Correcting rumors about Sarah Palin

[themadhatter114]

http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/

 

Of particular note, I would like to point to this article linked on this site, which is an LA Times Article about Palin's views on sex education:

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...0,3119305.story

 

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

 

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau.

 

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor stands by her 2006 statement, supporting sex education that covers both abstinence and contraception.

 

Palin's statements date to her 2006 gubernatorial run. In July of that year, she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"

 

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

 

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

 

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

 

So, I hope there is no more discussion that somehow Sarah Palin's views on sex education are to be blamed for Bristol Palin's pregnancy, unless you want to now suggest that Sarah Palin's liberal view on contraceptives influenced her daughter into taking risks that she otherwise would not have (which is not my view...just turning it around).

[Killian Kalthorne]

"Explicit means explicit."

 

Funny, she still did not define what she considers "explicit." No exact details.

 

"Explicit means explicit."

 

What exactly does "explicit" means to a woman who is an ultra conservative Christian who states that it is "God's plan" for our soldiers to fight in the Middle East? Details.

 

Also, when did George W. Bush become god?

[Laozi]

I dunno what the big deal is even if she was only for abstinence sex education, her decisions and opinions only affected a little less then the number of people then there are in the Austin area. Palin's 19th century social views should really take a back seat to how horribly unqualified she is to be VP. People can argue that the VP doesn't do much but that's just no true anymore, Cheney is the most influential VP since Nixon. Palin has a laughable background with pork barrel legislation that even, of all people, McCain has criticized. But hey, the only reason that has even been brought up is because the media doesn't like her because she's a girl.

[theslug]

Don't care about rumors. Palin is an idiot, that's a fact.

Edited September 7, 2008 by theslug

[SteveThaiBinh]

I think that of all the many things she is or appears to be, an idiot is certainly not one of them.

[Hildegard]

What exactly does "explicit" means to a woman who is an ultra conservative Christian who states that it is "God's plan" for our soldiers to fight in the Middle East? Details.

 

Also, when did George W. Bush become god?

 

He ain't God but...

''I believe that God wants me to be president''

 

G.W. Bush

 

He is given to all of us by God himself people, wow

[Killian Kalthorne]

The sheer level of hubris in that man is just astounding. The same can be said about the Republican party. God this, God that. Whatever.

[Hildegard]

The sheer level of hubris in that man is just astounding. The same can be said about the Republican party. God this, God that. Whatever.

 

One of my favorite

 

''Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we''

 

What's funny, this isn't a lapsus lingua at all

 

EDIT - bastards and scum exploit God to back their own agendas and interests ever since society exists, nothing new really

Edited September 7, 2008 by Hildegard

[themadhatter114]

"Explicit means explicit."

 

Funny, she still did not define what she considers "explicit." No exact details.

 

"Explicit means explicit."

 

What exactly does "explicit" means to a woman who is an ultra conservative Christian who states that it is "God's plan" for our soldiers to fight in the Middle East? Details.

 

Also, when did George W. Bush become god?

 

Funny, what she definitely says is that she doesn't consider condoms part of explicit sex education and that children should learn about condoms in other avenues if not at home. So, her statement saying "Explicit sex ed programs will not find my support" is now clear that she is not saying that comprehensive sex education programs will not find her support. So now will you blame comprehensive sex education for failing Bristol Palin?

 

And, as I expected, you didn't even both to read the first link. She did not claim that our troops are on a task from God. She was giving a standard "pray for the troops" plea and hoping that God had some plan. Beyond that, Palin's public commentary about the Iraq War up until her announcement as VP candidate were statements about how we needed an exit plan.

 

It is clear that you and others have no interest in learning who this woman truly is and only wish to trash her for being a Christian and for being a conservative.

 

There are avenues of criticism you could take, but you are clearly disingenuous and your point of view on the matter is apparently unchanged by things like facts.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

About that first link, it looks more like a personal blog than a credible news agency - and the facts that I cannot find any more information on the author and his other blogs are right-wing/pro-conservative makes it suspect.

[themadhatter114]

About that first link, it looks more like a personal blog than a credible news agency - and the facts that I cannot find any more information on the author and his other blogs are right-wing/pro-conservative makes it suspect.

 

Yes, the first link is a blog. That blog happens to link to news stories for verification about how he clarified most of the rumours. In particular, you can find the full text of her prayer, or a video. Which is why I would expect someone who is going to comment on that particular story to actually check up on it. Hell, it's number 23, the quote's directly from the NY Times.

Edited September 8, 2008 by themadhatter114

[Brdavs]

But hey, she has international experience. The eyes of Putin are just across the chukchi sea.

 

And the sad thing is some people actually mean that seriously lol. Tis allso funny to see McCain ditching the "experience" for "change" heh.

[Killian Kalthorne]

It is clear that you and others have no interest in learning who this woman truly is and only wish to trash her for being a Christian and for being a conservative.

 

We have done so well in the US with Christian Conservatives in power. OH YES WE HAVE! *takes a good look at Bush*

 

Christian Conservatives are stuck in 19th and 20th century mode of thinking. Sorry, but it is true. This is the 21st century and we need 21st century leadership. We need forward thinking people, progressives, in power, not those who use antiquated beliefs and traditions to influence national and state level policy. I don't mind fiscal conservatism. In fact I am all for it. However social conservatism needs to go the way of Jimmy Hoffa.

[Hurlshort]

Bush isn't really a conservative Christian, he just plays one on TV.

 

Seriously, these are politicians. They pander to their majority support base.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Does anyone here still think that if adults choose to not discuss sexuality, adolescents will be unable to figure out one of humanity's most primal and instinctive drives?

 

I've never seen any data that correlates sex ed programs with teen pregnancy rates. Does anyone have any handy links?

[Gorgon]

I seems about as intelligent as the Catholic church preaching abstinence before marriage and no birth control to solve the AIDS crisis in Africa.

 

More poignantly, it's the same refusal to allow reality to interfere with principle, or doctrine. Personally I don't even know where to begin communicating with people who mix religion and politics.

[Gorgon]

Bush isn't really a conservative Christian, he just plays one on TV.

 

Yes, but that also means he has to put out once in a while. Hand jobs alone won't ensure the base stays intact.

[kirottu]

Does anyone here still think that if adults choose to not discuss sexuality, adolescents will be unable to figure out one of humanity's most primal and instinctive drives?

 

I've never seen any data that correlates sex ed programs with teen pregnancy rates. Does anyone have any handy links?

 

Penn and Teller

Edited September 8, 2008 by kirottu

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Does anyone here still think that if adults choose to not discuss sexuality, adolescents will be unable to figure out one of humanity's most primal and instinctive drives?

 

I've never seen any data that correlates sex ed programs with teen pregnancy rates. Does anyone have any handy links?

 

Where is the evidence that the "abstinence policy" is the reason for the increase in STD?

 

There are such studies, and a recent congressional investigation found that these programs were deliberately spreading false information within the schools. Not only has this unethical practise blurred the lines between religion and science, but there is a general consensus that these so called "sex education programs" -although they should be known as sex uneducation programs and will be for the reminder of this posting- have actually caused a rise in risky sexual practises and teen pregnancies. Think about it, if the young adults are going to have sex anyways, as numerous studies have showed that the students in the "uneducation programs" are just as likely, if not more likely, to have intercourse or another form of sexual interaction, would you rather they know about sexually transmitted diseases and birth-control, or would you prefer them to believe that condoms cause AIDs and masturbation will cause cancer? ****, these programs even support the misguided "abstinence "virginity" pledges" - things that, while marginally helpful in preventing "regular" sexual intercourse, raised the likelihood that the students would engage in unprotected anal and/or oral sex to avoid breaking the "pledge." We must top the uneducation and brainwashing of America's children!

 

Resources:

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20041...02153-50247.pdf

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publication...tabstinence.pdf

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...3-2004Dec1.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7041301003.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504871/

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/...23/feature.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/opinion/28sat1.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/...=Health_3976972

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080423/sc_nm/abstinence_usa_dc

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/health/06birth.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7368219.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/...d.ap/index.html

 

I'll post some more recent data too, but those links should give you a the general idea.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I'll post some more recent data too, but those links should give you a the general idea.

welp;

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'll post some more recent data too, but those links should give you a the general idea.

welp;

 

???

[taks]

have actually caused a rise in risky sexual practises and teen pregnancies.

not to nitpick buuut... nearly all of these are news articles, which means little, and the first is a report by a democratic congressman, which hardly constitutes a scientific study. this one, http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publication...tabstinence.pdf, however, is truly a comprehensive study and it found no difference between the control and program groups for just about any category. i.e., your terminology is incorrect, or at least exaggerated, but it would seem (based on the comprehensive mpr study), that abstinence programs don't do much either way, which is not a surprise. i'm quite certain sex education in schools doesn't do much regardless of how it is taught, IMO.

 

taks

 

PS: again, i should add, studies such as these are incapable of assessing cause and effect, only correlation.

Edited September 8, 2008 by taks

[themadhatter114]

It is clear that you and others have no interest in learning who this woman truly is and only wish to trash her for being a Christian and for being a conservative.

 

We have done so well in the US with Christian Conservatives in power. OH YES WE HAVE! *takes a good look at Bush*

 

Christian Conservatives are stuck in 19th and 20th century mode of thinking. Sorry, but it is true. This is the 21st century and we need 21st century leadership. We need forward thinking people, progressives, in power, not those who use antiquated beliefs and traditions to influence national and state level policy. I don't mind fiscal conservatism. In fact I am all for it. However social conservatism needs to go the way of Jimmy Hoffa.

 

You are dodging the issue. You want to trash her for being a Christian conservative but you will not take responsibility for being completely dishonest about her views.

[themadhatter114]

have actually caused a rise in risky sexual practises and teen pregnancies.

not to nitpick buuut... nearly all of these are news articles, which means little, and the first is a report by a democratic congressman, which hardly constitutes a scientific study. this one, http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publication...tabstinence.pdf, however, is truly a comprehensive study and it found no difference between the control and program groups for just about any category. i.e., your terminology is incorrect, or at least exaggerated, but it would seem (based on the comprehensive mpr study), that abstinence programs don't do much either way, which is not a surprise. i'm quite certain sex education in schools doesn't do much regardless of how it is taught, IMO.

 

taks

 

PS: again, i should add, studies such as these are incapable of assessing cause and effect, only correlation.

 

He's already been called out on this. When asked for statistics that show abstinence-only is worse than other programs, he simply posts a list of studies that show no difference or articles that simply complain about people lying in sex education classes.

 

Unfortunately comprehensive sex ed classes lie, too.

[taks]

Unfortunately comprehensive sex ed classes lie, too.

as far as i can tell, neither accomplishes the goal of reduced teen sex. personally, i think it's a parents issue. but hey, i think education in general is a parents issue, not a public one. but that's just anti-socialist taks talking.

 

taks