drugs, sex and unwanted pregnancies are not confined to the inner-cities by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, white middle class girls are more likely to have abortions than poor, minority girls.
On October 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 PM, redstatewannabe said:
And if the school nurse could tell, within the law, then parents could develop a relationship with that nurse. Then, that nurse could be a confidant for the child, could help steer the child, and could also go to the parents if necessary.
I've often thought about developing a relationship with the school nurse. That's the stuff dreams are made of.
On October 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 PM, Narc said:
I would like to address the "endorsement" issue. I don't think this is the same thing as fire extinguishers. There is a not-so-subtle message that is sent to kids when we introduce anything into the school environment.
That should be fairly easy to detect, then. Look at the effect of birth control availability on teenage sex. Pretty much all of the research I'm aware of suggests that it has no effect. Look at abstinence-only education. It does delay the onset of sexual activity, but I think it's something like six months to a year, on average. STD rates were about the same or higher in the abstinence-only group.
Oral contraceptives have been linked to various forms of cancer and heart disease in women...
I don't really keep track of these things, but I'm really going to have to have evidence more convincing than a website dedicated to vague drug industry conspiracy theories and natural, unproven treatments* to find that claim credible.
* Note: These treatments have not been evaluated by the FDA and are not intended to treat or cure any disease, even though we all know that's exactly what they are intended to do.
On October 23rd, 2007 at 01:26 PM, D. Boon said:
Why don't you research Dr. Mercola before you diss his site? A cursory search of google with "birth control cancer" will bring up more sites than you can count. But remember, sites like WebMD (which will tell you the evidence is "mixed") are usually funded by Big Pharm which makes billions off oral contraceptives every year. If you're going to be skeptical of Mercola, be skeptical of Big Pharm as well, eh?
I would really like to see some of these studies that show the prevalence of The Pill has not led to increased sexual activity at a young age. I have no qualms about saying abstinence only education is probably a not effective, but I've head the opposite about the pill. Genuinely interested!
On October 23rd, 2007 at 04:03 PM, Anonymous Parent whose girls aren't knocked up (not verified) said:
If your pre-teen or early teen kid is having sex, you are by definition a crappy parent. If little Susie can't keep her legs together, it's your fault, as much as or more than hers, or the boy who convinces her that you (the parent) are full of crap and he (the boy, doing what boys do) is the right way.
Preventing unwanted teen pregnancies or reducing or eliminating the spread of disease is a noble goal that all of society should engage in.
Schools can help. Nurses can help. Live with it.
On October 23rd, 2007 at 05:53 PM, justkem said:
Sorry, anonymous parent, but I was still having sex at 13 without my parents' knowledge, and they were good solid people who were trying to keep that sort of thing from happening. While they did put that relationship on the skids immediately by grounding me for about six months, the simple fact is that I matured early, and I was clever about getting out of the home. My parents trusted me, and I abused their trust pretty horribly. It happens, even in good families with lots of love and education. Hormones. Gotta love em.
And while I didn't get pregnant, I could easily have. Agreed on the bits about all of society working to reduce unwanted pregnancies and prevent the spread of disease.
On October 23rd, 2007 at 08:52 PM, Anonymous Parent ... (not verified) said:
Getting laid at 13 huh? Shame on you, and shame on your parents. "Good solid people" are more aware of their children and don't let them be "clever". At the very least, they notice changes, signs, obvious signs. It's not just, "Bye, Daddy, I'm going to Mary's" when it's really Mark's, it's knowing what's up when you come back, at the dinner table, during activities, etc. The only parents who are blind to what their children are doing are those who do not see, through ignorance, inattention, or both. "Good solid" people pay attention to what's going on, and children are not so clever that any reasonable parent can't figure it out right away.
I'm glad you came out ok. Since you did come out ok, maybe you would condone it for others, such as your own daughters and their lovable teenie hormones.
But I doubt it.
On October 23rd, 2007 at 09:08 PM, ThoughtPolice said:
Does anyone else find humor in the "(not verified)" anonymous tag added to the most recent poster's name?
On October 23rd, 2007 at 09:45 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"Does anyone else find humor in the "(not verified)" anonymous tag added to the most recent poster's name?"
The very first thing that ran through my mind, as well. The phrase "Anonymous Parent whose girls aren't knocked up (not verified)" is just too ironic for words.
On October 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 PM, Narc said:
Why don't you research Dr. Mercola before you diss his site?
OK, after doing a little research on this guy, I'm now convinced he's no longer a silly alt-med practitioner but a full-fledged quack. He's into energy healing, homeopathy, enemas to clean your colon of unspecified "toxins", anti-flouridation, and even anti-cellphone hysteria. About the only quack therapies this guy's website isn't pushing are psychic surgery and quantum DNA reprogramming. I just read the page for
News Gazette poll question, I know they are asking the question because some schools in Maine are giving 11 yearolds birth control pills. I wonder what types of birth control are distributed in Champaign Schools?
----Should school districts be allowed to distribute birth control pills to middle school students (ages 11-13)?----
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/
the market is tanking today, and oil is hovering around $90 per barrell. Is the US still buying for the strategic oil reserve?
Here is the schedule RSW. http://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html
Am I reading that right - we are buyers, and scheduled to buy more?
I'd love to hear your insights into this, and the current price spike.
I know it is the weekend, the Big Game, the beautiful weather, etc. but I just thought I would share something political. I have been a Obama fan for quite a while and tend to lean to the Left on most issues. I haven't like Hillary Clinton's approach to the campaign so far.
But I just read this speech:
Rebuilding the Middle Class
and I think I am starting to change my mind. If you've got the time, I would suggest reading it. Some parts are better than others and yes, she spends quite a bit of time dissing Bush and propping Bill. But still, it is good. The focus on labor unions, the middle class, tax rate adjustments, manufacturing jobs and economic inequality are really, really good. It has been too long since we had someone discuss the middle class in this country.
Oh, and she wants to spend a LOT of money on developing alternative energy sources. She gets that this is a huge economic opportunity.
I still don't know what I think of the woman and there is little doubt that Bill has a hand in some of these policies, but my goodness ... she does seem to get it.
Boon, Are you even old enough to remember the Clinton years?
On October 20th, 2007 at 11:11 AM, D. Boon said: "I know it is the weekend, the Big Game, the beautiful weather, etc. but I just thought I would share something political. I have been a Obama fan for quite a while and tend to lean to the Left on most issues. I haven't like Hillary Clinton's approach to the campaign so far. But I just read this speech: Rebuilding the Middle Class and I think I am starting to change my mind. If you've got the time, I would suggest reading it. Some parts are better than others and yes, she spends quite a bit of time dissing Bush and propping Bill. But still, it is good. The focus on labor unions, the middle class, tax rate adjustments, manufacturing jobs and economic inequality are really, really good. It has been too long since we had someone discuss the middle class in this country. Oh, and she wants to spend a LOT of money on developing alternative energy sources. She gets that this is a huge economic opportunity. I still don't know what I think of the woman and there is little doubt that Bill has a hand in some of these policies, but my goodness ... she does seem to get it."
To mirror D. Boon, I tend to lean right on most issues (most, not all...). I did enjoy hearing something concrete from a candidate about alternative energy sources, while frowning over her section on labor unions and the Employee Free Choice Act. To summarize the Employee Free Choice Act, "When a majority of employees votes to form a union by signing authorization cards, and those authorization cards are validated by the federal government, the employer will be legally required to recognize and bargain with the workers’ union." (AFL&CIO website) This would essentially make irrelevant the previous system of starting or forming a union, namely through the secret ballot. To paraphrase George Will, if a secret ballot is good enough for Sen. Clinton (for her election to the Senate and her goal of President), why is it suddenly not good enough for unions?
I have one other question after reading Sen. Clinton's speech. Her plan to encourage saving for retirement is this: Clinton said she wants to create "American Retirement Accounts" in which each family could put up to $5,000 annually in a 401(k) plan. The federal government would provide a tax cut to match the first $1,000 for any household that brings in less than $60,000 a year and 50 percent of the first $1,000 for those that make $60,000-$100,000." She advocates this plan as another way of saving for retirement, in addition to an individuals Social Security funds. I guess I just don't get the philosophical difference between offering this new plan, versus President Bush's (now long dead) plan for privatising a portion of an individual's Social Security funds directly. (One aside: What happens if a couple divorces? Who gets the funds? 50/50 split, split based on alimony payments, what?)
My biggest problem with Sen. Clinton's speech is her section on mortgage's and the well-documented crisis. In her speech, she advocates three different proposals. In reverse order, they are the Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act, the Realizing the Dream Program, and Save Our Homes Program. My concern, initially, is with the last one. As I wrote back in September on another thread, "why is it the government's responsibility to rescue lending institutions...[and] borrowers who willfully agreed" to the exchange? No one posted any counter or answer to my question, so I'll ask it again. Why should the government rescue lenders or borrowers caught up in this self-made crisis? If one party committed fraud, lied to the other party, committed an illegal or unethical act, then punish those responsible and aid the victims; otherwise, don't use my tax dollars as a way of dealing with the mortgage crisis. Like I said earlier, unless one party held a gun to the other's head, and forced them to sign the lending agreement, both parties willfully agreed to the exchange.
Thanks for reading my ramblings all, and Go Illini!!!
HG
Perhaps to prevent widespread panic and despair, and to keep the economy from tanking?
""When a majority of employees votes to form a union by signing authorization cards, and those authorization cards are validated by the federal government, the employer will be legally required to recognize and bargain with the workers’ union." (AFL&CIO website) This would essentially make irrelevant the previous system of starting or forming a union, namely through the secret ballot. To paraphrase George Will, if a secret ballot is good enough for Sen. Clinton (for her election to the Senate and her goal of President), why is it suddenly not good enough for unions?"
We had a lengthy discussion about this at IP several months ago. The most important phrases in your summary are "majority of employees," "signing authorization cards" and "legally required to recognize."
You have mistated the system of "starting or forming a union." Even under the present system, a union is formed by the people forming it, and its formation does not require any confirming action by the employer or the government. The idea that a secret ballot is somehow necessary to form a union is actually a common misconception. The secret ballot does not form the union. That has already taken place when the folks who are its original members agreed to form a union. You and I could sit down right now and form our own union, with just the two of us as members.
Once a union has been formed, there are certain reporting requirements to the government, but there is no requirement that the employer "recognize" or deal with the union until that union passes another benchmark: legally attesting that a "majority of the employees" at the workplace want the union to represent them in negotiations with the employer. That's what the secret ballot is for; not to form the union, but to require the employer to negotiate with a pre-existing union. Under current federal law, the clock for holding this election starts when the government verifies that a majority of employees have signed cards authorizing the union to negotiate on their behalf.
Labor's contention is that, once a majority of employees have signed legal documents authorizing the union to represent them in negotiations with the employer, the benchmark has already been proven. A majority of employees have already quite clearly indicated their wishes, and a secret ballot just introduces a further (and sometimes very lengthy) delay during which employers can and do regularly harass or fire union leaders in order to intimidate the workers and influence the outcome of the election.
The process of recognizing that the election has de facto already taken place when a majority of employees sign authorization cards is referred to as "card check," and it is already the law in Illinois. It makes perfect sense to union members and their allies.
Unfortunately, it often presents an insurmountable mental barrier to those outside of organized labor, who can't seem to get past the idea that something has been lost (a formal election by secret ballot.) This viewpoint perhaps overlooks the fact that the whole purpose of holding such an election is to reveal the will of the majority. In labor's view, the employees have already committed themselves legally to the union by signing the authorization cards, and when a majority of them have done so, the will of the majority is already clearly and legally known, and the election really is redundant.
I should serve fair notice here that I don't intend to go through the entire previous discussion all over again, but I thought you would like to know where labor was coming from on this.
Kevin, as you know I disagree with your position, and also don't want to revisit the discussion. however, I did want clarification. Doesn't the election require less than 50% to be held? I thought it was in the neighborhood of 30. I know that it would be 50% under the new proposed rule.
Why would you hold an election to form a union with less then a majority (50% plus 1)?
A majority is not defined as "50% plus 1", it is defined as "more than half". The number you cited (50% plus 1) creates an inflated threshold to pass if you have an odd number of voters, such as the below situation (which I just sat through recently with a volunteer organization and had to correct their chair because they tried to declare a rather contentious vote as having not passed under the "50% plus 1" definition):
Example: let's say you have 25 voters. The difference breaks down like this:
- A majority of this number is 13. Half of 25 is 12.5. The next number which is "more than 12.5" is 13.
- However, 50% (12.5) plus 1 is 13.5. Except for cumulative voting and other silly voting systems where you can cast less than a full vote, you can't have half a person. The next possible number which satisfies this criteria is 14, because last time I checked (and I'm pretty sure this hasn't changed in a long time) 13 is less than 13.5.
This fun vote-counting fact is brought to you by a grant from the "We've Covered This Before" Foundation and viewers like you :) Seriously, though, I'd think that people who care about local politics and/or are active in any small-body organization (boards, committees, etc.) where where elections and votes can be decided by such close margins should know better.
"Doesn't the election require less than 50% to be held? I thought it was in the neighborhood of 30. I know that it would be 50% under the new proposed rule."
"Why would you hold an election to form a union with less then a majority"
You're both right in different ways. The National Labor Relations Act stipulates that one of the requirements for a successful employee petition requesting a certification election is the demonstration that a "substantial number of employees (i) wish to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative..." Title 29 Chap. 7 Subchap. II U.S.C. Sec. 9 [159](c)(1)(A)
The Act does not, however, directly define what "substantial" means in this context. In a separate section, the Act uses the 30 percent mark as a threshold for elections to de-certify a bargaining unit. As a result, the long standing policy of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been to use this figure for certification elections, as well.
It is my understanding, however, that this policy is an administrative regulation rather than inherent in the statute, and could therefore be changed by the Board at any time. One assumes that such a change would be challenged in court, but who knows how that might come out.
It is perhaps also relevant to note that the election is only required to be held if there is a question or dispute regarding representation. If the employer recognizes the union's representatives and negotiates with them in good faith, there is no need for an election, and the NLRB will not hold one.
As far as I know, proposals for card check do not eliminate any of the provisions for holding an election at the 30 percent threshold, but merely provide a mechanism for superceding it when the number is greater than 50 percent.
Finally, as run alludes to, in circumstances where an employer has been particularly resistant to recognition, it is a common practice among unions to wait until they have the signatures of a clear majority of employees before requesting an election. Conducting such an election can be a major effort in terms of time and resources, and if the union loses the election, the law requires a waiting period of at least one year before another can be held. As such, unions tend to want to be sure before they start the clock.
Birth Control Pills:
Yes.
Boon, Are you even old enough to remember the Clinton years?
Ha! Unfortunately I am. And there is definitely part of my brain that is frantically waving flags signaling: "Phoney!"
And yet ... there she is talking about labor unions, protecting the environment and rebuilding manufacturing in America. It is almost like thinking, "well, if she does ONE of these things she will be SO MUCH better than the current crop of conservative clowns ..." and you know the rest. Do I trust her? Can you ever trust a politician?
Look at the other side. The best Derf Thompson can muster on the economy is that what is going well should be continued and what isn't going well should be stopped. And how many Republicans raised their hands signifying their skepticism about global warming? And talk about labor unions. To conservatives labor unions are akin to an outbreak of herpes in the lower regions. Their solution is to isolate and destroy.
No, it is time for a change. Hillary isn't perfect and I will still lug some water for Obama but IF she is inevitable then at least she seems to be on the right track. Will she break our liberal hearts by sleeping with conservatives? Probably. But I am honestly not sure if this country can take four more years of conservative rule. Seriously. Their ideas are so tragically bankrupt that anything even resembling a change will have to do. Let's just hope we make it through these last 15 months without any more children losing their health insurance or nuking Iran. If we can get out of conservative rule alive and in repairable condition this country still might have a fighting chance.
Re: Run and his question regarding birth control pills in middle school: I would say yes, they should be distributed by the school, as long as the child's parents/guardians agree to it and they cannot obtain her a prescription through their own means. this may sound woefully ignorant, but do girls that young get their period?
Kevin Sandefur: thanks for explaining labor's point of view regarding my post. And you were right, I was wrong to write "starting or forming a union"; what I meant by "starting" was when the union becomes the bargining unit for the employees, not when the employees join together. I just didn't explain myself well. As well, you're right regarding the mental barrier I was expressing about the secret ballot being "lost" somehow. I think that voting, on any matter, is a very private, personal matter, and a secret ballot is the best way to vote. However, I had never considered the point of view you described, that the card check method is another way to express the will of the majority. Secret balloting is still my preferred method, so i think i'll agree to disagree on this one
(and i also don't want to beat the same dead horse from a few months ago, so lets leave it at that...)
On October 20th, 2007 at 06:42 PM, Mike (not verified) said: "Why should the government rescue lenders or borrowers caught up in this self-made crisis? Perhaps to prevent widespread panic and despair, and to keep the economy from tanking?"
Restoring the general public's confidence in the overall economy would be a worthwile goal, but only if this was threatening to become a severe, severe recession or even a depression. otherwise, i would be very concerned that the "cure" (whatever it would be) would be worse, and cause more problems than, the "disease". Right now, since this self-inflicted crisis doesn't seem to be spreading and affecting the wider economy, I would be hestitant to support the federal government intervening in some form.
HG
I think schools should provide the pills and a nice safe environment for the kids to do it... oh, I guess that's what classrooms are for.
I'm joking obviously. What would somebody think if a father of an 11 year old girl got her on birth control and let her have boys over to have sex? You would think he's a negligent father - or some kind of pervert.
The crazy thing about this program is that the parents won't know if their daughter is on the pill. There are clear medical risks to giving the pill to girls that young, and when the parents don't even know she's taking it, that just makes things worse.
It seems to me that the public schools have become the street corner or back alley where kids can go to get all the things they don't want their parents to hear about. It's no wonder parents who are forced to pay thousands of dollars per year for local public schools still pay thousands more to send their children to a private school - which may be worse academically, but at least they will keep their kids away from the pushers.
http://www.ucimc.org/node/2059
hehehehe
http://www.ucimc.org/node/2059
hehehehe
Yup, I've also found that thread morbidly fascinating, especially this particular anonymous comment: http://www.ucimc.org/node/2059#comment-2432 . Because asking to see someone's data must be "obsessive trolling."
Is the school notifying the proper authority that a child under the age of 14 maybe being molested or raped? What parent is going to publicly ok their child of 14 or less having sex, I would call the authority and see that they are arrested for child abuse. The idea we have a school district condoning sex of middle school kids is sad, they should be working help fix the problem.
On October 21st, 2007 at 03:11 PM, Run4cvrlib said: "Is the school notifying the proper authority that a child under the age of 14 maybe being molested or raped? What parent is going to publicly ok their child of 14 or less having sex, I would call the authority and see that they are arrested for child abuse. The idea we have a school district condoning sex of middle school kids is sad, they should be working help fix the problem."
Run, I'm not sure why you brought up the idea of under-14 year olds are being molested or raped? what does it add to the discussion? If you're responding to the Anonymous October 21st, 2007 at 02:05 PM comment, that post asked (rhetorically) "What would somebody think if a father of an 11 year old girl got her on birth control and let her have boys over to have sex? You would think he's a negligent father - or some kind of pervert." I'm just not sure why you made your comment.
As to the idea that school districts, by providing birth control pills to middle school girls, is somehow condoning sex of middle school kids, it just doesn't fly with me. I've never understood the idea that merely talking about sex (in sex ed/health classes), offering birth control pills, or condoms somehow magically will make kids think about sex and then act on those thoughts. Guess what? Teenagers think about sex. Often. I'd rather teenagers get proper education on sexual matters/personal health, and know where to get proper safeguards and how to use them, than have unprotected sex.
To wayward and October 21st, 2007 at 02:20 PM Anon: I read through that thread, which i think is an extension of Dolinar's "SWAT Team or Racist Death Squad?" thread from some time ago. The anonymous poster who asked for Dolinar's supporting documents did so in a neutral, respectful manner. Too bad Dolinar and his supporters are wholly consumed with their set narrative and will not allow any dissention from their accepted wisdom. And this comment, taken from Dolinar's piece, is simply stunning. Several hip-hop artists condone the "stop snitching" campaign. Wow. Thanks for providing such a solid foundation for your support of the "stop snitching" campaign (which is a pernicious and dangerous idea in itself).
HG
Upper-incomers are bearing even more of the income tax load, the highest burden since the 1986 Tax Reform Act passed, IRS says.
It just analyzed data from 2005 returns, the most recent year available.
The top 1% of filers paid 39.4% of all income taxes, up from 36.9% the year before. Yet they had just 21% of total adjusted gross income.
The minimum AGI needed to be in the top 1% rose to a new high...$364,000.
The top 5% paid 59.7% of total income tax and made 36% of all AGI. They each had incomes of $145,300 or more.
And the top 10% of all filers, those with AGIs of at least $103,900, bore 70% of the income tax burden while tallying a little more than 46% of total adjusted gross income.
The bottom 50% of filers paid just 3.1% of total income tax. Their share is so low because payroll taxes aren't included in the figures
and because many of them receive tax relief from the earned income credit.
The data add fuel to the current tax debate. Republicans say that the data show Democratic efforts to raise taxes on high-incomers
are misguided, given that the tax burden on them is the highest in years.
__._,_.___
Boon, you're just another socialist stooge. The data completely contradicts Hillary's garbage. Why do you believe this woman? What disease causes this type of self-loathing?
It doesn't fly with a lot of people, kids know the difference though, just like handing someone a fork to eat cake, the suggestion is they should it the cake.
“I'm not sure why you brought up the idea of under-14 year olds are being molested or raped?” The children are not of age to have sex or to give consent, are you assuming the other person is another child that is the same age, although if they were in some states it wouldn't matter it would still be against the law.
When children are having sex which everyone knows is not healthy for them, we should help them stop not help continue in this case they are only 11 years old. Just so you know in the case of the school in Maine, once the parents sign up the student for the "health clinic" the parent has no say in what health care the child receives. I suppose if you give them a few more years they will be carting your children off for abortions, I know I am crazy but 10 years ago if you would of said that they would be giving 11 yearolds birth control pills with out parental consent you would be crazy too. Of course the all powerful government knows best.
On October 21st, 2007 at 05:59 PM, Run4cvrlib said: “I'm not sure why you brought up the idea of under-14 year olds are being molested or raped?” The children are not of age to have sex or to give consent, are you assuming the other person is another child that is the same age, although if they were in some states it wouldn't matter it would still be against the law.
I wasn't making any assumptions about who a theoretical 11-year-old girl (recieving birth control pills from her middle school) would be having sex with. I just didn't know why you posted what you did, namely "Is the school notifying the proper authority that a child under the age of 14 maybe being molested or raped?" Now, i think i understand (please correct me if i'm wrong, though): because the under-14 year old in your original comment wouldn't be able to legally give consent to having sex (from your post i quoted above), the perpetrator would be committing some level of sexual assault/sexual abuse; therefore, the school the students attended would have an obligation to report the incident to the police.
Am I anywhere near correct?
HG
Boon, you're just another socialist stooge ... yada yada yada ... self-loathing?
Ha! That's great. Where do we find these guys?
It seems to me that the public schools have become the street corner or back alley where kids can go to get all the things they don't want their parents to hear about.
This is an interesting comment. Do you think it is because of the school's existence that the kids can get these things, or are the "back alleys and street corners" coming into the schools from the streets? I think there is a serious distinction that needs to be made: are the schools the problem or is society the problem that is showing up at our school doors?
It's no wonder parents who are forced to pay thousands of dollars per year for local public schools still pay thousands more to send their children to a private school - which may be worse academically, but at least they will keep their kids away from the pushers.
You obviously don't have any idea what is going on in private schools these days. Money = drugs. Think about it.
HG, both from your and others posts the issue seems to have been missed. Also it seems that news stories have also not discussed it.
c'mon Boon. I gave you the facts that show Hillary's talking points to all be a lie. Refute them. Just try it.
I seriously can't understand why they provide seatbelts in cars. It's for all intents and purposes telling people, "GO! DRIVE YOUR CAR INTO THINGS!"
We are required by law to report abuse of children. I think that's a good thing.
We also do everything we can morally do to educate children about the consequences of sex so that they can make better decisions. For the longest time, we used methods that were backed by scientific research. Of course, now we have an administration that doesn't believe in science, so we have a much harder time doing our jobs.
If you honestly believe screaming "Don't you dare have sex! Don't do drugs!" is an effective way to encourage thoughtful choices by minors, your kid is probably out high having sex somewhere.
On October 21st, 2007 at 08:51 PM, xian said: "If you honestly believe screaming "Don't you dare have sex! Don't do drugs!" is an effective way to encourage thoughtful choices by minors, your kid is probably out high having sex somewhere."
Great quote Xian, great quote. This is precisely what I was trying to get at in one of my earlier comments.
Do you mind if I quote you in the future? I'll give you full credit :-)
HG
Xian, you could at least pick a comparison that makes sense, driving is something adults need to do and should wear seat belts, 11 year olds shouldn't have sex. There was a huge story recently about the phone calls made to Planned Parenthood from underage girls who said their overage boy friends had got them pregnant. Planned Parenthood was supposed to notify the proper authorities they not only didn't, they told the callers not to mention the age of their boy friends when they came in for their abortions.
My son is working.
Their were far fewer kids out getting high and having sex before you started your little experiment now we are suppose to accept 11 year olds having sex, but you can defend it if you want. I think we should try to fix the problems in society that allow it.
Can I just point out a few facts to set things straight:
Here is the article I used, from the America-hating, baby-eating New York Times.
See, when I read stuff like that, my first question is why are we comparing adjusted gross incomes? The wealthy have a lot more access to wealth-hiding and income-minimizing techniques that the middle class and the poor just don't have access to. I'm curious as to what it would it look like if it was total income and not adjusted income?
From Fortune earlier this year:
Their were far fewer kids out getting high and having sex before you started your little experiment now we are suppose to accept 11 year olds having sex, but you can defend it if you want. I think we should try to fix the problems in society that allow it.
I have no clue what you are talking about. There is no such "experiment". Your side already won. That's why we have mandated abstinence only programs and tons of kids with STDs.
My comparison did make sense. You just didn't understand it. It is not necessary for people to crash their car. However, it is worth having a safety belt in the off-hand chance that you drive your car into something.
Condoms have been shown to cause sex as much as wearing a seatbelt has been shown to cause accidents.
Anyone who thinks that depriving kids of protections and knowledge on sex prevents them from having sex has not been paying attention for the last million years.
Our ideal should be children who know enough about sex and are prepared enough for it that they can make good choices. This protects them from predatory adults. It protects them from opportunistic peers, and it raises the likelihood that they will remain abstinent.
Does this mean that there are no children who would be served by abstinence only programs? Of course not. It simply means that such a uniform program is likely to damage a large section of the population.
Hey, how about you just stop trying to shove your values down my kids' pants...
That'd be nice. I promise to reciprocate.
Xian, I totally get it! My only question is when is your school going to provide a free needle exchange program for its students? Children are going to do drugs anyway, most of them are probably doing it right now, so why not give them a safe place to shoot up with safe needles that won't spread diesease? No parental consent should be needed since mom and dad's "Don't do drugs" message is SO ineffective. Actually, since so many street durgs are laced with things that the user doesn't even know about, perhaps the school should just provide the drugs to the students too? A pure and safe dosage on request. Xian, you're really on to something here!
Good. I'm glad you get it. If research shows that needle exchange programs lower or do not affect the incidence of drug use and improve safety, they are a good plan.
Using research rather than just making up illogical arguments and forcing your values on to others--I can see why that's worthy of mockery.
Also, that wasn't your only question. You asked two more stupid questions after that.
There are already some schools that are pressuring students to take behavior modification drugs. I'm opposed to that. What are you doing on that issue? Moral outrage doesn't fix societal problems.
No parental consent should be needed since mom and dad's "Don't do drugs" message is SO ineffective.
While I am not comfortable with some of the implications inherent in putting birth control in a middle school, it is true that providing access to birth control lowers pregnancy and STD risk. Furthermore, I hardly think parents whose message is effective will see their kids in the line for the condoms or the pill. You can mock Xian all you want, but if you are doing a good job with your kid then most likely he or she will not need a needle exchange program or birth control. If you aren't then they might.
my first question is why are we comparing adjusted gross incomes?
We are comparing adjusted gross incomes because this is the same argument that has been rehashed over-and-over again. Folks like prairiebiker are not interested in having rational discussions about tax burdens. He wants to cherry-pick statistics, call you names, and then refuse to listen to any counter-arguments. It is a little worse than watching paint dry, but not as bad as having a tooth removed without anesthetic.
When I was 14 all i could think about was sex. I didn't get any but it wasn't for lack of trying.
Most radicals like run4cvrlib either forget what it was like to be 14, or were just very abnormal.
You don't protect children by scaring and scolding, you protect them by teaching, something that eludes people like rub4cvrlib.
"Using research rather than just making up illogical arguments...I can see why that's worthy of mockery."
- You mean your seatbealt analogy? I agree, that was stupid. Your soapbox is getting smaller by the minute.
"There are already some schools that are pressuring students to take behavior modification drugs. I'm opposed to that."
- I oppose dispensing any drugs to students without parental consent, whether for behavior modification or contraception. You support dispening some drugs, based on your moral evaluation, which you believe is somehow better than the evaluation of parents. Maybe instead of calling you "teacher" they should call you "daddy".
Thanks for that screaming line Xian. i looked in the thread and couldn't find a single person who advocated screaming at their kids about sex. Maybe you have a link. Or perhaps you were just setting up a straw man.
But let me throw one back at you. If you really think convincing your kids about the moral propriety of an action can be achieved by lying about the motives or actions of others, you're probably a liberal.
The question here is not whether or not hot 11 year olds should be getting action or whether they should be protected so their teacher doesn't knock them up. It's whether the 11 year old child's parents should have even the right to be notified of the steps the school is taking to protect their horny, sexually active 11 year old girl. We're not even discussing whether the parents should have the right to decide what drugs go into the child's body - that has already been taken over by the state. Now it's just down to should dad receive a letter from the school nurse that says, "Your daughter came in my office and asked for the pill. I had her get naked, felt around, checked her out, and I think that it's ok for her, so I wrote her a prescription, and the school pharmacist gave her 6 months worth of birth control pills. Just so you know." The idea of an informed, critically thinking 11 year old making adult decisions about sex is ridiculous - that's why legally they cannot give consent, no matter what they scored on their condom-cucumber test in health class. Eleven year olds on the pill having sex is like eleven year olds driving with a seat belt. You could argue that it's better than if they didn't wear a seat belt, but that's lowering the bar quite a bit. Believe it or not, children benefit from high expectations.
If confidentiality is a state law, then it should be changed. I don't want my 12 year old to have any secrets. I guess my kid would not be able to get a band-aid in that school, because I would never sign that consent form.
I actually bought into the idea of "no sex until marriage" when I was in high school. Part of my partial Apostolic Christian upbringing. Heck, our "sex ed" teacher in Junior High was an elder preacher at the local Apostolic Church. Got to see that sex meant horrifying pictures of disease, death, and a sure-fire way to end up in poverty as young unmarried parents.
Abstinence teaching worked for me!
Until I was 15 and very convincing woman convinced me otherwise. My parents/family did everything right. The school/church tried to put the fear of disease/babies/god/etc in my head. But I was a young naive idiot teenager in "love." Logic? Reason? Responsibility? With a teenager? Oh my. Teenagers can use logic. Can be reasoned with. Can be responsible. They just really suck at it off and on. Especially when sex is on the table.
So did any of that teaching, etc do any good? Sure it did. Teaching abstinence and why is not necessarily a bad thing. But avoiding the topics of contraceptives and their pros and cons and avoiding dispelling the various sexual disinformation that notoriously spreads among the young will only make matters worse. Even the good kids will screw up and make bad choices sometimes. The bad ones will still do whatever the hell they want (do you really want them breeding?). And the kids who just had horrible parents will likely make all sorts of screw ups and lousy choices. Is a school nurse with rubbers in her office going to make that problem worse? Better? Or have little effect outside of slowing the spread of STDs and perhaps stopping some teenage pregancies?
I didn't start wanting to have sex because Planned Parenthood was handing out free rubbers. Planned Parenthood was just a nice discrete resource once kids were already having sex. It's not like most kids were going to go to their parents for information on proper contraceptive usage once they were sexually active. A kid who walks into the nurse's office for rubbers is obviously already sexual active or is planning on becoming so soon. Would it be better that the kid avoid it because his parents will be notified? Would it be better if the kid doesn't have a resource for contraceptives? Would he be less motivated to have sex? Or just try to be "really careful" about it. It's been a while since high school now but if memory serves, nobody was ever less likely to have sex once the option was available and they decided to do it.
Now on the bright side it would give the school nurse an opportunity to intervene in a situation where the parents are almost always kept in the dark. A chance to warn, educate, and talk to a kid who might be getting in over their head. It would also provide an opportunity to intervene if there are signs of abuse. Obviously any criminal behavior that comes to light would have to be dealt with appropriately. This is where the needle exchange for kids analogy doesn't seem to fit. There's no real good option for that other than to ensure they get to a treatment center. I think it is safe to say that an 11 year old asking for such things would absolutely set off alarm bells and red flags.
As far as 12 year olds having secrets, the fact that they'd be asking a school nurse or planned parenthood due to the confidentiality agreement means that A) They have secrets that their parents are in the dark about. B) They intend to keep it that way. C) The nurse wouldn't even find out if there was no confidentiality and the situation would continue in secret without any chance of a responsible adult intervening.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Boon, you're just another socialist stooge."
Unnecessary. Sorry it took me so long to catch it.
We're not even discussing whether the parents should have the right to decide what drugs go into the child's body - that has already been taken over by the state.
True dat. But I wonder if everyone who is against handing out the pill at a middle school is also against mandated vaccinations? We already know that shooting kids full of diseases to try to help them not contract the same diseases later is medically risky and often completely useless. Yet the AMA and the medical establishment continue to force these shots on our children. I actually know a couple who refused the Vitamin K shots for their newborn at Carle and quickly received a visit from DCFS in their hospital room. So much for medical choice.
The only difference I see between the issues is that the person receiving the the pill is actually asking for it. It is not being forced on them by DCFS, the hospital's legal team, or a culture that refuses to question why the Hell a newborn needs five different shots before the age of two days.
Interesting topic.
Glock21 says: "As far as 12 year olds having secrets, the fact that they'd be asking a school nurse or planned parenthood due to the confidentiality agreement means that A) They have secrets that their parents are in the dark about. B) They intend to keep it that way. C) The nurse wouldn't even find out if there was no confidentiality and the situation would continue in secret without any chance of a responsible adult intervening."
That pretty much sums up what I was going to say. Like it or not, there ARE a lot of kids who will not seek any advice at all if there is any hint that their parents will be notified. Everyone wants to think that of course THEIR kids won't be that way - if that's truly the case, more power to you, but then your kids are not the ones these programs are targetting.
the confidentiality law puts the school/clinic in between the kids and the parents - and endorses the situation at the same time. I don't like it. The school is supposed to be helping me as a parent - not replacing me.
"That pretty much sums up what I was going to say. Like it or not, there ARE a lot of kids who will not seek any advice at all if there is any hint that their parents will be notified. Everyone wants to think that of course THEIR kids won't be that way - if that's truly the case, more power to you, but then your kids are not the ones these programs are targetting."
Ok, it's fine that's what you believe, but is it right to then to have the government create an avenue for kids to get prescription drugs without their parents knowledge? You may believe that some kids might be worse off if they didn't have access to the pills, but what about the kids who might be better off if their parents knew? Is there no end to what the government can do to undermine parents' authority as long as enough other people believe that it's good for the kids? We've gone from "it takes a village" to "The village WILL raise your child, whether you like it or not."
I was so threatened about vaccines. For instance, I refused the Hep B for my child... the risk factor is 0 for a newborn with normal parents. They gave us endless crap about it. They finally threatened DCFS over that and other stuff... I explained the legal definition of extortion, they backed off.
Some mandated vaccines make sense... some should be good options... others are just silly. I can't think of a really good case why you need to pump a newborn up with this stuff, especially fresh out of the NICU.
If confidentiality is a state law, then it should be changed. I don't want my 12 year old to have any secrets. I guess my kid would not be able to get a band-aid in that school, because I would never sign that consent form.
I disagree entirely, but I want to commend you for taking a thoughtful position without resorting to disgusting, thinly veined connotation that exists in much of the thread.
I was especially nauseated by this one that describes a routine physical examination as:
"Your daughter came in my office and asked for the pill. I had her get naked, felt around, checked her out, and I think that it's ok for her, so I wrote her a prescription, and the school pharmacist gave her 6 months worth of birth control pills. Just so you know."
But there's a lot to choose from in this thread.
Of course, I agree entirely with the above argument about confidentiality reducing adolescent secrets. It's funny, because it's been shown that just having one trusted adult in a child's life whom the child can share with without ulterior motives substantially reduces the likelihood of molestation at the hands of an adult. Basically, positive adult attention is necessary for child development, and if they don't get it somewhere, they'll look for it in all the wrong places.
If I was half the posters in this thread, I'd just call you all wannbe child molesters, but that's not really my style. So I'll just appeal to the fact, that deep down I'm sure you are all good folks who want what's best for all chlidren, even those who might be beaten to death by their parents if they were completely honest with them.
my first question is why are we comparing adjusted gross incomes?
We are comparing adjusted gross incomes because this is the same argument that has been rehashed over-and-over again. Folks like prairiebiker are not interested in having rational discussions about tax burdens. He wants to cherry-pick statistics, call you names, and then refuse to listen to any counter-arguments.
A better question would be, Why wouldn't we use AGI? It is, after all, your taxable income before the standard deductions.
Boon - You haven't made any counter-arguments. I'm still waiting. I am interested in having a rational discussion, but you haven't offered one yet. You posted Hillary's pack of lies and then ran away except to snipe from the fringes.
Anon 10:19 asks: "Ok, it's fine that's what you believe, but is it right to then to have the government create an avenue for kids to get prescription drugs without their parents knowledge? You may believe that some kids might be worse off if they didn't have access to the pills, but what about the kids who might be better off if their parents knew?"
You're missing the point. If your kid has a good relationship with you, your kid will talk to you about important issues of this nature without getting the school nurse involved. It's just easier anyway, not to mention more private.
If your kid does NOT have a good relationship with you, or has decided to cut you out of important decisions in his/her life for whatever reason (and yes, this does happen, and it's not always noticeable to the parent) and really does not want you finding out about these decisions, then having the school nurse mandated to report the questions/prescriptions to the parent only ensures that your kid won't ever go to the school nurse, nothing more than that. The kid will likely continue the crazy behavior, only without any sort of protection (yeah, we know a condom/pill doesn't solve all the issues by any means, but having one is better than not), or any actual educated advice. It's not just birth control they're handing out. It's advice and counselling too.
Kids are quite adept at clinging to any shred of superstition they think will pull them through. If they just hope hard enough, the odds won't strike THEM down, and because they're worried they'll happily put trust in whatever old wives' tales their friends come up that sound like a prophylactic, because they WANT to believe. They'll try to get their friends to buy them stuff.
Face it, you can't force your kid to disclose stuff if the relationship is already broken. The trick is trying to keep your kid talking to you and not afraid of telling you stuff BEFORE the fecal matter hits the whirling metal blades.
If your kid respects your authority, you do not have a problem. These programs aren't FOR the kids who will talk to their parents. These programs are about giving the kids who won't talk about this stuff with their parents on pain of death (real, or merely imagined) a place to go. Cutting the nurse off doesn't mean the kid will give up and talk to the parents, it means the kid won't talk to anyone except POSSIBLY some similarly uninformed friends.
Ideally some of the "talks" going on with the nurse (or whomever) will be of a counseling sort, so that YES the nurse too can try and tell the kids that hey, maybe you're not going down the best path. There are emotional pitfalls, and good reasons to not be having sex so early, sure, many people are pressured in. Ideally the nurse will try and convince the KIDS that really, they should talk to their parents, or to another sympathetic known adult - but by letting that be advice, and leaving it to the kid to do the telling (while the nurse keeps tabs), the paranoid kid is at least willing to seek out some help. It's more "the village is stepping in as a last resort because for whatever reason the link between you and the kid isn't working."
Even reading the original article I just don't see this as a program where the nurse will merely say "yeah, good for you! Here have some birth control" to an 12 year old without digging in quite a bit as to why they want it - privately. I don't think this is an issue of Teh Evil Gubmint Skools trying to force kids to have sex or encourage promiscuity. Once the 12 year old comes into the office, there will be some discussions.
The school doctor should give the 11 year old girl a pelvic exam if she is having sex. If that's unpleasant for some to think about, that's too bad. A routine physical examination is not sufficient for prescribing the pill. Especially to an 11 year old who you know is not in a committed relationship or marriage.
Not to mention, I don't think it's all that easy for a kid to go to the school nurse and up and ask for birth control either, PARTICULARLY girls. I just don't see this opening some magic free-for-all where all the 12 year olds are going to up and say "woo hoo! Free birth control! Sweet! Now we can get it on and hump like rabbits!"
OK, say it wasn't birth control pills at all, but condoms. A simple device, available over the counter. They might need some quick counseling on how to use them properly because improper use is the main reason they fail. Frankly, I think they're a better choice anyway, since they actually protect the health of the individuals involved rather than preventing pregnancy. Would your objections go away if it was condoms being provided?
You posted Hillary's pack of lies and then ran away except to snipe from the fringes.
So take it up with Hillary. The point of my comment was just to mention that I admire her speech and I like her focus on issues that have been neglected under the conservative rule of the Bush Administration. The point was not start a tit-for-tat on tax burdens in America. Let me tell you the outcome of that debate right now: we agree to disagree, or worse.
Not interested. Have a good day!
I'm not saying that's an invalid point. But is there no point where a minor has any medical privacy rights? Even at 17.9 years old? In Maine, a minor can legally consent to sex at 16.
There was a case discussed over at Respectful Insolence about a 17 year old minor with cancer. This was a reemergence of a cancer he had when he was much younger. Then, his parents wanted to try some woo-woo ineffective treatment with Vitamin C and powdered goat pelvis or something. The doctors sued to get the kid real chemo. Unfortunately, the cancer came back when he was 17, and this time the parents sued so they could use the naturopathic remedy. There was a lengthly discussion over there about how the wishes of older teens need to be taken into account when deciding medical treatment and to what degree and at what age.
that might come down to "tough cases make bad law". I am just bothered when the rights of parents to raise their kids is being challenged by the State.
"So take it up with Hillary. The point of my comment was just to mention that I admire her speech ... "
No Boon, I'll take it up with you. I already know Hillary is a power-hungry , lying, communist loser. But I'm glad that you admire her lies. That tells everyone here exactly what kind of person you are. I won't feel the need to ever address you again, unless someone else decides to take you seriously and they need some edumacation.
What part violates the "rights of parents"? A kid talking to an adult about problems in confidence? A kid getting contraceptive products from a nurse instead of a store? Does the clerk at Walgreens have an obligation to notify the parents if the kid buys rubbers in order to avoid violating the "rights of parents?" Does a shrink have to notify the parents that their kid became sexually active if it violates no laws and if such information was revealed in confidence during a therapy session?
How is the school replacing the parent? By the parent not developing a trusting relationship with that kid? Sounds more like a parent having problems with being a parent. Not the schools trying to replace them in any way. If anything it is the kids trying to replace their parents. How is that the school's fault?
Maybe the reason why the kid is scared to talk to the parents is because the parents are abusive... and the kid doesn't want to get beat/raped by mom or dad for their behavior. Given that the situation is due to a problem in parenting is it far fetched that kids should have an alternative available for dealing with personal problems of such a sensitive nature? Who knows, maybe the nurse will discover the reason that some of these kids who are sexually active at such a young age is due to sexual abuse by family members and it can help parents get the dirty scmucks thrown in prison for it.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
No Boon, I'll take it up with you. I already know Hillary is a power-hungry , lying, communist loser. But I'm glad that you admire her lies. That tells everyone here exactly what kind of person you are. I won't feel the need to ever address you again, unless someone else decides to take you seriously and they need some edumacation.
Yep. Just as I figured – WAY too angry to have a rational discussion.
"I'm sure you are all good folks who want what's best for all children, even those who might be beaten to death by their parents if they were completely honest with them."
- Exactly, Xian! Schools should be providing prescription drugs, recreational drugs, and heck, even abortions for middle school children and all without parental consent. After all, a few parents might be dangerous if they knew what their children were up to, so schools must therefore replace all parents. Big Brother becomes Big Daddy!
prariebiker, you are a troll.
Hillary is of course power hungry, that's why she's running for President. It is obvious that any president, or any other elected "leader" of any organization is "power hungry".
She might be a liar, but everyone is, that's why "Thou slat not bear false witness" is one of the biggies, if people didn't do it, we wouldn't have to have had that big reminder etched in stone next to the burning bush, if you get my drift.
Communist. No, she's a liberal. Communists are reactionaries, not progressives. A quick scan of history will prove this, if you even bother, instead of shooting from the hip.
Loser? I thought she was an elected Senator from one of our most populous states. What have you ever been elected to?
Glock,
<< By the parent not developing a trusting relationship with that kid? Sounds more like a parent having problems with being a parent. If anything it is the kids trying to replace their parents. How is that the school's fault? >>
We looked over the terms and conditions of parenthood on our daughter's birth certificate (you need one of those fancy red decoder thingys to read over them), and it said that somewhere around the age of 13 or 14, she is likely to go nuts under the influence of hormones and assume that we are completely clueless about everything worth knowing about. Leaving the doors of communication wide open, fostering a close relationship, and respecting and supporting her as she explores the world are good preventative measures, but they certainly don't gurarantee that she will do the right thing when the opportunity to make decisions that have Grave Consequences comes around.
If, for whatever reason, she feels she can't trust us, I at least want her to know that there are other adults that she can turn to. Ones who won't rat her out. The wider her support network in this crazy, messed up world we live in, the happier I am.
Kem
If, for whatever reason, she feels she can't trust us, I at least want her to know that there are other adults that she can turn to. Ones who won't rat her out.
I would like my child to have a similar network - but one that I know would rat him/her out if they thought it was important that I know. A school nurse, given a legal gag order, would not be that person.
If, for whatever reason, she feels she can't trust us, I at least want her to know that there are other adults that she can turn to. Ones who won't rat her out. The wider her support network in this crazy, messed up world we live in, the happier I am.
vs...
I would like my child to have a similar network - but one that I know would rat him/her out if they thought it was important that I know. A school nurse, given a legal gag order, would not be that person.
Wow. Great issue. It is important to have a wider network with more support, no doubt. On the other hand as a parent I agree that I hardly want my child starting birth control without my knowledge. God forbid if she ever became pregnant and could have an abortion without me even having a clue?
Tough call but, even though I am supposed to be a liberal, I think I go with RSW on this one. If a kid needs birth control I think it should be a family decision - at least a grandmother, aunt, someone in the family. I just don't like taking this decision out of the hands of family. It just seems wrong.
But trolling aside, that's where my earlier point comes in. This is a system that has to fit all kids. Not just kids who won't be attacked or killed if their parents find out. I'm not exaggerating either.
As for recreational drugs, there's only one person in the thread who appears to have an affection for them, and that's the person who keeps randomly interjecting it into the conversation.
Of course, every child does better if they have someone supportive within their family with whom to discuss these issues with. But if wishes were fishes...
Sometimes there just isn't an auntie or grandmother or uncle or cousin who can help on these things. That's when a caring, trained professional can really help the situation. Now, it's fun to pull out examples of apathy and incompetence (not to be confused with incontinence), but those don't speak to the merit of the policy. Any provision or policy is a failure when you assume negative motives or lack of ability to those applying it.
"If a kid needs birth control I think it should be a family decision - at least a grandmother, aunt, someone in the family. I just don't like taking this decision out of the hands of family. It just seems wrong."
The decision isn't being taken out of the hands of the family by anyone except the kid. Kids can get contraceptives elsewhere if they so choose. The decision isn't in the hands of the school... it's in the hands of the kids, whose parents apparently don't have enough control over their behavior to decide for them. To be fair to parents, it's probably not their fault in most situations.
How is this violating "parental rights" or removing any parental power again? Hard for something to be a family decision if the kid intentionally ensures his family knows nothing about it.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Honestly, I understand the other side of the debate perfectly and I think you have very legitimate points. Yes, kids will be kids and any chance we have to protect them from their mistakes we should take. On the other hand, as a parent, I don't want to find out from my kid "Oh, I've been on the pill since 6th grade. I get them from the school nurse."
Yuk! Plus, the pill is serious medicine that can really *F* a kid's system up if taken at an early age. I assume my kid will know that (her mom is a nurse) but still ... there is just something about it that doesn't sit right.
I don't think it is an easy issue, and I really do understand the other side. I just think it might be a step too far. Just my two cents, that's all.
"She might be a liar, but everyone is,"
That ought to be her campaign slogan.
"Loser? I thought she was an elected Senator from one of our most populous states. What have you ever been elected to?"
The notion anyone has to be in high office to have the right to criticize anyone in high office is asinine. Although I like the idea George W. Bush cannot be a loser because he was twice elected Governor from one of our most populous states.
Boon... I agree that the pill shouldn't be taken without proper medical precautions, and I agree the age range here (as opposed to an older teenager) is pretty disturbing. I'm not even sure if a doctor would prescribe it to someone that young honestly. But as far as other non-prescription contraceptives that are available at any drug store, gas station, Planned Parenthood, friends, etc without penalty... well if the kids aren't telling the parents, they don't need the school nurse to dish them out if the kids know the nurses are obligated to rat if you ask. They'll avoid them like the plague, and have sex anyways, ironically putting them in greater danger of contracting a plague.
The key reason to have confidentiality is to ensure that people who need help but fear others finding out will still seek help instead of dealing, probably improperly, with the issues on their own. Social conservatives seem to look at this issue as kids having sex or not having sex... with the schools/contraceptives merely enabling bad behavior. Social liberals tend to look at bad behavior that kids will either seek help for or not seek help for... with parents/conservatives merely helping to keep the problems a secret that will only make things worse.
I just don't see these policies as enabling bad behavior as the behavior is already there if they are asking for help about it. I do however see the break in confidentiality as helping to keep these behaviors in the dark and potentially causing the kids greater harm.
If anything a kid carrying around condoms or birth control pills, etc will be caught a lot sooner by the parent than one who has unprotected sex in order to keep the secret. Except for the ones that get knocked up or get extremely sick, of course.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Social conservatives seem to look at this issue as kids having sex or not having sex... with the schools/contraceptives merely enabling bad behavior.
I think social conservatives see the issue as the school endorsing the behavior, not just enabling it. The school has a special status in a students life, way higher than Planned Parenthood, the gas station, or Walgreens.
RSW... I don't see it that way. endorse: to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral candidate> b: to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation <shoes endorsed by a pro basketball player>
Just doesn't appear to be the case.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Well, then we disagree on this one. Scary - because I am on the side of D. Boon. :-)
"Scary - because I am on the side of D. Boon."
So, does that make you a socialist stooge, too? :-)
On a related note, I just did a Google image search on "3 stooges" and "socialist," and at the bottom of page 7 there was a picture of Scott Tapley from a December, 2005 IP thread about Rex deciding to run against Naomi. (I am not making this up.) Apparently both words appear somewhere in that lengthy thread, but why Google chose Scott's picture is a mystery to me...
I just don't understand the leap to "endorse": Are you endorsing setting fires by handing out fire extiguishers? Are you endorsing sickliness by having hospitals? Does carrying an umbrella constitute an endorsement of rain?
Like others here, I don't get the leap to the "endorsment" of teenage sex. A lot of the discussion here has focused on the prevention of unwanted pregnancy via the Pill, but need I remind everyone that there are STDs out there that can kill you? I've heard from a number of sources that it's a good idea that a teenager have an emergency word that they can call and use for a ride home if they get into a stupid situation, no questions asked. No, teenagers shouldn't be going to parties and drinking, but sometimes they do screw up, and they do get drunk. I hope we can all agree that the most important thing is that they get home safely and not do something even stupider like drive home drunk so as not to get into trouble with their parents.
I found out that a friend of mine all through college had been HIV positive. He had contracted it in high school, perhaps earlier. This wasn't some inner city kid, either, but a pretty normal looking kid from South Carolina from a good family. By about two years after we graduated, he was dead. There are worse fates in this world that losing your virginity early.
That quote is from a TV show from 1987. I can't believe we've still having the same discussion.
Glock:
<< Except for the ones that get knocked up or get extremely sick, of course. >>
Brutal. But yeah, that's pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell. There's way more at stake here than parents' concerns about trust and control. In the end, it's very much a question of life or death for these kids.
Narc:
<< There are worse fates in this world that losing your virginity early. >>
Indeed. Thanks for sharing a painful memory in the hopes that it might provide a bit of perspective.
In an ideal world, I would trust the parents to do their jobs, and all would be well with the world. I don't trust the parents because they are patently not always doing their jobs. My daughter might just fall for one of their sons or daughters. Loving parents don't always get the message across because kids don't always listen... even the good ones who are bright and sharp and not too terribly emotionally damaged. It failure happens from time to time under the best of condition because the biological soup is too overwhelming, what can we say about the kids who grow up in less than ideal circumstances?
More avenues for teaching our children how to avoid ruining their lives (and, lets not forget, the lives of others whom they might come into contact with) are a very good thing.
Kem
I would like to address the "endorsement" issue. I don't think this is the same thing as fire extinguishers. There is a not-so-subtle message that is sent to kids when we introduce anything into the school environment. Pepsi machines mean more than a way to fund the student council. Birth control in the nurse's office at a middle school means more than a fire extinguisher on the wall. It may just mean "we know this is going on and we want to help protect you". But it could also mean "this is normal behavior". There is a big difference there.
Secondly, I don't think the moral equation is going to be arguable much further. Some think it is wrong, some have no problem with it. Fair enough, I doubt any minds will be changed on that one. But what about the medical angle? Oral contraceptives have been linked to various forms of cancer and heart disease in women, ESPECIALLY when started at an early age and continued for a long stretch of time. There are real risks involved in allowing a young woman to start the pill at an early age.
I bring this up because I believe this should be a family decision. Neither my wife or I want our daughter to take the pill. It is harmful to the system overall and it carries too many risks. It is crude, barbaric science designed (imo) for convenience over health. We also don't want her having pre-marital sex (yes, a bunch of simpletons we are). Now we may not be able to control the sex part beyond our nurturing and our prayers, but I would sure as hell hope I would be able to control what medications go into my daughter's body when she is only 11, 12 or 13 years old. THIS is the crucial point for me – systems like this take autonomy away from the parents and the family and turn it over to the state or, more specifically, the medical establishment, who I trust about as far as I can throw.
And frankly, the argument that poor kids in the cities are going to be shot if they come home pregnant is overly dramatic, classist and borderline racist. I have no doubt that there are isolated incidents where this happens, but anyone who has worked with or studied the family structure of the poor knows that family, as crude as it may be, is the core value for poor youth. Poor families are much more likely to "rally around" (to whatever extent that can be done) a pregnant girl instead of throwing tantrums and demanding abortions (which you are more likely to find in middle and especially upper class households).
And frankly, the argument that poor kids in the cities are going to be shot if they come home pregnant is overly dramatic, classist and borderline racist. I have no doubt that there are isolated incidents where this happens, but anyone who has worked with or studied the family structure of the poor knows that family, as crude as it may be, is the core value for poor youth. Poor families are much more likely to "rally around" (to whatever extent that can be done) a pregnant girl instead of throwing tantrums and demanding abortions (which you are more likely to find in middle and especially upper class households).
I'm sorry that my daily life is overly dramatic, classist and borderline racist.
I don't think this is the same thing as fire extinguishers. There is a not-so-subtle message that is sent to kids when we introduce anything into the school environment.
Ok, so you think it's the same as fire extinguishers in the school enviroment.
We also don't want her having pre-marital sex (yes, a bunch of simpletons we are).
Don't be a dick.
THIS is the crucial point for me – systems like this take autonomy away from the parents and the family and turn it over to the state or, more specifically, the medical establishment, who I trust about as far as I can throw.
This is the rhetoric that is bothering me. I disagree with, but understand your argument that parental decision-making should take precendent over child-decision making in these circumstances. What I don't understand the need to cast those of us who spend most of our lives parenting those children who do not have the family structures you describe (I'm sorry if that sounds racist, but I'm not talking race--you are) as crazy pill pushing abortionist. I just spent fifteen minutes of homeroom discussing with the students personal decisions to avoid drugs. It's a common theme. So are good decisions in one's sex life. If you are presumptuous to make assumptions about my sexual decisions in the same way you have in other areas of my life, I suppose I'll share that with you as well.
One thing I notice is that for a lot of you, this is about YOUR kid. For me, I feel the same way no matter whose kid it is. But I would suggest some empathy for students from different family situations.
What I don't understand the need to cast those of us who spend most of our lives parenting those children who do not have the family structures you describe (I'm sorry if that sounds racist, but I'm not talking race--you are) as crazy pill pushing abortionist.
I think that comes from the secrecy.
Serious question - Would you feel better as a teacher if you had the option to tell, or were required to keep all secrets?
As an individual, I DO have the option to tell. As an impartial outside observer, I understand why the confidentiality guarantee is necessary. But yeah, it would be nice if I could tell within the law.
This is the rhetoric that is bothering me. [...] What I don't understand the need to cast those of us who spend most of our lives parenting those children who do not have the family structures you describe (I'm sorry if that sounds racist, but I'm not talking race--you are) as crazy pill pushing abortionist.
I don't think I did that and if I sent that message it was a mistake on my part. You are right that there are large groups of kids who are at-risk youth and who need services. No one is questioning that. My concern is that opening the door to dangerous medications without parental consent at this early of an age is taking more power out of the hands of parents.
Essentially the argument seems to boil down to this: the benefit to giving the at-risk youth of America contraceptives in middle school without parental permission outweighs the cost of taking away the right of parents to monitor what goes in and out of their young, developing children's bodies.
I understand and sympathize with your position more than you know. But I am also a parent who does not want the government giving my kid permission to take medications behind my back. Is that personal, or just about MY kid? Sure. Are there millions of other parents who feel the same way? I guarantee it.
As I said, this is a tough issue. But at the end of the day I don't see the benefit to society by letting the unfortunate circumstances of at-risk youth dictate the legality of distributing dangerous medications to pre-teens without parental consent. And believe me, the conversations you are having with your kids about drugs and sex are the same conversations that are or should be happening in all the schools across America. Drugs, sex and unwanted pregnancies are not confined to the inner-cities by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, white middle class girls are more likely to have abortions than poor, minority girls.
And if the school nurse could tell, within the law, then parents could develop a relationship with that nurse. Then, that nurse could be a confidant for the child, could help steer the child, and could also go to the parents if necessary.
I've often thought about developing a relationship with the school nurse. That's the stuff dreams are made of.
That should be fairly easy to detect, then. Look at the effect of birth control availability on teenage sex. Pretty much all of the research I'm aware of suggests that it has no effect. Look at abstinence-only education. It does delay the onset of sexual activity, but I think it's something like six months to a year, on average. STD rates were about the same or higher in the abstinence-only group.
I don't really keep track of these things, but I'm really going to have to have evidence more convincing than a website dedicated to vague drug industry conspiracy theories and natural, unproven treatments* to find that claim credible.
* Note: These treatments have not been evaluated by the FDA and are not intended to treat or cure any disease, even though we all know that's exactly what they are intended to do.
Why don't you research Dr. Mercola before you diss his site? A cursory search of google with "birth control cancer" will bring up more sites than you can count. But remember, sites like WebMD (which will tell you the evidence is "mixed") are usually funded by Big Pharm which makes billions off oral contraceptives every year. If you're going to be skeptical of Mercola, be skeptical of Big Pharm as well, eh?
I would really like to see some of these studies that show the prevalence of The Pill has not led to increased sexual activity at a young age. I have no qualms about saying abstinence only education is probably a not effective, but I've head the opposite about the pill. Genuinely interested!
If your pre-teen or early teen kid is having sex, you are by definition a crappy parent. If little Susie can't keep her legs together, it's your fault, as much as or more than hers, or the boy who convinces her that you (the parent) are full of crap and he (the boy, doing what boys do) is the right way.
Preventing unwanted teen pregnancies or reducing or eliminating the spread of disease is a noble goal that all of society should engage in.
Schools can help. Nurses can help. Live with it.
Sorry, anonymous parent, but I was still having sex at 13 without my parents' knowledge, and they were good solid people who were trying to keep that sort of thing from happening. While they did put that relationship on the skids immediately by grounding me for about six months, the simple fact is that I matured early, and I was clever about getting out of the home. My parents trusted me, and I abused their trust pretty horribly. It happens, even in good families with lots of love and education. Hormones. Gotta love em.
And while I didn't get pregnant, I could easily have. Agreed on the bits about all of society working to reduce unwanted pregnancies and prevent the spread of disease.
Kem
Getting laid at 13 huh? Shame on you, and shame on your parents. "Good solid people" are more aware of their children and don't let them be "clever". At the very least, they notice changes, signs, obvious signs. It's not just, "Bye, Daddy, I'm going to Mary's" when it's really Mark's, it's knowing what's up when you come back, at the dinner table, during activities, etc. The only parents who are blind to what their children are doing are those who do not see, through ignorance, inattention, or both. "Good solid" people pay attention to what's going on, and children are not so clever that any reasonable parent can't figure it out right away.
I'm glad you came out ok. Since you did come out ok, maybe you would condone it for others, such as your own daughters and their lovable teenie hormones.
But I doubt it.
Does anyone else find humor in the "(not verified)" anonymous tag added to the most recent poster's name?
"Does anyone else find humor in the "(not verified)" anonymous tag added to the most recent poster's name?"
The very first thing that ran through my mind, as well. The phrase "Anonymous Parent whose girls aren't knocked up (not verified)" is just too ironic for words.
OK, after doing a little research on this guy, I'm now convinced he's no longer a silly alt-med practitioner but a full-fledged quack. He's into energy healing, homeopathy, enemas to clean your colon of unspecified "toxins", anti-flouridation, and even anti-cellphone hysteria. About the only quack therapies this guy's website isn't pushing are psychic surgery and quantum DNA reprogramming. I just read the page for