Good news on teen pregnancy is bad news for fundamentalists

Teen PregnancyEach new year brings a new low in the rate of teen pregnancy in the US. One might think that religious conservatives would be cheering this healthy trend, but they never mention it.

The numbers look like a victory for the religious right until you consider the longer trend and the reasons behind the decline. Teen pregnancy didn’t peak during the dirty years of the sexual revolution. The great age of the teen mom was the 1950’s.

It turns out that teen pregnancy has been in fairly steady decline since its towering peak in 1957. The half-century long declines seem tied to the growth in women’s power over their own lives, not exactly the central focus of the religious right. You won’t hear fundamentalists trumpeting this victory because it isn’t a victory. It is a defeat.

Teenagers are delaying sexual activity more than in the recent past, but most of the decline comes from increased education about sexuality and more consistent use of contraceptives. That’s not exactly a win for fundamentalists. By the same token, the long term decline in abortion rates and teen births, which should cheer religious conservatives, comes with an accompanying rise in women’s choices over their own bodies. This is not the kind of “victory” that Jerry Falwell had in mind.

And that’s one of the central ironies of the culture wars. Our culture is vastly more socially conservative by honest measures than it was in the seventies, but not in the ways that really mattered to the fundamentalists. They wanted to get there through authoritarian means that would limit choices and shore up religious values. Instead, we got there through libertarian means; education, choices and freedom.

People, especially young people, are making smarter choices about sex, drugs, education, and other personal matters than ever before. That’s not a victory for fundamentalists because their goals were never related to outcomes. Their objective was to limit choices. That’s why the “pro-life” movement is just as enthusiastic about blocking sex education and contraception access as they are about picketing abortion clinics. There is nothing pro-life about their movement or their motives.

The steep long-term declines in teen pregnancy, teen birth, and abortion are not going to be celebrated by religious fundamentalists because those were never their core objectives. The expansion of choices, especially for women, is a defeat for the religious right even as it improves quality of life for everyone.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Religious Right, Reproductive Rights
460 comments on “Good news on teen pregnancy is bad news for fundamentalists
  1. […] busy week, but noticed this article related to a previous post and thought it was […]

  2. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    I missed the memo that indicated raising the minimum wage solves all the problems. I’m not sure who is saying that (other than Stern), but whoever it, is is an idiot.

    Now, my assumption is that Stern is just sitting on some fast-moving boles and he knows that no one ever said the raising the minimum wage would solve all the problems.

    That would be like folks from the other side saying, “See, lowering the top marginal tax rate did not solve all the problems with the economy”.

    While both statements would be true, they are strawperson arguments that no one is making (other than, it appears, Stern).

    Of course, we have a few decades of hearing “the minimum wage will destroy the economy”, and evidently now will turn us into Venezuela, but that has not seemed to happen.

    Clearly, Stern (and some on the right) have a philosophic problem with the concept of a minimum wage for businesses (as well as requirements to not refuse to hire or serve Black folks and women), and don’t think you there is the slightest possibility that this philosophic difference leads you to look for all the negative aspects associated with raising the minimum wage?

    Similarly, those on the other side look at the positive aspects.

    Isn’t is most likely that the true effects will be somewhere in between the two? Folks just need to figure out where the cost/benefit points are, and then build from there.

    No one is arguing that raising the minimum wage will solve all the problems, and no real person believes raising the minimum wage will turn us into Venezuela.

    • CaptSternn says:

      The top tax rates were raised, HT, not cut. Now, how has the economy been since the minimum wages were increased?

      • Crogged says:

        Who ever said GDP was determined by minimum wage(s) or top incremental tax rates? You have no problem ignoring the ‘selfish’ demands of those receiving minimum wages, why don’t you have the same spine when someone complains about paying 1 percent more on the 8 million dollars they made over a 1 million dollar floor?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…when we did cut the marginal rates, did it solve all our problems?

        Did you know that ice cream consumption is highly correlated with highway tire blowouts. The relationship is pretty darn strong.

        I guess there are a few ways we could try to explain this.

        We could try to figure out if blown out tires cause people to eat more ice cream.
        We could try to figure out if eating more ice cream causes more tire blowouts.

        Or we could be a bit more rational and think about the fact that folks eat more ice cream during the summer and also do more highway driving in the summer, and maybe the relationship between blowouts and ice cream consumption isn’t all that causal after all.

        There are probably 84 levers that affect the economy, and the President and Congress has modest control of maybe a dozen of those levers, and even with that control, there is no firm way of telling exactly what will happen when one of those levers is tweaked.

        The “raising the minimum wage in 2007 didn’t solve all our problems” is about as silly an argument as, “eating less ice cream didn’t reduce the number of highway tire blowouts”.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Income tax rates were cut in the late 1980s, and the economy thrived. They were raised a little at a time again but the economy managed to keep going because of the tech boom. That dot com bubble went bust around 2000 and we fell into a recession. Tax rates were cut back and the economy came back.

        Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is best for the economy. We should only be taxed enough for the federal government to operate under the constitutional restrictions and powers, only enough at the state level so the state government can function under state constitutions and only enough at the local level so counties and cities can operate under their charters.

      • Crogged says:

        And there has not nor will there be a ‘1 to 1’, cut taxes equals economy good, raise taxes equals economy bad, formula. For some odd reason you only consider other factors effecting the economy during periods when there was economic growth despite a raise in marginal rates–I wonder why…………

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Cappy we went over this ad nauseum and you still promulgate that same wingnut lies.

        Ronald Reagen was forced to raise taxes numerous times throughout his two terms.

        He plunged the country into a recession in 1981 -82 with his tax cuts and spending like a drunken sailor on his military toys. His tax increases from 84-86 subsequently resulted in the economic boom in the late 80’s.

        But facts don’t matter to you. We know that.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Reagan had congress cut taxes by about 50%. Later they raised other taxes, ending with a net tax cut of about 25%. But don;t let facts get in your way, Bubba. You never have before.

      • John Galt says:

        There is exactly zero correlation between economic growth and the rise or fall of the top marginal tax rates. The graph in the link (as well as the article itself) makes that abundantly clear. Marginal tax rates today are historically low, having been lower only during a few halcyon days around 1990 when, to be honest, the economy didn’t do all that well during a recession during the first Bush administration.
        http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2010/02/tax_fraud.html

        As a side note, this is an example of a bad graph, which drives me crazy. They plot tax rates (which have been ~25-90%) on the same scale as GDP growth, which rarely exceed 10%, so it looks like the economic swings are very small. They should have plotted this with two different y axes with different scales.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        CaptSternn says:
        May 1, 2014 at 11:28 am
        “Reagan had congress cut taxes by about 50%. Later they raised other taxes, ending with a net tax cut of about 25%. But don;t let facts get in your way, Bubba. You never have before.”

        And of course you have no proof or documented source whatsoever because ti is a flat out made up and you know it because I had already debunked that numerous times.

        But you trot out the same lies time and again thinking the “left” is as stupid and ADHD addled as you are. This is just too easy. Please note, all of the following below is mere verbatim cut and paste of the debunking thrashing I gave Cappy time and again previously of HIS same verbatim lies. Man he is one obstinately stupid masochist.

        “Reagan raised taxes several times to address his massive government spending which resulted in the largest budget deficit ever in US history up till then and along with his tax cuts, threw the economy into a recession as Republicans seem to do time and again. More proof right wingers live in the own fantasy world with their own set of warped ‘facts’. Oh yeah and Reagan drove the country into a recession with 10.8% unemployment and raised taxes to pay for his useless Wars-R-Us toy shopping.

        “Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together ‘constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.’

        In 1983, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate.

        The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn’t designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn’t mean that no one’s taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

        All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 [tax cut] legislation.

        Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a smidge below the average under President Carter — and a smidge above the 40-year average today.”

        http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And some more Cappy self induced greatest hits rehash embarrassment on his fake reality:

        “Cappy are you chronologically challenged too? Yes, Reagan cut taxes. [NOT in the “late 80’s” as you lied] And THEN tanked the economy, ballooned the unemployment rate and the budget deficit. At least he had the pragmatism (and a desire to be re-elected) to fix his boo boo and subsequently RAISE taxes SEVERAL times to pull the economy out his “Voodoo Economics” (not my idea, his Vice President George HW Bush coined that appropros appellation) death spiral nose dive.

        CaptSternn 8:18 AM on April 2, 2013 (déjà vu all over again apparently as note the date of this Cappyism and today’s regurgitation by Cappy) wrote:

        ‘Reagan cut taxes by 50%, then got rid of some deductions. In the end he had a net tax cut of 50%.’

        Not even close to being factually correct Cappy. Again.

        ‘So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

        All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 [tax cut] legislation.’

        Second of all, let’s learn chronology. Reagan signed into law his tax cuts on August 13, 1981 and unemployment was 7.4% and had hovered in the low to mid 7% range since taking office. It then climbed straight up every single month until it peaked for the second straight month in December 1982 at a whopping 10.8%. Full blown recession. And unemployment stayed over 10% until July of 1983. That’s 10 straight months of unemployment over 10%. Can you say recession?

        He then had no choice but to follow up with ‘The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was, at the time, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history.’

        And he raised taxes 11 times over 6 of his 8 years as President.

        ‘These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan’s tax policies, blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.’ “

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020403104.html

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And the oldie but goodie hits on Cappy’s reputation keep on coming:

        “Everyone remembers Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture–a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984.”

        http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/02/barack-obama-ronald-reagan-budget-taxes-opinions-contributors-rob-shapiro.html

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And the final coup de grace (for this evening at least):

        “So Cappy, unemployment fluctuated (meaning it went up and down) from 7.2% to 7.5% during Reagan’s first 8 months in office. And then it INCREASED dramatically for 16 STRAIGHT MONTHS after Reagan’s tax cuts were implemented.”

        [This was in response to Cappy’s lie that Carter somehow caused the Reagan induced recession 0f 81 – 82. So who’s unfairly blaming his predecessor NOW?]

        http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record

  3. John Galt says:

    The arguments about the minimum wage and the various estimates of its impact on employment remind me of a joke told to me by an economist: If you are having a dinner party and want it to be a success, invite an erudite and charming guest whose knowledge and anecdotes can entertain the group all night. In other words, invite an economist. If you want your dinner party to be a miserable failure of argument and recrimination, then invite TWO economists.

  4. tuttabellamia says:

    I’m still inclined to say no to a minimum income, but I do support a minimum WAGE for work performed. I don’t think it should be so much about a “livable” wage, because that’s based too much on what the wage can bring in, on adjusting it for need, which is hard to define, and in any case I think it should be based on the value of the work itself, and the value of a person essentially giving a certain number of hours of his daily life to his/her employer, to be at the employer’s disposal for work-related activities. Just being at the employer’s disposal for a certain number of hours requires its own minimum wage, to give value to the employee’s presence, time, and energy — whether physical or mental, on site or remote — and then you go from there, paying based on skills and job performance. I certainly don’t advocate paying someone for just showing up and doing nothing, only that there should be a minimum wage for “showing up,” as a starting point.

    As for the what wage should be, I don’t know, but I have always felt that manual labor was grossly undervalued and underpaid. Just because people are willing to perform it for less money doesn’t make it less valuable. It is valuable in and of itself.

    I’m not well-versed in economics, so I haven’t given much thought to the economic consequences of raising the minimum wage above a certain point, but I would think that a minimum wage is something we should allow for and create favorable circumstances for, so that it can “work,” since it’s a reflection of the value we as a society place on a person’s presence, and therefore on the person himself. I see this tied in with the idea of equality — not income equality, but equality as people.

    • DanMan says:

      Okay Tut try this. Assume a minimum wage is declared. Say $10.10. If that is good, why wouldn’t $15 be better?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        $15 is not necessarily better. It would give more value to the worker’s presence, but is it warranted? How do we determine the mimimum value of a person’s presence to begin with? Should the wage be based on standard of living after all?

      • DanMan says:

        productivity is how you measure the value,
        if they are just showing up they should be charged rent shouldn’t they?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Cap would disagree with you there. It’s not about productivity. It’s about freedom. I can pay you just for showing up, for an agreed upon wage acceptable to both parties.

      • CaptSternn says:

        A person could hire another and pay them for just showing up if they desire. But usually an employer expects something in return, a job to be done. That might be a quota on a production line, or just make sure things are up and running properly. Fire fighters and EMS workers are paid just to show up. If there are no calls, they sit around watching TV or playing cards. But when a call does come in they are expected to respond and to do so in a timely and professional manner.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Well, Dan, if having one child is good, why wouldn’t having twenty children be better?

        Heck, if having one spouse is good, why wouldn’t having twenty spouses be better?

        If having one cat is good, why wouldn’t having sixty cats be better?

        And do you always argue from such spurious premises? (I guess you decided that having one was good, and so….)

      • DanMan says:

        Well Owl you are missing a salient parameter. Choice. I don’t want to have twenty kids, lord knows my hands are full with DanMa’am and I don’t do cats at all so even one is not good for me.

        Care to try again?

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Of course, there’s already a minimum wage. I’m addressing those who are entirely opposed to the concept of a minimum wage.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      A minimum wage is like SS. It is not meant to live off of, just a guarantee of help as you help yourself.

    • Crogged says:

      Is ‘inflation’ always bad? We’re stuck in this weird world of economics as morality, where there always implicit criticism of those at the bottom of the ladder and how doomed, DOOMED we all are if we try to do anything regarding them. If you own a home and have a mortgage at a fixed rate, do you complain about what inflation does to the value of your house? No one is proposing doubling or tripling minimum wages, but Oliver is asking Mr. Bumble for more. Why, of course we can’t, don’t you know what that will do to the price of gruel?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Again, the democrats got the minimum wage raised in 2007. Do you think the economy and world have been great since that happened? If raising the minimum wage solves al the problems, why aren’t all the problems solved already?

      • DanMan says:

        Yet there is no implicit criticism of the wealthy is there? There IS over the top hate directed at them and it emanates from the white house. One of the dems major platforms is class warfare.

        The rucas posse rode the CBO estimates pony throughout the push for Obamacare. That same group has estimated 500,000 jobs lost in the first two years of increasing the wage to $10.10. Are they wrong now?

      • Crogged says:

        The minimum wage increase solves little and is symbolic more than actual. BTW Danman here’s the lowdown from the CBO report-the economic impact of job losses with gains of those who didn’t lose their jobs. Small potatoes, unless you are in the 900,000 and for some odd reason, don’t get to complain about their plight on the op-ed pages of the WSJ. So deny the gruel, brave warriors for truth……

        Under current law, CBO projects, there will be roughly
        45 million people in families whose income is below the
        poverty threshold in 2016. The $10.10 option would
        reduce that number by about 900,000, or 2 percent,
        according to CBO’s estimate. That estimate takes into
        account both families whose income would increase and
        move them out of poverty and families whose income
        would fall and move them into poverty.

      • DanMan says:

        Crogged, there is no guarantee (and much evidence to dispel) the raise in wages will translate to higher overall income. Obamacare itself is encouraging part time scheduling.

        $7.25 x 40 hrs = $290/week = $15,080/year
        10.10 x 30 hrs = $$303/week = $15,756/year

        $676/year. If that’s the breakline to get 900,000 out of poverty while sacrificing 500,000 jobs altogether then you need some maf skills.

        $15,080 x 500,000 people = $7,540,000,000.
        $676 x 900,000 people = $608,400,000.

    • Intrigued says:

      I view minimum wage as the Governments way of shifting the burden of poverty back to the marketplace. Do employers have an obligation to pay a liveable wage? If the answer is no then the burden of poverty falls back on the taxpayers. Of course conservatives believe this burden falls back on the individual but if the individual engages in criminal activity to meet their needs then the burden falls back on the taxpayers. If we want to ensure children have their basic needs met and the individual can’t provide these minimum needs then it falls back on the taxpayer.

      • Intrigued says:

        Sorry wrong place:( This was in response to Tutt at the top.

      • CaptSternn says:

        It is on the individual, unless they turn to crime, then society, tax payers, will remove them from open and free society and put them in a prison society. It is the responsibility of the parenst to make sure that the needs of their children are met.

      • Crogged says:

        So replacing food stamp programs with straight cash is also hatin’ on rich people who own grocery stores and, and, and VENEZUELA

      • Intrigued says:

        Stern if they go to jail, who pays for that? If we deem them unfit parents and take away their kids, who pays for that?

      • Tuttabella says:

        Intrigued, I’m not looking at it from the standpoint of poverty and livable wages, just at the minimum, inherent value of a worker’s presence.

        Maybe I’m philosophizing too much, me in my utopian bubble, detached from real-world experience, but I rather enjoy this approach.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Intrigued, I would suggest putting prisoners to work. Use the procededs to pay for their food and bunk, send the rest to support their kids.

      • Intrigued says:

        Good suggestion Stern but that solution is already in place with what looks like positive results. I would argue that this program is another way to shift the some of the burden back to the marketplace but it still leaves the majority of the burden on the taxpayers. I would prefer to focus on reducing crime rates affected by poverty.

        http://www.nij.gov/journals/257/Pages/real-work-programs.aspx

      • CaptSternn says:

        Being poor does not excuse criminal activity, nor does it cause criminal activity. Interesting article. Thanks for the link.

    • John Galt says:

      The federal minimum wage has existed in some form since the ’30s, but it was fragmented and non-universal until 1978, when everything was unified for non-exempt employees at $2.65/hour. Based on the standard CPI inflation calculator, this is $9.60 today, not too far off the $10.10 being proposed. Since this is only raised every few years, then it makes sense for it to go higher than the inflation trend and stay there until inflation has more than caught up (actually it makes the most sense to go to $9.60 and index to inflation annually, as is done with SS). Should those working at the bottom not keep up with inflation?

      • CaptSternn says:

        They can keep up with inflation by making themselves more valuable to the employer and working their way up.

      • John Galt says:

        Not if they are new to the workforce. The extension of your argument is that we should inflate away the minimum wage. At some point, you basically expect new entrants to the labor force to accept what are very close to unpaid internships in the fast food industry for some future promise of more lucrative employment. This has the effect of depressing all wages at the lower end of the spectrum with the primary beneficiaries of this being large corporations. There is a reasonable tradeoff to be made in ensuring work is compensated at a level that provides a near-term incentive to do it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        People that are new to the workforce start at the bottom and work their way up.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        In the idealized fantasy-world that you seem to doggedly inhabit, Sternn, perhaps.

        But not in the real world, involving real people, who have real problems, which our real government exists to help solve, with real solutions.

  5. DanMan says:

    man o man somebody kicked the anthill and rucas posse is crawling around looking for somebody to sting

    hey y’all, Obama really did lie and people really did die. You want that blood on your hands? keep defending him. He’s yours.

    I have another question I bet none of the rucas can answer. Why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012?

  6. CaptSternn says:

    Off topic but good news, senate republicans managed to block a vote to raise the minimum wage, probably saving hundreds of thousands of jobs and avoinding a rise in inflation (though that will eventually happen anyway because of democrats and their spending once interest rates go up). Democrats raised the minimum wage in late 2007, and while that was not the core reason for the crash and recession, it was part of the work democrats did to destroy more jobs and stifle a swift and strong recovery.

    Seems that the left will do anything they can to keep the economy down and make more people dependent on the government, which means more control over those people, which is their end goal. Then again, they claim more welfare and fewer jobs is good for the economy.

    • DanMan says:

      and on that note…guess who is pushing for a 30% increase in the minimum wage today?

      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-27219014

      let’s see 1- ($7.25/$10.10) x 100 = 28.2% hmmmm

      Maxine Waters didn’t misspeak when she mentioned her desire to take over energy companies, she merely allowed her intentions to become verbalized.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Venezuela is in really bad shape after the Chavez socialist movement. He nationalized a lot of things, including oil. Oil productuion decreased by a large anount. He stripped the wealthy of their wealth, but his friends got very wealthy and the people in general have suffered severely. Pretty much what the left here wants to happen.

      • DanMan says:

        oops, my bad… (($10.10-$7.25)/$7.25 ) x 100 = 39.3%

        as you were

    • texan5142 says:

      Yep! Keeping people in poverty is a republicn wet dream, good news indeed/s

      • DanMan says:

        I have more now than I did in the past yet I am always eager to have more. That’s my motivation. How is that keeping anyone down?

      • CaptSternn says:

        So basically sacrifice a few to help a few. Gotta crack those eggs to make an omlette. Class warfare and all. Ever wonder why inflation rates exclude food and fuel?

    • way2gosassy says:

      And yet more Bullshit!

      “Chavez’s nationalist rhetoric, his government’s diversion of revenues from the country’s protracted oil bonanza to pay for social assistance programs and its forging of extensive economic ties to China earned him the hatred of both Washington and a fascistic ruling class layer in Venezuela. They did not, however—as both he and his pseudo-left supporters claimed—represent a path to socialism.

      Chavez was a bourgeois nationalist, whose government rested firmly on the military from which he came and which continues to serve as the crucial arbiter in the affairs of the Venezuelan state.”

      http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/08/pers-m08.html

      • CaptSternn says:

        Oh, and you don;t have to use profanity. That only lessens your argument.

      • texan5142 says:

        My doG you are a tool Sternn. Tutt you can do better than this. How often does he beat you?

      • way2gosassy says:

        No you are right Sternn it is always better to use mind numbing idiocy and revisionist history to prove a point rather than call it out for what it is, bullshit!

      • CaptSternn says:

        Texan, you are a coward. But not suprised having that kind of thing come fom a leftist that thinks of beating women. I wonder why the other women here would ever side with such a person. How often do you beat your wife?

      • CaptSternn says:

        “…it is always better to use mind numbing idiocy and revisionist history to prove a point rather than call it out for what it is …”

        The calling card of the left.

      • texan5142 says:

        Coward? My name is Dennis Mott, who are you?

      • CaptSternn says:

        You can ask Owl. He or she likes to put personal info out there. But much to his/her chagrin, nobody emailed me, nobody called me. Hey, maybe you want to meet at the Whataburger in Giddings? Tough guy. Don’t bother. I ain’t that way. Cut me off in traffic, I blow it off. Yell at me on the street corner, I will be polite and that guy apologized. I am not like you.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Speaking of Giddings, nice town. My lady and I are thinking of visiting and staying there one weekend. But don’t expect us to invite anybody to meet us at the Whataburger or Dairy Queen. We really don’t care to meet any of y’all in person. Just the way we are. Not afraid, not confrontational, not even friendly.

      • Bart-1 says:

        Captain is correct about those who hide in anonymity being cowards though.

      • Intrigued says:

        Sassy, now you know us women folk aren’t supposed to curse that like. All jokes aside, I think you nailed it (credit Dan)…ok maybe 1 more joke.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Bart-1 says:
        April 30, 2014 at 7:47 pm

        “Captain is correct about those who hide in anonymity being cowards though.”

        Yes he is, Ain’t that right bart-1/seriouscynic/usincrisis and who knows how many other simultaneous sockpuppets who talk to each other to bully those they don’t agree with politically?

        You really have some chuztpah bart.

        But still a gutless coward. And always will be.

      • way2gosassy says:

        I apologize to those not involved in the poo bombs that regularly get thrown at those who do not deserve it. I think it is genuinely dishonest of Sternn to hold anyone accountable for their language when it is more often his buddies that are the ones who call people names, use vulgarity and insults because they are clearly incapable of honest adult conversation. Don’t school me when you are clearly alright when your buddies are doing much worse. Seems whenever the DanMan gets his fingers smacked he falls back to his alter ego Bart. We aren’t fooled, we know exactly who you are and what you are. As for Sternn’s complaint about Owl putting his personal information out there I suppose it never occurred to him that he also isn’t important enough for someone to want to contact him personally.

        When it comes down to it this is what Bart and Sternn have in common….”Captain is correct about those who hide in anonymity being cowards though.” Too bad he didn’t bother to read Texan’s reply earlier….”Coward? My name is Dennis Mott, who are you?”

        You might keep in mind that for every time you point a finger at someone else you have several pointing back at yourself.

      • Intrigued says:

        Sassy, why do you need to apologize? It looked to me like Stern took the easy way out by condemning you on your profanity opposed to refuting your links. But then again I’m not as classy as you:)

      • way2gosassy says:

        Intrigued, Thank you but I was apologizing for my language not for my comments, classy would have been not to get in the mud with the pigs in the first place.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Intrigued nailed the assessment of Cappy’s diversionary tactics and pathetic obstinate flailings.

        You can’t argue on the merits of your incoherent rants Cappy, so you obfuscate and whine and distract on nonsensical “affronts”. Who’s the REAL coward Cappy? We all know.

        And it’s not all about you Cap. As Sassy noted, her “language” doesn’t even pale to the personal attacks that buzzy has launched and INITIATED nonstop against Sassy UNPROMPTED and not a peep from you Cap. Again who’s the REAL coward Cappy? And hypocrite?

        Give it a rest with your faux victimization whining Cap and grow a pair already. It’s like nails on a chalkboard. And no consistent moral or ethical basis to rely upon.

        So qitchernitchin already and act like a real adult for a change.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        It is a very juvenile notion to say “Well others do it so I did.” This is why Way2 is called Way2Snobby. She looks down her snooty pseudo intellectual nose as if she is above the fray but then shows herself, but all she says is others do it instead of owning it. I have called her comments bullshit in the past mainly because they simply are. The Captain does use great restraint and doesn’t wallow in the gutter.

        As for Dennis Mott, my name is Thomas Harrigan. See how easy that was.

        When a lefty starts commenting that someone is beating their wife/girlfriend, and the other lefties just let that comment go, you become part owner. Now I will say I think the person that did that has a drinking/rage problem which is very evident in the personal insulting way about him. Bubba is a very close second.

        When faced with facts, you lefties go for the gutter. Tsk! Of course 2014 is the year of the GOP and I know it hurts you.

      • DanMan says:

        there is a way2 quantify the level of gutter/profanity you know. I bet some enterprising person could count them.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I addressed your link with several of my own. You have done nothing to refute them.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz….I love you man, but sometimes you have to keep your talking points straight.

        You chastise someone with. “It is a very juvenile notion to say “Well others do it so I did.” This is why Way2 is called Way2Snobby.”

        While a mere few days earlier you were telling folks to gear up for a Hillary beat down from the right because of what the left supposedly did to Palin.

        You are a classic my friend.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Homer, you missed the point again. I was addressing Way2Snobby’s chastising of the Captain for using profane or gutter language while she did herself. Then when confronted with this she fell back on “Your buddies do it.” Keep up my man.

      • Bart-1 says:

        Buuba calls me who doesn’t hide in anonymity a coward and mocks my chutzpah when he is the one who hides in anonymity. How can ANYONE take you seriously. You a a name calling coward and I have challenged you repeatedly to disprove it. You have never once.

    • way2gosassy says:

      By the way Sternn, don’t school me on my language until you have schooled your two little buddies on theirs. Talk about the pot meeting kettle.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Way, how often do you see me using that kind of language? I can answer that for you, never. You used it towards me, and I don’t use it towards anybody. If others do it and you use it in return, your bad. You own it, as do they.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Get off your cross Way2, you’re looking silly.

      • CaptSternn says:

        FYI, I didn’t “school” you or even get on your case. I only suggested that it cheapens your argument. That goes for all that do it. Just because people can use profanity on ths blog now doesn’t make it right or improve things.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Oops, sorry Lifer. Guess I fell for the bait of the trolls. I know it was off topic, but I shouldn;t have allowed myself to fall into the trap of the trolls and the vulgarity, profanity and name calling.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Well, Cap, I’m sure you would beat me at chess, until I got the hang of it, and then I would cream you. Are you sure you want to teach me?

        Ok, I’m beat now. I think I’ll read a bit and then turn in early.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Once more Sternn! Pot meet Kettle

      • way2gosassy says:

        By the way the name calling wasn’t me, Sternn that would be your little buddies, the true trolls.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Seriously, the world has gone to hell in a hand basket since the advent of social media.

    • Bart-1 says:

      Chris, at the risk of inviting more personal insults and attacks which you allow on your blog regularly by some, Why did you title a link to an article and graph of Teen Births with a title, “brings a new low in the rate of teen pregnancy in the US. ” in your first line? Is it an oversight or deliberate deception. There is a huge difference and your thread lost its credibility by doing so to me.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        No one cares what you think bart as YOU have no credibility whatsoever as you have proven over and over and over again.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Bart…you wandering in here always brings a smile. Again, if you did not exist, we would have to invent you.

        With respect to the lost credibility and deception, a tiny little bit if reading (because reading is FUNdamental) or even a modicum of paying attention over the past decade or two will highlight:

        Teen pregnancy rates have fallen, too, over the past 20 years. Looking at data reaching back to 1976, the pregnancy rate peaked among teens ages 15-19 in 1990, at 116.8, and has fallen 44% since then. The abortion rate among females ages 15-19 has also fallen over roughly the same time period—from 43.5 per 1,000 teens in 1988 to 16.3 in 2009.

        However, feel free to go back to your world of made up math that holds only within the confines of a very tiny, very lonely, and kind of sad bubble.

      • goplifer says:

        Bart, read the article.

      • Bart-1 says:

        no need to invent one who was created. Notice nobody disproves my point and Buibba the champion of anonymous cowardice, resorts to can be counted on for ad hominem attacks right on cue.We needn’t invent liberals who engage in childish commentary in place of discussion do we?

    • tomterrific says:

      Yeah Stern – it is such a wonderful thing to keep adults who are working full time living in poverty. I am glad that things are good for you but for those who cook your food and take care of you in the retail centers you shop in things are not so great. Maybe you and the rest of the reactionary right should walk a mile in their shoes before you celebrate another incident of republican obstructionism.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Why are they living in poverty after the minimum wage was raised? If raising the minimum wage would saolve everything, then it was solved in 2007 by the democrats. Or maybe you are just saying what you think sounds good, or just repeating talking points, because it doesn’t get people out of poverty. What it does do is get people unemployed. Is that you goal?

  7. texan5142 says:

    Chis, thank you for being a gracious host. I know I have probably stepped over the line a few times, and I appreciate you letting the conversation flow.

    Once again, Thanks
    Best Regards
    Dennis( Texan5142)

  8. texan5142 says:

    Since some of the discussion here has been about birth control I thought I would post this.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/30/az-pastor-childless-women-on-birth-control-have-destroyed-the-u-s-with-whoredom/

  9. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    To get back to the topic at hand, prohibitions regarding pre-marital sex seem “quaint” in a world where people are not getting married until the late 20s and 30s.

    Undoubtedly, there are many happy people abstaining from sex until marriage (and more power to them), but the vast, vast majority of people in their 20s are sexually active, and it is not like this trend is going to change.

    With the fear of being way too personal, I’m curious about what folks would tell your kids today about waiting for sex if you had teenage children.

    I’m a few years away from having these conversations, and assuming really good and age appropriate sex education between now and then, I would have to assume it would be something along the lines of:

    “Don’t have sex unless and until you are ready to have sex.”

    “Don’t have sex with someone you don’t care about or who doesn’t care about you.”

    “Don’t be pressured into having sex.”

    “Don’t pressure someone into having sex…you don’t just need consent, you need enthusiastic consent (and you will not need to fear the police if you have sex with someone without their consent because you will be welcoming the police intervention as I’m putting your balls in a jar)”

    “If you have sex, don’t brag about it. Act like you’ve been there before and expect to get back there again”

    “Nothing ever really goes away if it is on the internet. If you don’t want your mom and I to read it or see it, don’t put it on the internet”

    “Don’t have sex without protection, and preferably two methods of protection.”

    “Bottom line, don’t have sex unless both you and your partner are ready to have sex, and if you are going to do it, do it safely for yourself and your partner.”

    All that sounds great, but what do you do when your 16 year old says, “I think we are ready to have sex”…and that is in the best world because very few 16 years olds are going to say that, they are just going to try to do it.

    I hate to put an age limit on when I think it would be OK because that age would be different for everybody, and many, many of us would have violated the age limit we might want to set for our kids.

    I had this conversation with a girlfriend in grad school. I mentioned that I would be likely to tell my future kids to wait until after high school before having sex. She legitimately asked why I would tell them that. She said she enjoyed the sex she had in high school and I enjoyed the sex I had in high school. As long as there is enthusiastic consent from both parties and both parties are safe and in control, why wait until after high school?

    Other than the standard “teenagers don’t generally make good decisions”, I was stumped for an answer. Neither of us regretted being sexually active in high school.

    I feel like I made decent decisions about my early sex life, yet here I am conflicted about what I will tell my kids in a decade or so.

    • John Galt says:

      A lot of what you say is good. I will particularly be making the point early and often about the internet being the anti-Vegas (what goes on there is available for the entire world forever).

      I would add, in the honest and un-sugarcoated sense, that sex can be fun, fantastic, and powerful, but it can also be awkward, embarrassing, and have very negative consequences, including diseases and pregnancy. No matter what, you will not look at that person the same way again and until you are ready to handle the potential negatives, you aren’t ready for sex.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        +1 for JG. Like the apple so often mistaken to represent it, sex (done right) confers immense power on both men and women. But, to veer from the Bible to Marvel Comics, with great power comes great responsibility. Teenagers are well-known to have issues with responsibility, pursue it though they might.

        Ideally, a teen (of whichever gender) contemplating sexual activity will have had a childhood characterized by gradually increasing situations of responsibility, allowing for both successes and failures, to use as examples in such parental conversations. Coddled children who have always been protected from failure will make for particularly fallow ground; a problem not unique to either the Left or the Right.

      • Intrigued says:

        “Coddled children who have always been protected from failure will make for particularly fallow ground”

        I agree to an extent Owl but as parents we have an obligation to protect our children and this should not be mistaken as coddling.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        I agree fully. We shouldn’t allow our children to starve, suffer irrevocable medical harm, etc.

        But, too often, parents use their power to *prohibit* something, totally overriding any agency on the part of the child, and it’s not necessary. If your daughter wants to go outside in cold weather without her hat, well, fine. If she whines later about her head being cold, don’t give her *your* hat: point out that this is the consequence of her earlier decision. If she gets a head cold and feels miserable for three or four days, well, that’s yet another useful object lesson. Don’t stay home from work and make the house totally revolve around her; unless it’s a truly serious illness (in which case, why isn’t she in a hospital?) she can probably get out of bed and get her own darned orange juice if you’re tied up with something else.

        Reasonable consequences appropriate to growing up and learning responsibility are not something from which children need “protection”.

      • Intrigued says:

        “Reasonable consequences appropriate to growing up and learning responsibility are not something from which children need “protection”.

        Good point!

    • Intrigued says:

      HT you have all the right points to make to your children when they are older. We had the talk with my son at 11 about masturbation and pornography and at 14 about sex and contraception. We will probably revisit the subject when he starts dating.

      Although awkward, if your child comes to you saying they are ready to have sex then you have done an awesome job communicating with them. At that point I would probably make one last ditch effort to persuade him he is not ready but also make sure he understands the importance of contraception if he chooses to do so. Maybe I am wrong but I will not give my approval for my 16 year old to have sex. However, I will make sure he has access to contraception.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        I’m with you Intrigued, and I likely would feel squeamish about giving my “approval” for sex at 16 (although approval is probably the wrong word), but looking back 30 years, I was 16-ish (as was GG below – who I’m assuming is not the same person as my girlfriend 30 years ago – and if you are the same person, you were a wonderful person then and I assume you still are a wonderful person now).

        Does it boil down to, “I think it would be best to wait (for reasons that I really cannot articulate), but I will love and support you always (unless you rape someone, and then your balls will be in a jar), and if you are going to have sex, you are going to do it safely.”

      • Intrigued says:

        Yep HT that’s exactly what it boils down to;)

      • Intrigued says:

        BTW, I agree with Fly about adulthood being the right age. 18 yrs old or older have fun and enjoy the ride!

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Since nothing on the internet ever goes away, I’m somehow going to have to save this conversation to show my kids to highlight the fact that I’ve been planning for these sex talks for well over a decade.

      • Intrigued says:

        HT by that time your views on the subject may change drastically. I was probably more liberal about the idea of my future teenagers having sex when they were 2. Now that one of them is a man/child- looks and talks like a man but has the mentality of an eighth grader, the thought of him engaging in activities that he is physically but not mentally ready for is quite scary.

    • GG says:

      I think I started when I was 16ish. My mother sat me down and gave me the talk when I hit puberty. Being a realist, a few years later she asked me if I wanted bc pills “just in case”. The guy I’m dating now started when he was 12 which I thought was crazy but I’ve found out from several others that they started when they were 12 too so apparently it’s not that unusual.

    • flypusher says:

      Don’t have any young’uns, so this is all hypothetical, but I see sex as one of the privileges of adulthood. When you are able to function as an adult, you are ready to have sex, if you wish.

      One of our big problems is that nature confers the ability to reproduce before our society recognizes adulthood. Our society’s extended period of adolescence is most unusual.

      • GG says:

        Yes. Used to be girls were pretty much married off as soon as their period started if not sooner. It’s still like that in many societies.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      I would hope I could let a kid how just how compelling sexual feelings are.

      That our media culture is simultaneously puritan and pornographic, so any messages about sex retrieved from it should be examined in the light of the kid’s understanding of self.

      That feelings about sex can be intertwined other feelings, like concerns about fitting in at school or being valued as a person or loneliness.

      That with luck, adulthood brings the ability to clearly identify those feelings and to judge the importance of them.

      It’s a big task. Each generation has members who act as if they practically invented sex and are going to handle the whole situation better than the more ignorant previous generation did. Who knows if they actually do.

    • rightonrush says:

      Having 5 sons I know a little something about raging hormones. All the boys are grown and happily married so we weathered that particular storm pretty well. We were open about sex and what we expected as parents. My wife especially had a good rule: IF you have sex with a young lady asked yourself if you are ready to support this person and a child for the rest of your/his/her life. I stressed safe sex…put a helmet on your soldier. STD’s and AIDS was all the talk during their teenage years, plus they saw some graphic footage of just what STD’s can lead to. Luckily they all turned out to be good guys. An added plus, they waited until they were financially and emotionally ready to start families.

    • flypusher says:

      ” I mentioned that I would be likely to tell my future kids to wait until after high school before having sex. She legitimately asked why I would tell them that. She said she enjoyed the sex she had in high school and I enjoyed the sex I had in high school. As long as there is enthusiastic consent from both parties and both parties are safe and in control, why wait until after high school?”

      That is such a common parenthood theme!! I’m reminded of a relative who was a bit of a “wild child” in her youth. She moved past that phase and is now a mature, responsible adult with her own children who are adolescents. She difintely would not want them to do some of the things she did, which of course does put her in a bit of a corner if they start asking questions. Of course they won’t hear anything from me, because that would be a really jerk thing to do. I do wish her luck if the topic comes up.

  10. John Galt says:

    Wow. Go out of town for a day and we get a new post from Chris and 283 entirely unrelated comments. Strong work, people.

    On topic: the drop in teen pregnancy is the result of education and contraception. This is great and should be extended. Stigmatization did not work then and does not work now.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Education (though in a far more general sense) and contraception (as well as abortion) have similar effects in reducing teen pregnancy and increasing female empowerment and involvement in the under-developed world.

      But it’s common Republican dogma to oppose many of those efforts, too.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Abortion doesn’t reduce pregnancy, it terminates it by killing a person.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Mathematically, it would seem obvious to anyone but the most incompetent idiot (yes, that’s you, Sternn) that abortion reduces the number of pregnancies in a population — yes, by ending them.

        As for your asinine views of personhood, I hope you’ve had a pleasant conversation with your goldfish today.

      • texan5142 says:

        What person?

    • Intrigued says:

      “Stigmatization did not work then and does not work now.”

      Actually JG, in combination with proper comprehensive sex ed (including contraception education), stigmatization does work. One thing we tend to dismiss when talking about the decrease in teen pregnancy is the fact that teens are waiting longer to be sexually active. According to the the following study most teens cite religion and morals followed by fear of pregnancy as the main reasons for abstaining from sex. I would say both reasons are the result of stigmatization about teen sex and pregancy.

      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_031.pdf

      • GG says:

        Unfortunately we see those idiotic reality shows like Teen Mom glamorizing it.

      • Intrigued says:

        True GG. However, I must admit I have indulged in a few episodes and their lives look far from glamorous.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        I have an intern who does a ton of sexuality research, and these are great data to explore.

        I might question “stigmatization” a bit when talking about teens delaying sex for religious or moral reasons.

        I think the moral reasons play a role, and morals may not be religious. I think there has been some great strides in empowering young folks regarding their body and their sexuality, and more kids are willing to say, “Nope, not ready to do this right now”. I hope that this power is allowing kids to fight the pressure to have sex a bit.

        There are questions in the survey about how strongly the people wanted to have sex. Sadly, there is still a big percentage of folks who responded that they really did not want it to happen at when it did. An even larger percentage reported mixed feelings about wanting to have sex the first time. I do not have the historic data at hand, but my assumption would be that those trends are improving over time.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        GG…I think the general consensus is that shows like Teen Mom do something of the opposite. Sure, these idiots got on TV being pregnant, but the depiction of their lives is something of a horror show, and I think teenagers report being less eager to get pregnant after watching it (I have an intern who just nodded her head that there are data to support that these type shows have a negative effect (which is a positive thing) on teen pregnancy)

      • texan5142 says:

        Teen Mom is trash tv . The only reality type show I will watch is The Amazing Race. I just do not get the appeal of reality shows, they are all scripted.

      • Intrigued says:

        “I think there has been some great strides in empowering young folks regarding their body and their sexuality, and more kids are willing to say, “Nope, not ready to do this right now”. I hope that this power is allowing kids to fight the pressure to have sex a bit.”

        HT I agree 100%! Check out table 9 on page 20. The younger teens were when they had sex for first time the more likely they were to cite the sex was not really wanted.

      • texan5142 says:

        Houston-stay-at-Homer says:
        April 30, 2014 at 10:33 am
        GG…I think the general consensus is that shows like Teen Mom do something of the opposite.

        Yes it does, my daughter watches that show just for the stupidity of the teen moms. She is finishing her first year in college, and that show reminds her not to make stupid mistakes and reaffirms her commitment to not have children until she is ready.

  11. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    Well, this went to 200+ comments of hell in a hand basket.

    On to more fun topics. Click on 538, and you’ll see: GOP Establishment Looks Set to Win a Bunch of Senate Primaries.

    It seems that the party and the money are flexing their muscle a bit more and looking to elect more electable candidates in the primaries, at least in those states where it would be competitive between the GOP and Democrats in the general election.

    This is good and bad news for a variety of folks.

    Bad news for the Democrats less likely to be “gifted” a few Senate seats due to really bad GOP candidates.
    Bad news for the Tea Party and anti-establishment-GOP folks.
    Good news for country-club and big-business GOP who just want some normalcy and stability in order to better capitalize on capitalism.

    On the very tiny bright side, maybe slightly good news for the country in that less extreme candidates getting in might mean a bit more working together???

    • flypusher says:

      Tea party-ers getting primaried makes for delicious irony.

      Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I r o n y

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I will always take a democratic loss as good news no matter how it gets there.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…maybe I’m mistaken, but I believe you have said in the past that you belong to no party.

        I guess it is possible to belong to the “anti-democrat” party in a two-party system and still consider yourself not part of the GOP, but that takes some pretty severe mental flexibility.

        I think even you would suggest that Christine O’Donnell had no business being in the Senate and that a world with Democrat Chris Coons in the Senate is better than a world with Republican Christine O’Donnell in the Senate.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I am not a party person but the democrats have proven to me to be the party of whining especially for not getting their own way. It plays good with the MSM but adults can tell.

        I am an independent first and foremost and if there is no GOP candidate I would vote for nationally I won’t vote in that race. Locally I would vote dem or GOP since they are accessible to me.

        Bottom line is: Neither party has anything great to distinguish themselves with.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        “I will always take a [D]emocratic loss as good news no matter how it gets there…. I am an independent first and foremost [yeah, right!] and [here comes the funny!] if there is no GOP candidate I would vote for nationally I won’t vote in that race.”

        So, at least as far as national politics are concerned, you are effectively a Republican.

        You’re just too stupid to realize it, or too ashamed to admit it.

  12. kabuzz61 says:

    Danny, I hope you get to read this. Chris is deleting posts by us conservatives. When you pick on the echo chamber, he doesn’t like it. Three of mine has gone bye bye.

    • DanMan says:

      yep, the rucas posse rules the house, no biggie

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Twice I posted my impression of Texan: Ahem!

        Pot Kettle.

        Thank you.

        And Chris deletes it.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Of course, kabuzz, given your usual sterling standard of available proof and cited data…

      …you’re probably lying.

      …or incompetently misunderstanding.

      …or slack-jawedly believing something somebody else said, without any proof, because it feels good.

      …or, heck, pick two.

      • DanMan says:

        Ms Owl describes Susan Rice to a T doesn’t she? And who supports the party that brought us Susan Rice? Ms Owl, that’s who-who-who

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        As is usual with trolls and Republican propagandists (but I repeat myself), any form of documentation or reasoning is sorely lacking.

      • DanMan says:

        my link to the document was put up yesterday Ms Owl

        http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/

        not surprised a troll such as yourself missed it

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Ah, the plaintive cry of the right-wing loon, lost and trying to find its way back to familiar rhetorical ground.

        “Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!” The refrain echoes over the fetid marshes of modern Republican thought, as the poor creature tries to find others of its increasingly endangered breed, or to make predators think there are more of the hapless beasts than there really are.

        Now, it’s about time for Marlin Perkins to send Jim Fowler in to wrassle us up one for a closer look. Careful, those beaks can be sharp!

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Dan, this is why you should ignore the Owlbeast. Your time will be wasted.

      • DanMan says:

        she is a bit hyper, prolly housebound and restless

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        So, Kowardly Kabuzz, you’d be wasting time to actually provide, say, facts and examples to back up your ridiculously broad accusations, rather than ignoring those requests and running away?

        I guess I’m glad to know that you just don’t care about being part of the reality-based community, and demand the freedom to lie with impunity.

        And, Kallow Kabuzz, you’d be wasting time to actually condemn, say, the actions of violent Christian fundamentalists, rather than accepting them by default as you run away from any hint of personal responsibility or controversy?

        I guess I’m glad to know what your opinions are on the torture and murder of women with, say, seashells or roofing tiles (depending on translation).

        No, you’re just an asshole. You seem to be the only one who doesn’t realize it.

  13. way2gosassy says:

    Chris, I dug into your chart looking for some breakdowns on your numbers and found a few interesting things I would have liked to discuss. It’s too bad that a couple of people have to behave like neanderthals so that no one else can participate without getting in the gutter with them. I’ll save it for a later date as I’m sure the subject will come up again.

    • flypusher says:

      Discuss them up here Sassy, what better way to get people to ignore the troll bait.

    • objv says:

      Sassy: I found this highly interesting:

      “Back in 1960, most teen mothers were married—an estimated 15% of births to mothers ages 15-19 were to unmarried teens. Today, it has flipped: 89% of births are to unmarried mothers in that age group.”

      In my mom’s day, most people didn’t go to college and the goal of most young women was to get married and start a family right away. I know this was what my mom wanted. Even when I was in high school, I know of lots of girls who had no other wish. Unfortunately, their marriages didn’t always work out.

      I was extremely fortunate to be able to work at a job a loved and then have the experience of marrying a great guy who earned enough for me to enjoy having the choice of staying home when I had kids. I wish the same for my daughter but realized that nowadays family economics usually require that both parents work and divorce is too common for a woman to neglect a career for a long period of time. Believe me, I had the best of both worlds and am sad that more women can’t have the same.

      Personally, I’m delighted that teen pregnancy rates are down. I’m mystified as to why Lifer thinks that conservatives, in general, aren’t happy about it.

      • DanMan says:

        meh, he spins any topic in a way to bash conservatives. And he certainly can’t crow about the political issues his party is running away from. Even Obama himself has become toxic to them.

  14. Owl of Bellaire says:

    Since kabuzz either wasn’t able to maintain attention that long or is trying to hide from the request:

    kabuzz, please offer an appropriate example of how “teen pregnancy is celebrated by the ‘liberated’ left.”

    If you can.

    Otherwise, please admit to bearing false witness before God and everyone here.

  15. geoff1968 says:

    Why am I still a Republican? A damn fair question to ask. I think it’s a meaningful one to ask, if you pay your dues. The party’s taken a turn to the right, further to the right than I find comfortable, and so out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. What does it say?

    The President is a “Subhuman mongrel.” Not cool, and not Republican. Are all men created equal? Are they not endowed with certain inalienable rights? I believe they are, and I believe the GOP is sworn to uphold these rights. TR called it the “Square Deal.”

    We should not forget it.

  16. bubbabobcat says:

    As opposed to Danny Delusional who is always in that special place all his own.

    Danny has apparently shot his wad and petered out again as he resorts to generic mindless insults.

    Whatever.

  17. texan5142 says:

    Dan ,
    I live a cross the street from the state hospital. My friends and neighbors work there. Just say the word and we will get you the help you need. No need to be ashamed.

  18. Turtles Run says:

    I just found this wonderful poem written and read aloud by Alex Dang. It deals with some of the conversations we have had on this forum.

    • texan5142 says:

      Awesome !

    • CaptSternn says:

      What?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Exactly

      • CaptSternn says:

        Well if you understood anything, you wouldn;t have called it “wonderful”. If you had ever had talked to people from the Far East, or even the East, Asian people, or have ever read anything about them, you would know that they are very different from each other. But I guess they all look the same to you and you don;t understand the differences.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – Thank you for claiming that the Asian person talking about racial stereotypes is really a racist. You are….actually I do not give a crap what you are.

        Pretend that people do not feel the way they do about the experiences they have lived through because it somehow contradicts your warp version of reality. After all we are just racist liberals in your universe.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, do some basic reasearch. Japanese people can recognize Korean people on sight. Same with Chinese recogizing Japanese, Vietnamese recognizing Korean or Japanese. People from India recognizing people from Arabia, Arabs recognizing Persians.

        No wonder y’all expect everybody else to be racists, you can’t tell one from another. They all look the same to you. Y’all project your own beliefs on others.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, I think he was mocking people like you, people they say, “They all look the same to me”.

        I once got schooled on the differences, and I listened. I made that mistake and got schooled on the differences between Korean and Vietnamese people. I have since read about the differences between Japanese people and Chinese people. Maybe you should open your ears and eyes.

        Or maybe you can’t. Maybe they all look the same to you.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – Still arguing things no one claimed. It is good to know you still are fighting that brave fight of yours. Now when you feel like addressing the content of the video and this young man’s comments please look me up.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Irish, Italians, Polish people, French, English, Hungary, etc. all have been and still are by some stereotyped. Quit whining. It is unbecoming. Oh yeah! Don’t forget German’s. They still catch it.

  19. bubbabobcat says:

    Off topic, TXU just filed for bankruptcy.

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/big-texas-utility-files-for-bankruptcy/?hp

    So much for deregulation of the electricity market.

    Pure capitalism works wonders in all situations huh?

    • way2gosassy says:

      Wonder how fast Perry will be looking for a Fed bailout.

      • DanMan says:

        bubba never learned capitalism doesn’t care, the market picks the winners unless you’re a union and then you get rewarded for causing your company to go bankrupt

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Danny never learned to read for comprehension. And he threw in an a nonsensical unrelated dig at unions to boot. It’s hard to use your brain when it’s so much easier to spew mindless regurgitated verbal diarrhea, isn’t it Danny? And that’s quite a visual only Danny Diarrhea can lead us to conjure.

        The “market” is not the end all, be all for everything. Particularly when you are talking about a critical infrastructure commodity as the electric grid that people depend upon for survival. We’re not talking about Twitter or McDonald’s going bankrupt and not providing their service.

        Oh and by the way Danny, the not for profit coops provide the lowest electricity rates in Texas.

      • DanMan says:

        hey mushmouth, there’s about 6 similar statements in the article like this

        “Sheridan Titman, a University of Texas professor who leads the school’s Energy Management and Innovation Center, maintains that TXU customers likely won’t be affected by the bankruptcy.”

        Tell us your enlightened concerns.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yup unions sure do suck and are totally useless just like Danny claims.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/business/in-florida-tomato-fields-a-penny-buys-progress.html?src=rechp

        Your ignorant irrational hate knows no bounds Danny. But not the least bit surprising either.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Don’t know where you found that quote Danny but not in the article I linked as you claimed/lied. I think Danny Delusional has finally gone over the deep end and is conjuring up stuff that isn’t there.

        Oh wait, he’s been doing that incessantly for years. Never mind.

      • DanMan says:

        for bubba, same story local source

        http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/04/29/texas-power-company-files-for-bankruptcy/

        maybe you can find more at Vox or jezebel

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Nope, you lie yet again Danny. No made up quote in YOUR source either.

        Your hate really has made you THAT delusional (and incompetent) Danny?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        What a surprise, Cappy takes a 45 second clip out of context naturally, from a 48 minute interview to further his agenda of his already closed mind about Obama.

        Yaaaaaaaawn.

        The full context of his point about Cap and Trade (which is yet to be implemented by the way):

        “If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long-term — because of a combination of more efficient energy uses and changing lightbulbs and more-efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy — that the economy will benefit. If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson — you can be the master of Washington — you’re not going to get that done.”

        But reality and the truth escapes Cappy. As usual.

        He’d rather lie to claim the sky is falling because the Black guy is in charge.

        http://blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop/2008/01/17/an-interview-with-sen-barack-obama/

      • CaptSternn says:

        Bubba, your focus on a person’s skin color is telling. It makes you a racist. You are afraid of black people. We got that already.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Whatever Cappy. I’m not the one all apoplectic about the most insignificant detail with Obama that he had no issue with when the White Republican President did the exact same thing.

        And you were unable to refute the fact that I called you out on a willful lie and distortion of what Obama really said.

        But nuance and complexity doesn’t exist in your world.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Bubba, you are one crazy dude. Do you think anyone, left or right, takes you seriously?

    • Can’t resist this thread. As bubba points out, the Obama clip is in reference to cap and trade. What bubba appears to have missed is that Obama has accomplished his goal administratively, rather than legislatively. (And, btw, unconstitutionally, in my view.) The EPA has imposed so many constraints on coal-based power generation as to make coal noncompetitive as a fuel. Combine this with tanked natural gas prices as a result of the shale gas boom, and coal-based power producers are facing a double whammy. Many power companies are mothballing perfectly good coal-fired power plants years early as a result.

      TXU, which leveraged itself highly in the acquisition of Houston’s primarily coal-fired power stations got absolutely hammered by the double whammy of coal over-regulation and low natural gas prices; hence the filing. Outfits like TXU that must use coal to generate power can’t do so economically because of the extent to which the EPA is picking on them. And then we find ourselves worried about rolling brownouts. And all of this fun simply to reduce carbon emissions by an amount that is comparable to a mosquito fart in a hurricane. Heal the planet, my left testicle. BOHICA, fellow citizens.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Well TThor, the Supreme Court (conservative SCOTUS at that) just voted 8-2 to say it is constitutional. With the usual rubber stamp just say no suspects (Scalia and Thomas) the only two voting against the majority.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/politics/supreme-court-backs-epa-coal-pollution-rules.html?hpw&rref=politics

        And maybe if TXU declared bankruptcy a few years down the road you could have partially blamed it on the cost of upgrading to clean coal fired plants, but this financial SNAFU is all betting their eggs on the wrong basket (expensive natural gas) in the Bush too big to fail bloated Wall Street years and losing their leveraged money they didn’t have on the wrong bet.

      • Crogged says:

        Follow the money, especially when dealing with a commodity driven industry.

      • DanMan says:

        yes Thor, after reading bubba’s link it appears markets had less to do with the collapse of the energy company than regulation by fiat from the EPA.

      • Crogged says:

        Each party claims the benefits of commodity markets when prices fall, but when they rise, liberals attack ‘speculators’ and conservatives attack ‘regulators’. Neither really has much to do with the action of the particular market(s) in question. We could, of course, just burn coal without any reduction of emissions whatsoever, and make medical care cheaper by getting rid of x ray machines and all that fancy stuff.

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-13/coal-burns-brighter-as-utilities-switch-from-natural-gas.html

      • Gentlefolk, I believe I posited a combination of market forces *and* over-regulation for TXU’s demise (not to mention ridiculous over-leveraging in the first place).

        As for yesterday’s SCOTUS opinion, I somewhat more phlegmatic about it than the infamous ‘CO2 as a pollutant’ decision (Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency), since this decision deals with *actual* pollutants. Still, Scalia’s comments in dissent bear repeating:

        “Too many important decisions of the Federal Government are made nowadays by unelected agency officials exercising broad lawmaking authority, rather than by the people’s representatives in Congress.”

        (see http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303939404579531814034036286)

      • DanMan says:

        I agree with you but the market forces kind of take a back seat when coal gets hammered like it is doesn’t it? Since coal can’t compete in the market due to the regulations….My first take was the market decides but I didn’t consider the assault on coal when I made the comment.

        Didn’t dems abdicate the legislative authority of rule making to the EPA when they took Congress in 2006? One of their first pursuits was to declare CO2 a greenhouse gas and I believe the courts agreed or at least didn’t block it. Bush would not allow it to go into effect while he office as I recall.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      This morning, the radio says TXU’s distribution business won’t be part of the bankruptcy. Is that common? The failing part of a company can go chapter 11 but the profitable part doesn’t? If it’s all legally the same company, why can’t the profitable part of the company feed the unprofitable part until they make changes?

      • DanMan says:

        The profitable parts are likely shared by many users. The generation of electricity with coal has been targeted by the EPA for elimination. No need to encumber the wires. Yet.

        Several year ago an outfit named Calpine was building small gas fired peak plants all over the place. They too suffered when the price of gas collapsed but the plants will likely serve a new purpose in taking up the demand that will be created without the coal plants.

  20. DanMan says:

    Aiyeee!!! Chris is scrambling comments to help Ms Owl out! and he even rearranged my responses to Texan as well. Hey Chris, if you want to cover your tracks watch the post times too.

    • texan5142 says:

      Conspiracy nut, you are.

      • DanMan says:

        need proof? one of my responses to you shows up in front of your comment, hurry and catch it Chris before anyone sees it!!!

    • GG says:

      I think that’s your computer. The comments look exactly the same on my end.

      Why on earth would you think of such a thing?

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Typical wingnut. It’s never his fault. Someone is always trying to screw him.

      Whatever. Take another puff Danny.

    • way2gosassy says:

      You flatter yourself, you just aren’t that important.

      • DanMan says:

        you demean yourself, so why’d he do it?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        To jack with you and get your panties all in a wad like you just did. Feel better now Danny?

        Sassy is right, you are just a petulant child throwing a tantrum whining for attention.

        And nobody cares so cry yourself to sleep all you want Danny.

        Hey Danny, Chris just blocked your IP address!

        Boo! Waaaaah!

      • DanMan says:

        he did?

      • texan5142 says:

        I love you man!

      • GG says:

        I don’t think Chris did it. I think it’s some kind of problem on your end. Everything looks the same on mine. Sometimes my formatting goes haywire for some reason.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Don’t ruin Danny’s fun GG. He wants to cry and stamp his feet and play the victim, never mind the facts.

        Yes Danny, big bad Chris is picking on you because he’s a meanie and he hates you. Very much.

        Feel better now Danny?

    • goplifer says:

      I am doing my best to prune some of the dead branches. The comments definitely got out of hand today. You clearly have a lot of time on your hands and too many people are jumping on the troll bait.

  21. texan5142 says:

    I just wiped my impression of you from my shoe…..did I mention I have two dogs and was walking in my back yard.

    • texan5142 says:

      This needs to be dealt with and fast.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Armed checkpoints? Really?

        Reminds me of Afghanistan, Somalia, the Balkans in the 90’s Ukraine right now, etc.

        Basically any anarchist region where the democratically elected legitimate representative government is ignored.

        And that’s what the wingnuts want, particularly when a Black guy is in charge representing the legitimate government and rule of law.

        They can’t handle role reversal and also explains why they soooo want to revert back to slavery days any way they can.

        And speaking of which, I have no issue with the government shooting down treasonous armed insurrectionists.

        I mean you wingnut White people had no problem with UNARMED Black people being mowed down by Whites after Katrina for trying to flee to safety in a natural disaster…to the wrong neighborhood across the Danzinger bridge.

        Such lack of consistency. But not the least bit surprising.

      • Intrigued says:

        “This needs to be dealt with and fast.”

        Very fast! These freaks are infringing on other people’s rights now. If this case is not handled appropriately people like Bundy will think it is their constitutional right to form a militia for issues that should be resolved in court.

      • DanMan says:

        who showed up with guns from Utah and took and killed the man’s cattle?

      • Intrigued says:

        Dan, this dude is an irresponsible nutcase who did nothing to defend his “self given” rights to this land until it was too late. He obviously didn’t care enough about this land or his cattle to open up a damn letter and battle it out in court. Instead he threatens violence and claims victim to the Government who is acting according to the powers of the law.

      • GG says:

        From what I read, this Bundy guy is a fundamentalist Mormon with about 50 kids and many wives. These types, like Jeffs, tend to be very anti-government and radical so, of course, he’s attracting the militia types. This could end up being very bad.

    • Anse says:

      I do not claim to be a brave man, but I can’t help but imagine what I would do if I were stopped on a public road by one of these bozos. I know Mrs. Anse does not withhold her indignation well. There would be a scene, to say the least.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Somehow I very much doubt it. Bravery has nothing to do with facing a gun. Stupidity might enter.

  22. way2gosassy says:

    Uh Oh… More trouble for the GOP. The Arkansas Voter ID law was struck down recently and just awhile ago the Federal Court also struck down Wisconsin’s Voter ID law as unconstitutional as well.

    http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-rejects-wisconsins-voter-id-law-185800284.html;_ylt=AwrBEiTSCmBTb1MAUkzQtDMD

  23. texan5142 says:

    CaptSternn says:
    April 29, 2014 at 2:11 pm
    If a person points a weapon at a police officer, that person is shot. Simple enough.

    Only if they are a poor black farmer, but a wealthy white racist welfare rancher, not so much.

  24. texan5142 says:

    …and yet you wonder why you are called Dan the Richard.

  25. rightonrush says:

    The only person appearing vapid is you. It must suck to have your arse handed to you day in and day out by Owl and the rest of the (so called by you) “Rucas Posse” on this blog.

  26. rightonrush says:

    Brother Perry fancies himself another Sam Houston. He’s gearing up for another “embarrass Texas” WH run in 2016 I bet.
    http://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/29/perry-baptized-anew-historic-creek/comments/

    • GG says:

      Are you kidding???

      Off topic, but Sterling was just banned from NBA for life. I figured he’d be reprimanded but I didn’t expect this.

      • flypusher says:

        He’d be smart to sell now while his team has max value. The on-line discussions are filled with the usual misconceptions. The NBA is protecting their brand, that’s what this boils down to. This guy got hit with the perfect bad PR storm. $£@# happens and there’s no consistency to it (but I have zero sympathy- I see this as the wheel of karma finally catching up to him for all his crappy slumlord behavior). I’m getting the impression that the ex-mistress released the audio for revenge, if so, wow!

      • rightonrush says:

        Yes, hopefully Magic Johnson will buy the Clippers. Boy, wouldn’t that be a kick in the arse to Sterling.

      • texan5142 says:

        Well seeing he is eighty, that might not be that long. Seems there is more to come.

        http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/bigot-final-shot-sterling-pleads-team-article-1.1772279

      • flypusher says:

        The ex-mistress has even more audio? Cha-ching!!! He’ll have to decide between the $ hit and the reputation hit. Unless she’s got dirt about criminal stuff, I suspect the reputation hit would be less painful; pretty much everyone thinks he’s a total ass already.

      • DanMan says:

        you didn’t expect it? I did. I’m still laughing at the fact an old married millionaire that’s canoodling a black girl, giving her millions in cars, cash and housing is being called a racist for telling her to quit flaunting her boyfriends at him.

        I’m also laughing at he NAACP for having to withdraw his SECOND lifetime award they were about to reward him with. Did he die and arise anew?

        And irony of ironies is the fine he is supposed to pay will go to the NAACP!! that is some sweet and awesome stuff.

        I hope he sues the pants off the NBA to force them to expose how a federally protected monopoly can force a private owner to divest himself of his possessions without him breaking any laws.

      • flypusher says:

        Some commentary on the common “I can’t be a racist because I have black friends!” fallacy:

        http://jezebel.com/your-biracial-girlfriend-wont-cure-your-horrible-racism-1568739046

      • DanMan says:

        jezebel, Vox for teenagers

      • Crogged says:

        When you add the NAACP to this it’s like an episode of the Wire. From the sports world an interesting angle: the NBA let Sterling think he was untouchable when they made the regrettable decision to rescind the first trade of Chris Paul,

        For the female readers of the blog without any sports knowledge, “Blah blah blah dumb entitled egotistical racist owner blah blah blah NBA blah blah blah did nothing for years.”

      • GG says:

        Apparently Sterling is a rather nasty guy. Racial discrimination, sexual harassment…….

      • GG says:

        Oh, and I’m still not certain that his girlfriend isn’t a tranny. She looks like a contestant on Ru Paul’s Drag Race. Wouldn’t that be shocker to top this off?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Whoa, Crogged, I didn’t expect that from you, off all people! Ladies with no sports knowledge??

      • texan5142 says:

        Thanks GG,
        I thought I was the only one seeing that.

      • GG says:

        Oh, no, Texan. I was reading some article yesterday and in the comments lots of people were saying “That’s a man, baby!!” (done in an Austin Powers accent)

      • Crogged says:

        Tuttabellamia, you are correct, I should have just directed to those without sports knowledge, but my limiting language did attempt to assume that some of the female writers here (which sometimes, I don’t know who they are) do have some sports knowledge

      • Crogged says:

        And it’s from of one of my favorite Far Side cartoons–what does your pet hear? Blah blah blah SPOT blah blah blah blah SPOT blah blah blah. It’s a conceit that comes in handy, my wife uses it if a conversation turns to golf blah blah blah golf blah blah blah.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Crogged, it was kind of you to allow for some ladies here having sports knowledge, but you seem to assume that all the gentlemen here have sports knowledge, and they don’t. I know more about the particulars of some sports than Cap.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Crogged, my favorite is the WAH WAH WAH from the adults on the Charlie Brown/Peanuts cartoons.

      • Crogged says:

        Research some Marge Schott stories for another time a group of rich people and their toys made the general public news. She was a real charmer too (but part of me kind of likes these unreconstructed, never have been told no and don’t have to worry about it anyway rebels)……

    • flypusher says:

      Can he top his 2011-2012 performance?? That was epic!

  27. flypusher says:

    More fodder for discussion:

    http://jezebel.com/female-purity-is-bullshit-493278191

    An interesting trend is that even some evangelicals are rethinking this approach. Don’t get me wrong, I think the ends (preventing young people from having sex too early) is worthwhile. I just thoroughly disapprove of those means. A girl/woman has value far above and beyond virginity. The part about Elizabeth Smart is particularly heartbreaking.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      What a great article; thanks for the link!

      (Warning to readers with tender ears/eyes; harsh, unequivocal language with NSFW vocabulary.)

      • flypusher says:

        I should have added your NSFW disclaimer, thanks!

        I would be telling the youngsters that rather then purity, it’s your education that has the real value. You can be more, do more, earn more, contribute more when you can focus your attention there. Having a child before you are ready is going to make things harder than necessary.

        I did love the story in the comments section about the smartass who ate the licked cupcake!!

      • DanMan says:

        get down there and cover for her biggun! she sure doesn’t want the last word

    • way2gosassy says:

      I do not disagree with a single word she wrote but I think her message gets lost in the unfortunate language she chose to use. After 30+ years in construction I have had to relearn how to speak in a manner that is more acceptable to more people.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Well, that was a very hate filled bit of writing. Kind of fits in with the hateful, ingnorance filled and angry video Turtles posted up above.

      The blog has been quite ugly today. It was ugly under the last entry, but nothing like today. Guess that helps Lifer get traffic, which is why he throws out the bombs.

      • flypusher says:

        What’s not to hate about something that makes a child who is the victim of rape feel worthless? Oh, the tone is strident and the language impolite, but the point is quite valid.

      • GG says:

        Stop the faux outrage Sternn.

  28. DanMan says:

    it was a video…oh my!

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/

    Texan you’re weird for advocating for killing people over grazing cattle on land Harry Reid stands to profit from. The timing of the raid is telling. Your support of violence is telling.

    • texan5142 says:

      You are a dumb ass Dan and you are a traitor for standing up for sedition.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Ah, the plaintive cry of the right-wing loon, lost and trying to find its way back to familiar rhetorical ground.

      “Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!” The refrain echoes over the fetid marshes of modern Republican thought, as the poor creature tries to find others of its increasingly endangered breed, or to make predators think there are more of the hapless beasts than there really are.

      Now, it’s about time for Marlin Perkins to send Jim Fowler in to wrassle us up one for a closer look. Careful, those beaks can be sharp!

    • rightonrush says:

      LOL, Hell, they are gonna start their own war with each other. All the BLM has to do is wait it out. Hopefully they will all shoot each other and make the world a better place. Remember big bad militia, shoot the wimmen first.
      http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/04/29/oathkeepers-keep-out-stewart-rhodes-leadership-not-welcome-at-bundy-ranch/

      • Anse says:

        The Bundyites have little support among other Nevada ranch owners. Most of them are not from around there. One ranch owner quoted in an article I read noted that most of them pay their fees and whatever they owe and don’t complain too much about it. Bundy is on his own with all that nonsense.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Wonder why both videos have been removed and the user accounts have been terminated.

    • Crogged says:

      The decision on the importance of Benghazi was rendered on election day in November 2012. You need more than emails of employees trying to protect their boss and employer, which even government employees do, to prove some sort of cover up. This endless flogging hasn’t even turned up a stained dress, or a single State Department/executive branch employee willing to earn endless Fox news dollars by turning on and proving the ‘conspiracy’.

      • DanMan says:

        It’s all good for your side right now Crogged because you have a corrupt AG appointed by a petty community organizer. Wonder why it took a FOIA request to get to the fact that so many within the administration, including his spokeshole Jay Carney were working overtime to come up with a story.

        A story that Candy Crowley was all too pleased to cover for in that debate that Obama himself said he needed. Your opinion ain’t nothing if it relies on lies to be buttressed. If your contention is all’s good because the ends justify the means then expect to weather some consequences you haven’t thought of.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I agree cogged. This year the democrats will overwhelmingly take back the house and most of the senate. (snicker)

        Dream big my friend.

        (voice of Texan)

      • Crogged says:

        Ahh the return of the glorious days of the late nineties, when Republican’s burned through three/four Speakers of the House in a vain attempt to impeach a President-good times are coming.

  29. texan5142 says:

    DanMan says:
    April 29, 2014 at 9:52 am
    “said the guy that advocates government shooting civilians over debts”

    Says the guy who advocates sedition, and yes, I would have sent the army in the second the armed militias showed up. Everyone of those people who showed up should be in jail for sedition.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Interesting, you are openly anti-2nd amendment and want people put in prison for having firearms.

    • Anse says:

      “Sedition” is a dumb term and a terrible justification for going after somebody. Treason is different; it suggests you are actively attempting to undermine the security and authority of the US government, like you’ve gone over the line to being an actual enemy of the country. I don’t know how a lawyer defines “sedition” but in my mind, it means just being disloyal, and that in itself is not a good reason to punish somebody.

      • texan5142 says:

        OK, treason then, why are you siding with treasonist Sternn?

      • texan5142 says:

        se·di·tion noun \si-ˈdi-shən\
        : the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government

        Full Definition of SEDITION

        : incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

      • DanMan says:

        you know Occupy was also trespassing texas. You have any angst over that? Of course not you little lightweight you.

      • texan5142 says:

        I do not remember Occupy having armed snipers and militia members…must have missed that.

      • DanMan says:

        rape and public defecation can be considered harmful in sectors, lucky for Occupiers there are plenty of fellow travelers that have your perspective

      • Anse says:

        90% of the crap written about the Occupy movement by rightwingers is complete bull. It reminded me of all the nonsense written about what happened in the Superdome after Katrina. Remember that? There were stories going around that a band of murderous thugs were slitting peoples’ throats in the middle of the night as they slept. All false. Same is true of the Occupy movement. They gathered in public parks and so naturally any scuzzbucket criminal who wandered among them was automatically lumped into the movement as a whole.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Notice how Texan is now quantifying his own definitions on sedition. Stupid is what stupid does.

        Arse, OWS has many, many video’s and pictures of them disobeying laws and trespassing.

      • texan5142 says:

        That came directly from Webster dumb ass. Bearing false witness again kabuzz, you no your God does not like that.

      • Anse says:

        “Disobeying laws and trespassing” I would expect, to some extent, from any protest movement. All the stuff about defecating in public and the movement sanctioning the trashing of public places, the rapes, all that stuff is what I’m referring to. If you are going to protest the establishment, it stands to reason you are going to piss off the establishment, up to and including breaking a few laws. Some people call it “civil disobedience.” I guess it depends on what side of the issue you stand on. The Bundyites were apparently ready to fight a violent battle with the Feds, and according to a new story out today, the militia dopes have now set up checkpoints on public roads and stopping random people and demanding identification to “protect” Cliven Bundy and his property. That is okay, I guess, but camping out in a public park is not.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Breaking laws is breaking laws. Armed police were in NYC. Many of the officers had stuff thrown at them and insults. Should they have been shot?

      • texan5142 says:

        kabuzz, you cannot see the difference between having something thrown at you verses having a gun pointed at you? Sad old man you are.

    • Well, isn’t this an interesting thread. Leave aside Bundy’s racist ravings and posit (even if just for the sake of argument) that he has been wronged by his government. At what point is armed insurrection against a rapacious government justified? The Declaration gives us one answer. Then again, Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion via force of arms as a servant of the state. It’s a tricky question.

      As much as I enjoy my guns and know how to use them, I’d just as soon never have to shoot anybody for any reason. (You’ll never run into a more polite, considerate, tolerant person than YT when he’s carrying.) I actually think civil disobedience is the preferable response. Ghandhi and MLK showed that in western, democratic societies, civil disobedience is an effective tool by which to oppose unjust actions of government. Indeed, Bundy’s refusal to recognize the federal government’s cancellation of his grazing lease falls directly into this tradition. Things didn’t start to go sideways for him until armed resistance was introduced into the mix. That crowd would have done better to follow the Selma march example.

      That said, civil disobedience is only an option when dealing with a government constrained by rule of law, and unwilling/unable to murder its citizens without full due process of law. Civil disobedience is not a viable option in most parts of the world; outside the west armed resistance is the only option (and only if you have access to weapons; hence the ultimate insurance of the 2nd Amendment).

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Good point TThor. Based on your reasoning, the USA is the least likely country to “need” armed citizens as civil disobedience is quite effective. And contrary to the delusional wishful rantings of your fellow gun nuts on the right, we have a stable government based on the rule of law with a legitimate grievance/redress process. Even with a Black guy in charge.

      • Well, bubba, one might go so far as to suggest that in the USA civil disobedience is quite effective at least in part *because* the citizenry is so well armed. The shepherds need be mindful of the liberties they take with the sheep, because the sheep have *teeth*.

        As for the guy in charge, it’s not his skin color that concerns me; it’s his seeming lack of concern for the niceties of the rule of law. Much of the administrative state appears to think itself beyond petty Constitutional constraints (like due process and just compensation). For those who live in the west, ad hoc, ex post facto takings by the BLM without *any* compensation, let alone just compensation, are routine and almost universally decried. Indeed, ad hoc and ex post facto are the very terms that best seem to describe the current administration.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So TThor you are saying MLK’s peaceful civil disobedience was only effective because he and his supporters were packing or the authorities thought they were packing?

        Yes we know how the civil rights movement would have ended up if Blacks were packing heat in the 60’s. Much less used them.

        And maybe you should give Obama some credit for detailed and nuanced understanding of the Constitution rather than the right wing knee jerk response of “trashing” it. He was a Constitutional Law Professor after all.

      • ‘Twas a general comment, bubba; you took me too literally. Subliminally, everybody in this country is aware at some level of the very serious negative consequences likely to ensue were the government to liberally (love that word) apply deadly force to solve Bundy-like problems. That’s all I was getting at.

        With respect to blacks “packing heat” in the Civil Rights era; again, we are in violent agreement. Contrast MLK, whom we rightly regard as hero, with Malcom X, whom most rightly regard as a thug. Q.E.D.

        With respect to Obama as a Con Law professor, I pity his students. In all seriousness, I very much suspect Obama studied Con Law precisely to determine how best to circumvent that document. To quote Tolkien, “He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”

    • texan5142 says:

      Bearing false witness again kabuzz, how do you square that with your God?

  30. Anse says:

    I made this point below, and I’ll make it again: I don’t care what kind of family you think you have. I don’t care how wholesome or how devout your faith is. If you have teenagers in the home, they are trying to have sex, and some of them are successful at it. We all were when I was in school back in the late 80’s/early 90’s. It was hardly a secret. And so now when I encounter these social conservatives who so strenuously object to talking openly about sex, I wonder just who in the heck they are. Are they seriously trying to tell me that they waited until marriage? I don’t think every kid is having sex, or even trying to have sex, but so many are that it’s preposterous to think that the abstinence-only message is effective.

    My pop was a devout man, a deacon in our church. He gave me “the talk” when I was about 14. I already knew the mechanics of it, which was fine because all my pop talked about was the evils of having sex before marriage. Now, my dad and my mother married when she was 17 and he was 21 (with the full consent of my grandparents, of course). So for him, waiting until marriage wasn’t that big a deal. Nevertheless, I’ll never forget the reaction when my dad, without telling me, hopped into my Bronco to make a quick run into town one day. When he got back, he pulled me by the ear outside, opened the glove box, and pointed at the box of condoms he discovered. He was outraged. But not because I was having premarital sex (or trying to, anyway), but because he was worried that my mother could have found them somehow.

    Which brings up a point about these church types (I’m no longer one, in case that’s not obvious). There’s a whole lot of shaggin’ going on behind closed doors. The churches are full of horny teenagers who will solemnly stand before the congregation and swear to Jesus and Sam Houston that they will never have sex until they’re married. And they’re LYING. But who can blame them? Their parents were having sex before they were married, too. The social conservatives need a real Come to Jesus moment about this and honestly confront the truth: we are sexual beings. It’s time to talk honestly about it instead of living in denial.

    • DanMan says:

      I’ve said as much before but I hope I didn’t sound as harpy.

    • Intrigued says:

      Anse, do you think it was better that your parents at least gave you the talk, even though the message was unrealistic, or was the talk as ineffective as not addressing the subject at all?
      I think conservatives who strongly oppose but realistically know their children are likely to have premarital sex will end up avoiding the subject all together opposed to educating them on contraception. IMHO avoiding the subject would be worse than sending an unrealistic message but I was curious of your opinion.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Conservatives will explain it to their kids on their own terms in their own time. It is the undermining of parental authority so often pushed by the left that we oppose.

      • Intrigued says:

        Stern, I don’t care what you do with your hypothetical children. My question is to Anse and has nothing to do with.

      • GG says:

        Some conservatives never discuss it though Cap which is why I support sex ed in schools. That might be the only place where some girls even learn about menstruation.

      • Anse says:

        The talk I got was basically worthless. And I don’t mean that as a criticism of my pop; he probably got even less of a talk when he was a kid, and what he did was just the expectation of the world we lived in at that time.

        I think schools ought to be handing out condoms no later than the 9th grade. I think we ought to have sex ed classes where there is literally no taboo subject. Sex ed itself ought to start much earlier, though everything ought to be age appropriate, however we choose to define what that means.There is simply no use in avoiding any sex-related topic. The kids are going to encounter this stuff. It is patently ridiculous to assert that this kind of knowledge is somehow dangerous or damaging to teenagers. Bring it out in the open. Cover everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING.

      • texan5142 says:

        In other words, you reserve the right to keep your kids stupid and uninformed. You scream indoctrination as you fill their heads with fairy tales from the Bible. Keep em stupid and voting conservative.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Schools — public schools, at least — are about teaching students how to live in the society they will enter as adults, and that may involve some topics and ideals with which parents are uncomfortable.

        Tough. Public schools prepare students to be part of the public, not to automatically emulate their parents in hopeless pole-sitting.

      • DanMan says:

        See how it works Cap? Intrigued wants to be able to talk about you without you being able to respond to her. I think that lesson comes on the second day of liberal school.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Intrigued, I think receiving a message from your parents, no matter how unrealistic it may or may not be, is still important. It shows kids that their parents care, and it tells kids where their parents stand on the matter. It’s good for kids to know what the official rule is, the goal and standard to strive for, and if they fall short, or veer from that standard, that’s another matter.

        It’s like adultery. Just because so many people cheat, and it’s unrealistic to expect the world to ever be adultery-free, doesn’t mean couples shouldn’t strive to be faithful. You may fail in your endeavor, but you have to make that effort.

      • Intrigued says:

        Interesting Anse. I only ask because I am raising a 14 year old son right now. We are educating him contraception but also advocating AGAINST casual sex. The message we are trying to send is that sex is a responsibility with real consequences and it’s not in his best interest to engage in sex with girls he are only interested for sex. Again, I realize our message maybe a little unrealistic but I hope it has some effect on him.

        Most of my education on sex came from those 80’s and 90’s After School specials. Remember those? Lol

      • Anse says:

        P.S. This kind of sex ed class would obviously have to be an elective rather than a requirement, but again, if you think you can keep your kid in the dark about this stuff, you’re fighting a losing battle.

        It reminds me of the guy I once encountered online who was ranting and raving about public schools “teaching socialism” to kids. I offered that it was probably important for the kids to learn something about socialism if they are going to know that they oppose it. He called me a flaming liberal and ended the discussion.

        For the record, this is why I don’t oppose Bible study classes in public schools, either. By all means, every kid should read the Bible. It’s an important book. It’s had as much influence over western culture as anything else you can think of. But fundamentalists who like the idea of public schools teaching Bible classes ought to keep in mind that there is no guarantee that the teacher will be a fundamentalist Christian. You might get an atheist, or a Jew, or–god forbid!–a Muslim teaching that class. And then you’ll get more than you bargained for.

      • Intrigued says:

        Owl and GG, I would like schools to focus on the factual information on sex and contraception but I definately don’t want them to give opinions on the subject.

      • Anse says:

        Btw. I’ve got a six month old daughter. Lord knows how I’m going to feel about this when the time comes. My wife had a much more liberal education on this topic than I did, so I expect she will probably have less of a problem discussing it at length, though I am committed to taking the same approach.

      • Intrigued says:

        Anse you will change many beliefs when raising your daughter. Lol My parents were more conservative but my hubby’s mom was ver liberal. He was sent to college with a SAM’s sized box of condoms.

      • GG says:

        Intrigued, I believe that’s what I learned in sex ed. Just the facts. Menstruation, the changes boys will go through, proper terms for body parts, etc.

      • Intrigued says:

        Dan you see how it works? Stern try’s to make himself and his hypothetical children the victim of intrusion and when he isn’t successful with that tactic something of importantance is discussed. Maybe Tutt can educate you and Stern on how to contribute to a discussion without making it about you and your own delusions.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Meanwhile, several people here are saying that suich things should be taught at school, even against the will of the parents.

      • Crogged says:

        Intrigued, my wife’s mother was a nurse and just gave her the low down straight, no chaser. It’s the best way and has the added effect of a little TMI which dampens enthusiasm to a degree only effected by the reality of human experience……..in other words, it didn’t stop her but gave her pause and tools to deal with the teenage boys who didn’t get the truth.

      • Anse says:

        Sternn, there are some things that need to be taught. We can debate whether or not sex ed is among those things, but if we followed the will of some parents, our schools would no longer be institutions of education, and would devolve into little better than indoctrination camps.

        People need to get over this notion of “dangerous knowledge.” If your belief system cannot withstand the broadest education imaginable, it’s not a belief system worth holding onto.

      • Intrigued says:

        Good point Crogged! My poor kiddos are going to be so thoroughly educated they may end up too scared to have sex. Wishful thinking on my part I know. Lol

      • CaptSternn says:

        Too late, Anse. The public schools have already devolved into indoctrination camps.

      • texan5142 says:

        So Sternn, do you believe that the church is an “indoctrination” camp? Be consistent now.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Some churches are, Anse. I have a cousin that joined a “Baptist Church” that was more like a cult than a church. It has changed her, her husband and basically brainwashed their children. The oldest, a daughter, has finally grown up and is rebelling. Good for her.

        But, there is no law requiring people to attend church. Kids are required by law to attend schools. The lucky ones can attend private schools or be home schooled. The rest get sent to indoctrination camps.

      • texan5142 says:

        Home schools…….. so they can be indoctrinated they right way. When all of one’s learning only comes from one source(the parent) that in it’s self is indoctrination.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Home school courses are purchased from the same sources that are used in private schools.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Many private schools don’t “purchase” courses at all.

        That’s kind of why you hire teachers, instead of just any old random adult.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Private schools follow specific course and use textbooks, same as public schools, just different. They don’t usually just do whatever they want from day to day, though they do have more freedom to actually teach and challenge students rather than indoctrinationg them. You should do some minimal research, Owl, before you show your ignorance. I did the research when my ex and I were considering home schooling. It’s the internet, the information is out there unless you desire to remain deliberately ignorant.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn babbles, “same as public schools, just different.”

        Gosh, what can I say to such a clear and cogent articulation of logic?

        Oh, right: just laugh.

        The high school I attended had a math teacher who taught the multivariable calculus course entirely from his own handouts; certainly, many schools purchase textbooks for that course or others. But I’ve yet to see an English class, for example, using a canned curriculum, and my high-school history class had a text but ranged widely around it with supplemental readings.

        A good class is more than just a guided tour through a textbook. But apparently (or rather “obviously”) Sternn has never had the benefit of a good class.

    • Crogged says:

      I think this link is a sign that and opening up and acceptance of sexuality may occur. And I don’t know if we are as ‘pornified’ as we are always subject to someone trying to sell us something in this culture, using whatever means available to sell………..

      http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/28/a-gay-evangelical-preaches-to-the-uncoverted/

    • It’s an interesting point you bring up, Anse. Back in the day we married at an early age; today educated young people tend to delay marriage until they they have achieved a modicum of economic independence, and for many that does not occur until mid- to late-twenties at the earliest. It’s kind of silly to expect young people to defer sex for that length of time.

      As for my own house, I used to put a glass jar on the mantle every time my son went out on a date. I explained very clearly using simple words which of his body parts would end up in that jar should his date turn up pregnant. Problem solved.

  31. Owl of Bellaire says:

    Chris, great article, but I think you slipped a bit in the second-to-last paragraph, and used “pro-choice” where you really mean “pro-life”. The first term is better for the rhetorical point you’re making, but is the reversal of normal practice.

    Of course, maybe the quotation marks are supposed to alert readers to an intended irony, but I found it a but sudden without some more set-up, particularly when you’ve just talked about them as wanting to *limit* choices. (Perhaps you meant “pro-THEIR-choice”?)

  32. Crogged says:

    I know ‘person has a funny name’ reveals much to you and DanMan, but it isn’t the best evidence to judge character or decide what religion they may follow.

  33. kabuzz61 says:

    So teen pregnancy is still happening but according to Chris, since it is dropping, we should celebrate it or embrace it as a failure. That is like stopping a football game in the third quarter because the team has enough points. Or let’s stop funding cancer research because the disease is decreasing in the population. Or let’s stop the left favorite and that is Civil Rights protections because the incidents have been greatly reduced.

    Childish, petty, silly, so many names comes to mind when I read your post.

  34. If we are going to be for liberty, then we must be *for* liberty. That means allowing adults to make terrible mistakes, and allowing them to suffer the consequences of those mistakes. Good judgement comes from experience; experience results from bad judgement.

    It’s entirely appropriate for the right to persuade, cajole, convince, hector, sway, prompt, entice, exhort, influence, woo, and wheedle the electorate into agreement and consensus on the correctness of its moral worldview. It’s entirely *inappropriate* for the right to force its moral worldview on the electorate through the coercive might of the state.

    Coercion is almost always wrong, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s the left or right doing it. It’s just wrong, period. The ends do not justify the means.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So Danny you are against Rick Perry’s coercion by the state government to rape women with a wand sonogram probe before agreeing to a Supreme Court conferred legal abortion?

        Consistency Danny. Try it sometime. At least TThor is consistent in his view. I’ll give him that despite my disagreement with 99% of it.

      • Gee, bubba, I’m touched. 😉

      • DanMan says:

        yeah Thor, bubba and I agreed for about 6 minutes one day about restoring old stuff and then his prolapse took control of his attitude and its been downhill ever since.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Bubba, look up the word rape. Educate yourself, if possible. Do your knuckles hurt after dragging them on the ground all day?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So buzzy approves of state mandated rape.

        Buzzy you stick a penis shaped wand in a woman’s vagina against her will just to shame her and make her uncomfortable and what would you call that?

        But if it fits your hypocritical world view, it’s allllllll ok.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Abortions are mandated in China, Bubba. Not here. Here they are voluntary procedures. It would help you to learn the difference.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Bubba, I’ll type slower. They do not have to if they do not want to. Get it?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Cappy shows up like Old Faithful with his histrionic faux victimization incoherent and factually incorrect outrage.

        No one said abortions were mandated Cappy. The sonogram rape is mandated by Dicky Perry decree. Learn to read for comprehension for a change instead of reading for your own delusional confirmations.

        You will sound less like an idiot. For a little bit. For a little while.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, Bubba, abortion is still a voluntary procedure. No woman is required to have one.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Your typing still doesn’t help your thought processes or lack of it buzzy. It’s government intrusion. Literally. Physically. And not medically necessary. It’s just mere intimidation tactics to further your narrow social agenda.

      But government overreach is ok when it’s your kind of government mandating what you want for everyone else.

      Give it a rest with your hypocrisy buzzy. You guys already drove a rational conservative fitty nuts with embarrassment. Going 2 for 2 now?

  35. CaptSternn says:

    I think you are either projecting again, or just saying what you think sounds good according to your own agenda. Teen pregnancy would have been higher decades ago because people got married as teenagers. Now people wait until later in life to get married and start families.

    • texan5142 says:

      “I think you are either projecting again, or just saying what you think sounds good according to your own agenda.”

      Pot meet kettle.

    • DanMan says:

      True for me Cap. Let the bashing continue.

    • Anse says:

      I’m not sure that conflicts with Chris’s core argument, nor does it help the social conservative cause any. It’s not like people are waiting until marriage to have sex.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      It seems regardless of political beliefs, in the 50’s is was a shame to have teen pregnancy. Now teen pregnancy is celebrated by the ‘liberated’ left.

      Then you add on the right to kill your baby law in 74 well, that was celebrated by the left also.

      Over the history in question, they only ones that have been consistent in the caring of the baby have been conservatives but Chris would rather also slam people of faith.

      Such a petty man.

      • Crogged says:

        I love it when you trot out your selective religiosity, so sensitive to attacks on people of faith and a tin ear when your own hypocrites crow out in public. I’ve always been a live and let err kind of dude because we all live and err–but when you couldn’t even bring yourself to address that revolting statement (and audience response) from Queen Palin–you earned a special place, particularly when it’s this faux ‘slam people of faith’ drivel you manage to work into every other post. Such a poor victim of all of us haters………..

      • texan5142 says:

        Bearing false witness again I see, your “God” will be proud.

      • DanMan says:

        Sarah Palin offended you Crogged? please tell us how

        I also note another change along Kabuzz’s reasoning. Its called shame. the left has none. I remember when people didn’t advertise their welfare benefits. Now its out and loud and lets be proud of how much can be taken.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        kabuzz, please offer an appropriate example of how “teen pregnancy is celebrated by the ‘liberated’ left.”

        If you can.

        Otherwise, please admit to bearing false witness before God and everyone here.

      • DanMan says:

        Funny having atheists throw a conniption over religious aspects they reject. Dems are nothing if not consistently inconsistent. I think there is a word for that.

      • Anse says:

        The Left has no shame? DanMan, have you spent any time at all listening to conservative radio? C’mon, dude. Just a half hour of Fox and Friends will dispel any reasonable person of the notion that the right has any sense of shame.

        What we have to acknowledge is that people have sex. It happens. They can either do it ignorantly or they can approach the subject with some education.

      • GG says:

        Oh.my.lord. The irony.

      • DanMan says:

        I catch Fox on RCP Anse. I cancelled my satellite mess after the uberbowl in 2013

      • GG says:

        “Funny having atheists throw a conniption over religious aspects they reject. Dems are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.”

        Only Dems are atheists??? Hmm, funny I know several atheists who vote GOP. Quit looking at the world in black and white.

      • DanMan says:

        which ones are on this board twisting themselves into knots GG? context has its place, try to keep up

      • GG says:

        Then quit making such blanket statements. Be concise.

      • DanMan says:

        you’re 2/2 on being off topic in this thread alone GG

      • GG says:

        Who cares?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        GG advises to not paint with a broad brush but up above she posted to Captain:
        Some conservatives never discuss it though Cap which is why I support sex ed in schools

        Only some conservatives? Not some democrats? GG, hypocrite award for today.

      • Turtles Run says:

        danny boy wrote: Funny having atheists throw a conniption over religious aspects they reject.

        I am certainly no atheist and I call you out Buzzy on his sin of Bearing False Witness.

        “Dems are nothing if not consistently inconsistent. I think there is a word for that” Yes, its called being a tea bagger.

      • GG says:

        I have no idea Buzz. I know from reading that many religious conservatives DO NOT discuss it at all. Many is not all.

      • GG says:

        Buzz, I think you have the hypocrisy award firmly in your grasp.

  36. Anse says:

    One thing that puzzles me about social conservatives’ objections to expansive sex education (I mean the kind that goes beyond the abstinence message) is this idea that by not talking about things like contraceptives, we somehow make the world safer for teenagers. Do they have the internet at home? How do you protect a kid from talking about sex in this age? At least when I was a teenager, you had to rifle through the neighbor kid’s dad’s Penthouse stash hidden in the garage, or risk public humiliation by buying porn at the corner store. Now it’s everywhere. And I don’t think that’s a good thing; I think we’re over-pornified, if that makes any sense. But goodness, how do you send a kid into the world without ever talking expansively about the subject? What are you protecting them from, exactly? Unless you plan to move completely off the grid, society has already decided the terms of this for you. It’s not really up to you anymore. You have to talk about it.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      I agree that we’re “over-pornified.” However, I’m not sure how we reduce it, without coercive means that betray our nation’s ideals. Obviously a cultural change would work, but those are slow, erratic, and far from universal.

      Of course, centuries ago, married couples would have sex right in the same room as their young children, and civilization (for what it was, then) didn’t fall. So perhaps it’s a mix of “over-pornification” (that IS an awkward coinage!) and the remains of our Puritan heritage. When we get over sex as being so titillating and risque, perhaps it won’t become so popular a target for advertising and media.

      • DanMan says:

        You’re leaving out provocation. Your side deals in it.

      • Anse says:

        I’m a pretty liberal guy, and I do think we tend to overreact to sexual stuff, but I’ve got a real problem with some overtly sexual stuff. Take San Francisco, for example. I love the city. It’s one of my favorite places in the world to go. But for a long time open nudity was completely legal; you could go into some districts and find dudes hanging out in public parks totally naked. I believe the city council has tried to rein that in a little bit, and I’m glad, because as liberal as I am, I do believe there is a time and a place for everything, and hanging your junk out at all times is just not the way to go. It’s weird because it’s not such a big deal in Europe. You can find girls sunbathing topless in parks in Denmark or the Netherlands, and even for me, it’s not as big deal there; I don’t even notice it when I’m over there. But something about American culture just instantly dirties up any such thing. I don’t know what it is. But I like people to keep their clothes on as a general rule.

      • Anse says:

        You know DanMan, when it comes to sex, I have yet to meet a single Republican who is really that much of a prude about it. I grew up in a devout Southern Baptist, deeply conservative home in rural Texas. We all got “the talk” from our parents and it was 99% Don’t Do It Until You’re Married. And yet…just about every teenager I knew in church was shagging like crazy. It was the big appeal for teens going to church camp. You may not hit a home run, but you sure could get to third base pretty easy.

        It’s one of the things I find puzzling about conservatives. We’re way past the 50’s postwar era now. Every high school in the country is full of hormone-raged teenagers. We were all trying to get laid in high school, and if you weren’t getting any, it wasn’t for lack of trying. I can probably count on one hand the number of people I personally knew who were determined to stay virgins until marriage. Everybody else was dying to get some; some of them were lying about it while others did not give a crap either way.

      • DanMan says:

        Keep us posted Anse. Kids in religious families are still kids. You’re not breaking any new ground with your observations. Catholic girls would justify some things the Baptist girls wouldn’t and vice versa.

        You paint conservatives with a very broad brush. Don’t be offended when you get splattered.

    • flypusher says:

      “One thing that puzzles me about social conservatives’ objections to expansive sex education (I mean the kind that goes beyond the abstinence message) is this idea that by not talking about things like contraceptives, we somehow make the world safer for teenagers. ”

      I think it’s because some of them have this mindset that ANY sexual experience outside their narrow set of rules is wrong. Notice how many of them freak out over masturbation (Jocelyn Elders, anyone?). That’s something that does not cause pregnancy or spread disease, but it must be stopped! I suspect the lack of risk is the precise reason they freak- people could give into urges without being punished by STDs or unwanted pregnancies! The horror!!! Contraceptives also reduce risk, so they must be stopped too!

      • DanMan says:

        fly playing fungo with himself today, tossing up talking points he makes up about others and trying to hit them

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sex is a common mechanism of control for cults everywhere.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Fly, you are so wrong. You have no idea about people of faith. We celebrate every gift including sex and intimacy.

      • flypusher says:

        Riddle me this Buzzy, why is it the “people of faith”, as opposed to the atheists, who keep coming up with this stuff:

    • You know, Anse, you touch on something that I find truly puzzling, viz. with ‘over-pornification.’ I just don’t get. For instance, I’ve been a fan of George R.R. Martin since 1980, when I first chanced upon his novella, “Sandkings.” (See http://forwearemany.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/sandkings.pdf; it’s a classic). Naturally, I’m a fan of the HBO GOT series, too. However, I find the gratuitous sex and nudity distracting and unnecessary. It’s not present in Martin’s books, and does nothing to further the story. Indeed, skillfully *implied* sex on screen is, in my view, often considerably more erotically stimulating than the blatant stuff. The mind is, after all, a far more sex-charged organ than the eye. It just seems lazy, tawdry and cheap to me, artistically speaking. I could use a lot less of it. I wonder if I’m alone in this opinion.

  37. texan5142 says:

    “The steep long-term declines in teen pregnancy, teen birth, and abortion are not going to be celebrated by religious fundamentalists because those were never their core objectives. ”

    Chris , this is the core objective of religious fundamentalist, they want this country to be ran like the Taliban run Afghanistan . Like I said the other day, religious fundamentalism will be the downfall of this country.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/29/iowas-gop-senate-candidates-vow-to-block-judges-who-wont-follow-biblical-law/

    • DanMan says:

      Who advocating for religious fundamentalism other than the muslims you reference? You mean Obama and his embrace of the muslim brotherhood? they are aligned with hammas but I believe they are calling for an alignment with the Taliban so there is that.

      • Anse says:

        If Obama has embraced the Muslim Brotherhood, he hasn’t made much noise about Egypt’s imprisonment of their president or of other members of the group.

        It’s a dumb point to make about Obama but it’s a fact of life that we’re going to hear dumb points about Obama from rightwingers at this point. It’s like saying rain is wet and fire is very hot.

      • Crogged says:

        “Dumb”? Anse, you don’t have to be so complimentary.

      • DanMan says:

        are you saying Obama did not facilitate the MB in taking control of the Egyptian government? He is having to be quiet because their 75 year struggle for control of that country lasted about 18 months big boy. Even Obama can see that.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        “are you saying Obama did not facilitate the MB in taking control of the Egyptian government?”

        Yes. The Obama administration facilitated free elections in Egypt, with a multitude of challengers. That is hardly the same as deliberately encouraging and enabling the Muslim Brotherhood.

        Or perhaps you’re still in favor of the Cold War vintage style of encouraging and enabling brutal dictators (like Saddam Hussein!) just because we temporarily like them and the illusory and temporary “stability” that they provide?

      • DanMan says:

        Owly gets his news from Vox apparently. You’re as deep as Zack Beauchamp buddy.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        And yet still you lack any facts or perspective.

        Apparently, deliberately so.

      • DanMan says:

        Hey Owl, was Morsi in the MB?

      • GG says:

        Dan, why do you persist in thinking Owl is a man. She is a female.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Mohamed Morsi? Yes, of course he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (which, like Sinn Féin or other groups in history and modern times, is a name used both by a political party and a terrorist organization which may or may not always be connected in goals and practice). He was also the first democratically elected head of state in Egyptian history.

        Are you claiming that the Obama administration rigged the vote in favor of Morsi? Or that we should never have “allowed” Egypt to have democratic elections?

        I really can’t see any other way for your witless charge to make sense. But perhaps you will try to extricate yourself from the jaws of your own idiocy.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        GG — I continue, as always, to leave my gender indeterminate in public postings made under this nom de plume (or nom de clavier?). That ambiguity may confuse some, but my hope is that it leaves my thoughts on some topics — particularly abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and the like — to be considered only on their own strengths rather than being colored by any immediate gender association. So many conservatives (though by no means all) prefer to try to attack the person rather than consider the ideas. 🙂

      • CaptSternn says:

        That’s funny coming from you, Owl.

      • DanMan says:

        hey Ms Owl, was Morsi in the MB?

      • DanMan says:

        Look at the increase in aid when Morsi was elected for evidence of support. And then note Obama’s threat to cut off aid to the military of Egypt when they snuffed Morsi’s attempts to wipe out the Coptic Christians. Listen to Obama’s words.

        And yes, I have no reason to doubt Obama did all he could to assist Morsi come to power in whatever way he could.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Oh, Sternn, you yourself were the one who publicly stated where to find your personal information (and it’s *still* there, in the WHOIS records for your domain). Why are you crying to me when you’re the one who left the barn door open?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        So, Dan, you’re sure that the increase in aid had nothing to do with the simple desire to support free elections in Egypt? And that reductions might have had nothing to do with trying to maintain that fledgling democratic system against the common threat of military coup?

        I can’t do anything about it if you’re determined to view the world through anti-Obama filters. You can always find information to justify being paranoid; we can’t argue you out of it, but only laugh uproariously about it.

      • DanMan says:

        I’m a realist. You deal in lies. If you like your plan you can keep your plan.

      • objv says:

        Owl: Have you stopped beating your wife? I’ve heard you ask this loaded question many a time. I also remember you mentioning a Mrs. Owl in past comments and that your skin is “pink.”

        Why not come clean and admit that you’re a middle-aged white guy? I’m sure my arguments would have more validity with some here if I pretended to be part of a minority group or gave no information at all. Your gender and background matter when discussing women’s issues such as abortion. No matter how good you feel about your arguments, unless you, personally, have been in a position to get pregnant, you can not know what emotions a woman is experiencing.

        And, sorry, taking your turn with Mrs. Owl sitting on eggs does not count.

      • DanMan says:

        meh, I thought Ms Owl was Houston Traveller from long ago. I recall that moniker also had another name he got stumbled up on. Last I heard of that HT he was about to have twins but I do also recall the Bellaire references and figured I’d eventually see him around the ‘hood.

        so Owl, I did nail it with Valhalla at Rice didn’t I?

      • DanMan says:

        Maybe I’m confusing Ms Owl with Homer. Homer is HT. Heck Homer could be many posters,

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        objv — I ask, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” since it’s a standard rhetorical example of a leading question. I suppose I could change it up to ask about beating husbands instead, but most of those to whom it’s applicable have been male, and Texas hasn’t legalized same-sex unions… yet.

        Meanwhile, though I am married (and legally so in Texas), I am careful to avoid gendered terms and speak only of my “spouse”. I believe fiftyohm is the one who likes to speculate about “Mrs. Owl.”

        Of course, you’re welcome to assume any traits you like about a correspondent in an anonymous commenting site. Just realize that you’re assuming them.

      • objv says:

        GG: If, by chance, you invite Owl over to discuss women’s issues, have pedicures, and watch “Bridget Jones,” you may be in for a shock when a white, married dude shows up. Owl has more than “left the barn door open” in the past while writing posts. He’s mentioned a wife and his age was given at 45 when I checked his profile awhile back on the old chron site. Other than that, there’s an obvious predilection for Rice University, and woodworking was listed under hobbies. I’m not enough of a stalker to have actually tried to find out hoo Owl is in real life, but I had to roll my eyes when I saw his response to Cap.

      • objv says:

        Sorry, Owl, I didn’t see your response before hitting the send button on my last post. While I am certainly sensitive about privacy here, I saw the interaction between you and cap and was puzzled as to how you can expect to discuss women’s issues while not disclosing your own gender. It would be like me pretending to be black and trying to discuss racism from an African-American point of view.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Maybe because I believe in discussing women’s issues from the point of view of women as *human beings*, rather than just as women?

        Are you making the claim that, where “women’s issues” are concerned, we should shut off all debate on the national level except between the 82 women in the House of Representatives (18.9% of the total membership) and the 20 women in the Senate (20% of the total)?

        That might produce favorable results, from my point of view, since only a quarter of those women are Republicans (representing only 8.2% of their elected party membership), so there’d be a clear Democratic majority. However, I don’t think that’s a wise solution from either a governing or a gender-relations point of view.

        I don’t believe men are always wrong, or even unsympathetic, where women’s issues are concerned. And I also don’t believe women have a monopoly or, by any means, an inerrancy where such issues are concerned. There’s a diversity of opinion on both sides — and, as with all such spectra, each gender may present both “right” and “wrong” (to my point of view) arguments. I loathe the unbridled venting of a far-left-wing ultra-feminist speaking for “womyn” almost as much as I do the Neanderthal grunts of a far-right-wing Dominionist claiming that women only want to be taken care of and should stay in the home-making sphere.

        It’s a human question, not a gender question. I’m happy to admit to my humanity, but I don’t think my gender (whether real or imagined) has any bearing on my actual arguments about such issues.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Someone needs to crawl back into their bottle and play with YOUTUBE.

      • texan5142 says:

        GFYS! kabuzz, you are no man of “God” your words prove that, get the nurse to change your diaper old man because you are full of it.

      • DanMan says:

        said the guy that advocates government shooting civilians over debts

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Somehow, DanMan, I suspect you’re lying, but perhaps you can offer the quote.

        I have no problem with shooting citizens who offer armed resistance (and deny their own government) after decades’ worth of legal judgments have gone against them and officials finally come to collect.

        But maybe you believe they just should have filed yet another suit, or rolled over and let the traitors and domestic terrorists have their day in the media sun.

      • DanMan says:

        Texan can confirm I’m not lying. That you agree with him is your deal.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        I may agree with him, but I suspect it’s not over the deliberately dumbed-down perspective you’re drooling to offer.

      • texan5142 says:

        Yep! Dan side with sedition why am I not suprised

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      And yet still you lack any facts or perspective.

      Apparently, deliberately so.

    • objv says:

      Dan, although it’s possible for anyone here to have multiple identities, I think that Owl (despite his coyness regarding gender) and Homer prefer the identities they have under those names. Both have come back after being banned on the chron with enough info based on name or avatar to clue us in as to who they actually are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 472 other followers

%d bloggers like this: