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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (227662)	4/4/2005 10:15:13 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578334

Your Clinton legacy, What a guy. Wonder how many or YOUR kids were interviewed? Oral Sex Safe and Not Really Sex, Say U.S. Teens Mon Apr 4, 1:16 AM ET Health - Reuters CHICAGO (Reuters) - One in five U.S. teenagers say they have engaged in oral sex, an activity that some adolescents view as not sex at all and certainly less risky than intercourse, a report released on Monday said. The survey of 580 children with a mean age of 14-1/2 found 20 percent said they had engaged in oral sex, compared to 14 percent who said they had engaged in sexual intercourse. In addition, one-third of the multi-ethnic 9th graders surveyed said they intended to have oral sex within the next six months and nearly one-fourth planned to have intercourse during the period. It was more common for boys to have performed oral sex on girls than vice versa, the report said. Previous studies and numerous campaigns aimed at deterring teenaged sex have focused on intercourse, but as many as half of adolescents experience oral sex first, the report said. The risk of transmitting infections, including HIV, is significantly less with oral sex than with intercourse but is likely underestimated by teenagers, said the report in the journal Pediatrics. Youngsters who engage in oral sex rarely used condoms or dental dams, even though herpes, hepatitis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis as well as the virus that causes AIDS can all be transmitted orally, it added. "Given the suggestion that adolescents do not view oral sex as sex and see oral sex as a way of preserving their virginity while still gaining intimacy and sexual pleasure, they are likely to interpret sexual health messages as referring to vaginal sex," wrote lead author Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, a pediatrician at the University of California, San Francisco. "Adolescents also believed that oral sex is more acceptable than vaginal sex for adolescents their own age in both dating and non-dating situations, oral sex is less of a threat to their values and beliefs, and more of their peers will have oral sex than vaginal sex in the near future," she wrote.

To: tejek who wrote (227662)	4/4/2005 10:00:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578334

however, its becoming a common complaint from the right and there is talk of changing the role of the courts or restricting them For the most part I think they should restrict themselves. Every now and than they actually do that. No, the judiciary is part of the checks and balances. Restricting the courts would be undemocratic. The argument is that the courts have slipped off of their prime check and balance, that balance being that they are only supposed to interpret law not invent it. I'm not pushing for some constitutional amendment to severely weaken the courts, but such an amendment would be neither undemocratic nor unconstitutional, even if it might be unwise. If such an amendment did pass I would not be a shock if it was poorly written, or to see it go to far or for it to not be accurately aimed at the problem. It might well have negative consequences, potentially very negative consequences, but it would if it came to pass, be voted in through the democratic process (and thus by definition it would not be undemocratic) and it would be part of the constitution (and thus by definition it could not be unconstitutional). Tim

To: tejek who wrote (227662)	4/5/2005 12:00:36 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578334

Re: "I repeat.........restricting them beyond the current restrictions found in the checks and balance system would be undemocratic." There is nothing obvious here I should bother to disagree with, save that the statement is not a repeat at all. It may be a repeat of your intent, but it is not a repeat of what was said by you. You did state some glaringly odd things as I pointed out. So my statement stands, and despite your efforts, it was not in contradiction to the plain intent you show above. Should you think checks and balances allow no room for other branches to act against the actions of courts (and you had been writing as though you do, IMO), you don't understand the checks and balances, I'm quite sure. Dan B.