Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4130)	3/21/2002 11:03:55 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

The whole idea of "social conservatism" seems to be that the state ought to actively promote - and in some cases impose - a particular concept of morality and a particular code of conduct. I can think of few more interventionist ideas. The war on drugs stands out as a classic interventionist program favored by conservatives. Note that this is not an attack on conservatives per se, merely a comment that the two sides are not so far apart as they would like to believe when it comes to basic perspectives. Liberals go all mushy whenever social spending is involved, conservatives often toss the idea of fiscal responsibility out the window when military spending comes up. Neither has any real objection to excessive Government spending, they just want the money to be spent in different places. It is sometimes amusing to see how some of the conservatives that run up the flag and salute when a police officer is killed in the line of duty react when someone suggests that local police ought perhaps to have some input into who is allowed to own deadly weapons. All of a sudden the same cops that are heroes in another context become agents of the great Government disarmament conspiracy. There are, of course, as many contradictions, or more, on the liberal side. Ideology of any sort is incompatible with thought. I'm deep in the preparations for my son's birthday party, which will be held this afternoon - prematurely, but it's the start of spring break and some kids are leaving. Beach barbecue with small boats, at last count 7 kayaks and 2 sailboats. Fun, but exhausting. We will take off for a few days after, it being a holiday, so the thread will have to get on without me. Somehow I suspect that you'll manage....

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4130)	3/22/2002 6:59:22 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Can you explain what you mean further? With examples? /i> The elephant in the living room, of course, is abortion restrictions. But here's a column I just ran across--right on point. Let's just say no to Big Government By Stephanie Salter I'm not sure what it is about sex that turns conservative Republicans into zealots for Big Government. I just know that it's getting to be an annoying habit that would be comically hypocritical if it weren't so dangerous. Take the Bush administration's unrealistic and expensive love affair with abstinence-only sex education for teen-agers. If anybody attempted a similar degree of personal invasion and regulation for, say, the oil industry, that somebody would be labeled a radical Marxist. Do you realize that in 2002, in the most technologically advanced society in the history of humankind, the federal government will not fund any kind of sex education but that which teaches abstinence as the only positive choice? Whatever your religious persuasion, are you not given at least a slight case of the creeps by knowing that federal law mandates that abstinence-only programs include this stunning (and totally unproved) declaration: "Sexual activity outside marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects?" What could be more Big Government than a bunch of middle-aged Washington politicians sticking their pointy, fundamentalist noses into one of the most private areas of American family life? George W. Bush and his like-minded social conservatives insist not only on defining "good" and "bad" sex for all citizens (God, what a thought!), they reduce the wondrous and monstrous complexities of human sexuality to a perversion of a sneaker slogan: Just don't do it. Instead of using broad and practical methods to help modern adolescents mitigate the powerful force of hormones that scream, "Procreate!" Bush tries to turn back the clock to a time of scientific ignorance and medieval morality. To counter an irresponsible, anything-goes sexual ethic that comes at teen-agers from the entertainment and advertising media, Bush chooses the primitive weapons of fear and stigmatization. Perhaps worst of all, when faced with the reality of widespread sexual activity by a majority of teens - the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says two-thirds of all adolescents have had intercourse by the time they graduate from high school - he throws $135 million a year into sex education programs that are prohibited from offering latex as an alternative barrier to pregnancy and disease. Never mind that abstinence-only has racked up a pretty poor track record over time and a variety of cultures. As columnist Ellen Goodman recently observed: "Abstinence pledges fail more often than condoms do." Never mind that no legitimate study has yet shown that abstinence-only teaching is as effective as comprehensive sex education, let alone superior to it. Bush and conservative Republicans in Congress are committed to "just say no," and they've fixed it so that's where all the money will go. Point out the lack of proof for their theory, and these Republicans sound like the airy-fairiest of liberals. As Health and Human Deputy Secretary Claude Allen argued of abstinence-only teaching: "Unless we put money there to find out whether it works, we will never know." Imagine the Republican response to that kind of logic if it came from a Democrat and the subject were medical marijuana. Sex education, like sex itself, is far from simple. Individuals and institutions have struggled mightily over the centuries with the challenge. Often as not, they've had mixed results. Today, no conscientious parent wants her or his child to follow a sexual credo of, "If it feels good, do it." Sex still carries some enormous risks, as it always has, for people of any age. But to allow the federal government to use taxpayers' money to preach that there is only one path to positive, healthy sexuality is to publicly fund a lie - a lie not unlike the one about how Republicans just hate Big Government. * Stephanie Salter is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle.