Another unintended consequence, apparently, of conservative economic policies.
For many Americans, the recession is affecting their most intimate decisions about sex and family planning. Doctors and clinics are reporting that many women are choosing abortions and men are having vasectomies because they cannot afford a child.
Planned Parenthood of Illinois clinics performed an all-time high number of abortions in January, many of them motivated by the women’s economic worries, said CEO Steve Trombley, who declined to give exact numbers. Abortions at Planned Parenthood’s St. Louis-area clinics were up nearly 7% in the second half of 2008 from a year earlier — ending a stretch in which the numbers were dwindling.
Planned Parenthood said it has no up-to-date national abortion figures, nor do other private or government agencies. However, Stephanie Poggi of the National Network of Abortion Funds, which helps women in need pay for abortions, said calls to the network’s national helpline have nearly quadrupled from a year ago.
“A lot of women who never thought they’d need help are turning to us,” Poggi said. “They’re telling us, ‘I’ve already put off paying my rent, my electric bill. I’m cutting back on my food.’ They’ve run through all the options.”
One of the first large, extended rates in American abortions came under (wait for it) Bill Clinton.
What drives me crazy about the modern day party, where the moderates have been pushed aside and now only the fringe lunatics remain, is that they can’t grasp simple economic issues such as: People with job security and a decent income are going to have more children. People who get abortions are usually poor, terrified young women who have limited education for getting a decent job or how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
So Republicans, thank the Bush II/Republican recession for a spike in abortion rates. America has never been a theocracy, and we aren’t ever going to go backwards in time to establish your little anti-female, male-control agenda.
And if you really cared about fewer abortions being performed, you’d vote Democrat.
Wow, totally messed that up. One of the first large, extended _drops_ in the rate of abortion came under Clinton.
But to flesh out my point, for Republicans it’s all about controlling women primarily, and the sex lives of the poor in general. The potential of an abortion doesn’t really factor in so much, otherwise they’d be praising Clinton for actually lowering the rate.
But no, it’s about politics and wanting to increase the nanny-state re: controlling when, whom, and how you sleep with somebody.
Jaim, I dunno how you happened to do it, but you somehow slipped and said something true:
But no, it’s about politics and wanting to increase the nanny-state re: controlling when, whom, and how you sleep with somebody.
That’s one of my big beefs with Republicans.
On the other hand, the Democrats are fiercely opposed to “choice” in every single field NOT related to sex:
– School choice
– Personal safety (seat belts, motorcycle helmets)
– Personal finance (privatizing Social Security, making risky investments)
– Military service (it’s Democrats who keep calling for a return of the Draft, usually saying that there are too many poor and disadvantaged in the service)
– Political ideology (look how conservative minorities are treated)
– Self defense (private gun ownership)
But if you can find a way to tie “choice” into “sex,” then it’s OK.
Jaim was right about something? Time to check all my clocks… yup, the wristwatch is broken. Dang it…
J.
I think it says quite a bit about our society that some women feel their only option is abortion when economic times are tough.
The thing that gets me about the abortion issue is how it is framed.
I know of few people who are not pro life.
I know of NO people that are pro abortion.
I know of many people who are either pro or anti choice.
That’s it.
Repubs want abortions to be up so they can use the carrot on the stick every other november
One of the first large, extended _drops_ in the rate of abortion came under Clinton.
No it didn’t. It actually started first in 1990 when George Bush was President. It reached its lowest levels in 2005 when George W. Bush was President Chart here and numbers here. So your idiotic statement that if you want lower abortion rates is to vote Democrat is well…idiotic.
But to flesh out my point, for Republicans it’s all about controlling women primarily, and the sex lives of the poor in general.
Ah yes, let’s pull that canard out of the standard bag of liberal responses to pro-life policies. It’s all about the CONTROL FREAKS. Please Jaim. That’s a tired and truly lame argument. It’s spouted by those who don’t have the intellectual honesty to discuss the issue with any rationality.
People who get abortions are usually poor, terrified young women who have limited education for getting a decent job or how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
Last time I checked one didn’t need to have a college degree to know how to help prevent pregnancies. And rubbers don’t cost that much money. Or here’s a wonderful idea: abstain! Contrary to what the left thinks, we’re not a bunch of animals that just have to engage in sex whenever the mood strikes.
Unfortunately, the increase in abortions is indicative of the mindset that people don’t have to be responsible for their decisions these days. People can screw all they want, but at the same time abdicate their responsibilities in the face of that decision.
Private school vouchers? People have every right to send their kid to private school, but don’t expect the government to pay for it.
But again, this is Jay we’re talking about. Guy has his life saved by socialist health-care and now tries to argue nobody else should have it.
“Last time I checked one didn’t need to have a college degree to know how to help prevent pregnancies.”
Actually, wing-nuts like you and Sarah Palin are trying to argue that sex education is demonic and expensive, yadda yadda. Funny how her un-wed daughter has come out to say that abstinence-only ed. is stupid. A 13 year-old kid, male or female, actually doesn’t know how this stuff works without a decent public-school sex ed class. So again, you’re a moron.
Abortion rates decline when the economy is doing well, and this is why pro-lifers should vote Democrat. Not to mention educational issues regarding the fact that while young people shouldn’t have sex, they’re going to, and having access to free condoms will help to prevent abortions yet again.
If you want to prevent abortions, vote for the party that wants to expand economic success, educational access, and, well, free condoms to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
If you want American to go back to the Dark Ages of the 1980’s, vote Republican.
But please, keep arguing for the Dark Ages. Bewteen you and Jay hoping another Katrina happens, it’s precious to see how you and your fellow wing-nuts are failing at everything these days.
…the party that wants to expand economic success
…unless you work for AIG
… or an oil company
… or make more than $200,000 a year
… or you donate to charity
… or you use energy
… or you bought a house that you could afford and made all your payments on it
… or you want to sell goods & services in Mexico or Canada
Last time I checked one didn’t need to have a college degree to know how to help prevent pregnancies. And rubbers don’t cost that much money. Or here’s a wonderful idea: abstain! Contrary to what the left thinks, we’re not a bunch of animals that just have to engage in sex whenever the mood strikes.
Here you present several options, of which one is “abstain.” And yet the sex-education policies espoused by Republicans are “abstinence-only.”
Republican sex-ed is, by far, the most nonsensical set of contradictory principles in the entire philosophy. “You there, teenagers! Don’t have sex. If you do have sex, though, something we should by now expect due to simple biological fact, we’re not going to tell you about condoms or birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. If you get pregnant, you have to keep the child as a reminder that you should have listened to us in the first place. If you don’t have the resources to properly care for that child, we will sneer at you for being on welfare, as further punishment for your not listening to us when we first told you not to have sex.”
You know why they had to invent the term “compassionate conservative”? Because nobody believed it’s a redundancy in terms.
Actually, wing-nuts like you and Sarah Palin are trying to argue that sex education is demonic and expensive, yadda yadda. Funny how her un-wed daughter has come out to say that abstinence-only ed. is stupid. A 13 year-old kid, male or female, actually doesn’t know how this stuff works without a decent public-school sex ed class. So again, you’re a moron.
Well it’s good to see that you still believe one of the falsehoods (That Palin supports abstinence only sex ed) spread by those purveyors of truth – left wing blogs. You have no idea what I support so keep your knee-jerk reactions to yourself asshat.
Abortion rates decline when the economy is doing well, and this is why pro-lifers should vote Democrat.
And this is why you’re an idiot. I just showed the chart that shows abortion has declined every year since 1990. Now with your pea sized brain, you’ve come to the conclusion that the economy is only good when Democrats are in office, rates of abortion should have gone up from 1990-1993 and 2000-2005.
Not to mention educational issues regarding the fact that while young people shouldn’t have sex, they’re going to, and having access to free condoms will help to prevent abortions yet again.
Really? You just said that poorer women were too stupid to know that condoms help prevent pregnancies. And contrary to what you’re saying, the majority of women that get abortions are not teenagers. They’re more likely to be in their mid 20’s. Of course, everybody can afford cell phones, but nobody can afford to buy a $10 box of condoms. We have to have the government fund it. Terrific.
But please, keep arguing for the Dark Ages. Bewteen you and Jay hoping another Katrina happens
Dude, get back on your meds. Or get off them. Whatever is causing such lunacy. You’ve got some issues.
Once again, Jay, your lack of vagina speaks volumes.
Do me, as a woman, a favor– don’t even try to pontificate what it may be like for a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant with no means of support. Really, don’t. You don’t get it, you never WILL get it, so please stop insulting me and my gender.
And it IS all about CONTROL, sweetheart. It IS. The Church used it for a thousand years– you reek control over a person’s sexuality, you control the person, period. Sexuality is our basest drive and need. It helps cultivate the person we are. Our brains are stimulated hundreds of times a day sexually without us even realizing it. If we engaged in sex EVERYTIME we thought about it, we’d never get anything done.
So don’t, OK? You have NO clue what you’re talking about because you’ve been developmentally arrested.
And it IS all about CONTROL, sweetheart. It IS.
Absolutely right, Ivy.
what it may be like for a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant with no means of support.
Hmm… just how does that happen, anyway?
Could it be a lack of personal control regarding the whole “Tab A – Slot B” thing?
People with a sense of responsibility understand that (barring scientific intervention) that there’s pretty much only one thing that causes a woman to “find(s) herself unexpectedly pregnant” and take steps to make sure that doesn’t happen. Abstinence — a.k.a. keeping Tab A well away from Slot B — is the simplest, and guaranteed to succeed.
There are plenty of choices that can be made prior to the one about whether or not to have an abortion. Plenty of opportunities for people to exercise free will and judgment and discretion and common sense. We are not beasts, slaves to our libidos. We are mature, intelligent, sentient beings, who not only can be held to account for our choices, but ought to demand it.
And those who aren’t… well, they obviously can’t be trusted to act appropriately in civilized company, so they need to be protected for their benefit and ours.
So, Ivy, are you a person or an animal? Are you a slave to your libido, or are you its master? Do you control yourself, or do your instincts control you?
J.
Wow. With all those mad skillz understanding women, it’s a wonder no woman has snatched JT up, huh?
People with a sense of responsibility understand that (barring scientific intervention) that there’s pretty much only one thing that causes a woman to “find(s) herself unexpectedly pregnant” and take steps to make sure that doesn’t happen. Abstinence — a.k.a. keeping Tab A well away from Slot B — is the simplest, and guaranteed to succeed.
There you have it, folks. Women who have sex deserve anything bad that happens to them.
Spider, you’re offering up a red herring. I’m not talking about sex ed so all of this blather about “abstinence only” education is a deflection. Nobody is talking about sex education here unless 20+ year old women are still in high school so stop trying to make this about sex ed. The majority of women that get abortions are out of high school and beyond the reach of sex ed programs. At a certain point in life, people need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions. It’s as simple as that. I cannot fathom why that is such a terrible thing in this country. We are responsible for the choices we make. That is the bottom line.
Ivy, please give me a break with your sanctimonious drivel. It’s boring. But I will comment on this one statement:
Sexuality is our basest drive and need. It helps cultivate the person we are. Our brains are stimulated hundreds of times a day sexually without us even realizing it. If we engaged in sex EVERYTIME we thought about it, we’d never get anything done.
Sexuality has nothing to do with cultivating the person we are. What new-age piece of shit rag did you read that in? The very fact that you admit that we don’t act on our sexual impulses is evidence that as humans we have the ability to control our urges. It doesn’t take a genius for somebody to say, “Wait. We don’t have any protection. Let’s not do this.” It takes a person who has the ability to rationally examine the situation and not fall prey to their baser instincts. If somebody isn’t intelligent enough to do so, then they should be responsible for what happens as a result and
Women who have sex deserve anything bad that happens to them.
Oh so now getting pregnant is the equivalent of having “anything bad that happens to them.” How quaint.
So, Ivy, are you a person or an animal? Are you a slave to your libido, or are you its master? Do you control yourself, or do your instincts control you?
Jay Tea, are you? Of course, you’ll have to leave it up to us to judge.
Accordingly, please share with us you entire sexual history with details about how and when any sexual encounters occurred and what transpired.
Please describe every sexual fantasy you’ve ever had and every instance of masturbation. We must, after all, determine your level of self-control over such basic, animal urges.
I know that learning every detail of your sex life, real and virtual, will be difficult for many of us here. This is the sacrifice we are willing to make, however, in order to judge your character as accurately as possible and determine whether you are a “person with any sense responsibility.”
You may be embarrassed to provide such personal information to a panel of anonymous people on the internet. But I know you understand the importance of having one’s sex life judged by the larger community.
I know you understand that helping us to root out who is an “animal” and who is a “person” is really the only responsible thing to do.
It takes a person who has the ability to rationally examine the situation and not fall prey to their baser instincts.
Jay, I think we’ll be needing to get your complete sexual history, as well.
Please have it on our desk in the morning.
I rest my case.
Oh so now getting pregnant is the equivalent of having “anything bad that happens to them.”
It is if you don’t want to be pregnant.
Maybe this is another situation where you should ask your wife for a little help, Jay.
well, they obviously can’t be trusted to act appropriately in civilized company, so they need to be protected for their benefit and ours.
wow, jay. Just … wow.
please give me a break with your sanctimonious drivel.
the lack of self-awareness in this statement speaks volumes.
If we engaged in sex EVERYTIME we thought about it, we’d never get anything done.
True that.
If we engaged in sex EVERYTIME we thought about it, we’d never get anything done.
And if we engaged in sex in every WAY we thought about it, there’d be a worldwide shortage of grape jam and trampolines.
And Ms. Alba would be VERY tired.
Nobody is talking about sex education here unless 20+ year old women are still in high school so stop trying to make this about sex ed.
Big uninformed women come from little uninformed girls. You do get that, right?
That should be PEOPLE, not just women and girls.
My bad.
At a certain point in life, people need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions. It’s as simple as that.
And how exactly is getting an abortion not taking responsibility for one’s actions?
Fafaroo is (as usual) missing the point. It’s not about whether or not anybody has ever done something they shouldn’t have at some time in their life. It has to do with taking responsibility for your actions and if women are getting abortions because it may affect their financial situation, that’s wrong.
It is if you don’t want to be pregnant.
There’s a simple solution for that: Don’t put yourself in a situation where you will get pregnant and if you do, be prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions.
Maybe this is another situation where you should ask your wife for a little help, Jay.
Not. My wife is more ardently pro-life than I am and finds it sickening that people use abortion as a means of birth control. Of course, one wonders what intellectual insight Ivy can offer about my wife’s motives. After all she is a mother, has a vagina and has no need to want to “control” the same sex.
Of course, the fact that there are women who are pro-life blows a huge gaping hole in Ivy’s idiotic “control” theory.
And how exactly is getting an abortion not taking responsibility for one’s actions?
I’m not even going to address such a stupid question.
In fact, I have to say that arguing that woman getting an abortion is being responsible for their actions is perhaps the most mind-numbingly stupid argument I have ever seen in my entire life. I can’t believe you even had the audacity to use it.
Wow.
Just…
WOW.
I’m not even going to address such a stupid question.
So you don’t want to even make a case for your position? What happened to having the “intellectual honesty to discuss the issue with any rationality”?
If you believe that getting an abortion is irresponsible, you have to make the case for why. You cannot simply assert that it is on its face.
As I reject the pro-life argument entirely, I do not think it is irresponsible to get an abortion. Indeed, it is entirely rational, reasonable and responsible for a woman to decide that she is either not ready or not interested in having a child.
And we all eagerly await your report on your complete sexual history so that we can judge just how responsible a sexual being you are.
My wife is more ardently pro-life than I am and finds it sickening that people use abortion as a means of birth control.
And she feels that her personal morality should be imposed on others. Fantastic.
And what does it mean that she is “more ardently pro-life” than you are? Does that mean that you are not as sexually “responsible” as she is? Can you explain that to us?
There’s a simple solution for that: Don’t put yourself in a situation where you will get pregnant and if you do, be prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions.
Birth control sometimes fails.
If you’d taken sex ed in school, you would know that.
The thing that gets me about the abortion issue is how it is framed.
I know of few people who are not pro life.
I know of NO people that are pro abortion.
I know of many people who are either pro or anti choice.
That’s it.
Exactly so.
[...] bring this up because OW posted an entry here where he shows the abortion rate starting to climb due to the poorer economy and claims it’s [...]
If I repeat the below without the caveat that this was about teenagers:
Don’t have sex. If you do have sex, though, something we should by now expect due to simple biological fact, we’re not going to tell you about condoms or birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. If you get pregnant, you have to keep the child as a reminder that you should have listened to us in the first place. If you don’t have the resources to properly care for that child, we will sneer at you for being on welfare, as further punishment for your not listening to us when we first told you not to have sex.
You have still failed to respond to it in any way that makes you sound like anything but a patriarchal tool.
Is your mindset consistent? When somebody makes a dire mistake of any kind, is your response always going to be “You have no option anymore save to accept this mistake and all of its consequences?” Would you advise a car company that produced a lemon that now their only option is to find a way to sell every car on the line and to keep producing this car even though it is draining their resources, the whole time screeching that they should never have produced this car in the first place like you told them?
Somehow, I doubt you would.
There’s a simple solution for that: Don’t put yourself in a situation where you will get pregnant and if you do, be prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions.
Okey dokey. Back to square one it is:
There you have it, folks. Women who have sex deserve anything bad that happens to them.
Quaker,
That really is it, isn’t it?
I’ve been staying out of this convo. Jay’s doing a SPLENDID job without me.
Jay: Nobody is talking about sex education here unless 20+ year old women are still in high school so stop trying to make this about sex ed. The majority of women that get abortions are out of high school and beyond the reach of sex ed programs.
Yeah. So?
If someone doesn’t get a decent education on a particular topic in high school they AREN’T going to suddenly know the subject after they graduate. So the availability of good sex ed info to teenagers IS relevant. because if they don’t learn about it as a teen, they won’t have the facts as an adult.
Jay Caruso: “There’s a simple solution for that: Don’t put yourself in a situation where you will get pregnant and if you do, be prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions.”
Quaker in a Basement says: “Okey dokey. Back to square one it is:
There you have it, folks. Women who have sex deserve anything bad that happens to them.”
So women who don’t want to get pregnant should never have sex.
They should stop having sex, starting with neanderthals like Jay Caruso.
fafaroo, you beat me to the punch.
How is it irresponsible for women to choose to get an abortion? Last I checked, there are a lot of children that are born into situations that are not conducive to raising a healthy child. In fact, a better argument can be made that it’s irresponsible for the mother to HAVE the child if she doesn’t want the kid in the first place. Plenty of disinterested parents out there with plenty of fucked up kids. Plenty of poor people out there with little means to feed, clothe, and educate their children. If you ask me, getting an abortion is not a shirking of one’s responsibilities – it’s a recognition of an appropriate, legal avenue to deal with one’s responsibilities.
You’re hopeless on this one, Jay.
Sean, his statement makes perfect sense when you consider that he has forgotten everything he learned in high school.
Perhaps Jay’s wife is the sort who would accept an unintended pregnancy as a blessing. If so, I suspect she is part of a rather small minority. For most, an unintended pregnancy would fall under the heading of “something bad.”
Jay’s position seems to be that women who have sex must accept unintended pregnancy–carried to term–as a possible outcome.
Can anyone contradict the following statments?
* The vast majority of unplanned pregnancies are the result of people consensually engaging in the activity that leads to pregnancy.
* The vast majority of new AIDS infections are the result of the victims engaging in activity that they know puts them at risk of infection.
* The vast majority of people facing mortgage foreclosure willingly signed voluminous piles of documents specifying precisely what the mortgage entailed and outlined the penalties for defaulting thereof.
* The vast majority of current members of the military currently serving in Iraq either signed up after the Iraq invasion or re-enlisted since.
In each case, there is an element of personal choice involved in it. And in each case, there is a howling from certain circles to deny those people the right to be responsible for those choices.
At no point did I advocate any kind of “penalty” or “punishment” or any consequence whatsoever for those choices. Nor do I. I just thought it important to acknowledge that, in the vast majority of cases, these circumstances were not akin to being struck by lightning or spontaneously combusting. There were choices made by those individuals that contributed to their current circumstances.
J.
And those who aren’t… well, they obviously can’t be trusted to act appropriately in civilized company, so they need to be protected for their benefit and ours.
Shorter Jay: Screw Em’ Stupid kids can’t be trusted! Lock em all up!
To the point of sexuality being a important part of development, I can site SIECUS REPORT
Aug./Sept. 1999, pp. 29-33 or Patricia Donovan, “School-Based Sexuality Education: The Issues and Challenges,” FAMILY PLANNING PERSPECTIVES, (Vol. 30, No. 4, July/August 1998, pp. 189-193.) (c) The Alan Guttmacher Institute or
or many previous surgeon generals(what do they know?) talking about sexuality being a on-going process. Essentially, we are ALL wired for sex and sexuality. I think you are confusing or actually conflating sexuality with the physical act. Not every person is particularly sexually literate or have good sexual efficacy.
No matter how you dice it Jay, sex is not as simple as you portray it.
“…engaging in activity that they know puts them at risk of infection”
-Do they Jay?
Since you are generalizing and not being specific, I work with teenagers and I can tell you MOST have no clue if it is not taught to them. Another example of adults magically thinking kids should have the same efficacy and knowledge as adults.
The vast majority of unplanned pregnancies are the result of people consensually engaging in the activity that leads to pregnancy.
So what? Back to my comment to Jay, how is getting an abortion, not taking responsibility for one’s choices?
To proceed from the view that getting an abortion is irresponsible is to concede, from the outset, the pro-life position.
Make the case that abortions are irresponsible, first, before you start judging people who get them.
And Jay Tea, can we expect that report on your complete sexual history any time soon? How else are we to know whether your an “animal” or a “person”?
The vast majority of people facing mortgage foreclosure willingly signed voluminous piles of documents specifying precisely what the mortgage entailed and outlined the penalties for defaulting thereof.
And Jay Tea, no doubt on your trip to the ER you signed an agreement with the hospital that you would bear responsibility for the full cost of the care you received. And yet we all know you did not live up to that agreement. You renegotiated the amount due and ended up paying only a portion of that cost.
We also all know that you have a rather elaborate rational for why you shouldn’t be judged as irresponsible for this conduct.
What we don’t know yet is why you feel able to judge other people in similar financial difficulties when they seek to renegotiate their arrangements with their lenders.
Care to explain that?
Fafarpp: “So what?”
Exactly.
If someone is not taught about sex and learns from a friend that, ‘You can’t get pregnant if you do it standing up.’ isn’t that mitigating circumstance?
If someone is told condoms SPREAD AIDS, so they don’t use them, isn’t that mitigating circumstance?
If someone is told by their banker that they can get a mortgage that’s $50,000 more than they can afford, but they figure the banker is the expert, isn’t that mitigating circumstance?
“And those who aren’t… well, they obviously can’t be trusted to act appropriately in civilized company, so they need to be protected for their benefit and ours.”
And that, my friend, is the underlying philosophy of facism.
It’s not about whether or not anybody has ever done something they shouldn’t have at some time in their life. It has to do with taking responsibility for your actions and if women are getting abortions because it may affect their financial situation, that’s wrong.
No it isn’t.
JT clutches his pearls and swoons…
On the other hand, the Democrats are fiercely opposed to “choice” in every single field NOT related to sex:
– School choice
I have never heard a “liberal” suggest that you shouldn’t send your kid to any private school you can afford.
– Personal safety (seat belts, motorcycle helmets)
Wrong culprits. You need to take this up with the auto insurance lobby that pushed this through so they could save money on injury payouts. If you want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, as liberal as I am, I would encourage you to do so. I’ve been told that riding without a helmet helps insecure men feel more manly. I wouldn’t know myself, because I am a bicyclist and I DO wear a helmet.
– Personal finance (privatizing Social Security, making risky investments)
Think how much better off we would all be had we invested our SS in the stock market as the conservatives wanted us to do. If you want to donate your SS checks to charity because you don’t agree with the program, no liberal on earth will stop you.
– Military service (it’s Democrats who keep calling for a return of the Draft, usually saying that there are too many poor and disadvantaged in the service)
And too damn few of the people who pushed so hard for war. I don’t have a problem with universal military service, since that was the norm when I was growing up in the “Leave It to Beaver” era that Republicans miss so much. I contributed a few years of my own life in service to the country. I think some real discipline would do you a world of good, and I only regret that I can’t be YOUR drill sergeant.
– Political ideology (look how conservative minorities are treated)
I must have missed that. How ARE they treated?
– Self defense (private gun ownership)
I got to shoot lots of weapons during my Army service (you should try some of that) and haven’t cared to handle one since. Let me ask you this: do you think you should be able to buy hand grenades or an M60 machine-gun at a hardware store, or do you share the liberal view there should be legal limitations on personal armament?
So women who don’t want to get pregnant should never have sex.
And if they do, they’re sluts and deserve whatever happens.
If someone is told condoms SPREAD AIDS, so they don’t use them, isn’t that mitigating circumstance?
Eat the pope. He is not helping.
– Military service (it’s Democrats who keep calling for a return of the Draft, usually saying that there are too many poor and disadvantaged in the service)
Who has called for a draft in the last 3 years or so? And if anyone has pointed out that there is a class disparity, why should it make a difference which party they belong to?
I have a feeling that, dire financial circumstances being what they are, we will see an increase in recruitment pretty quick.
Eat the pope. He is not helping.
Haw! Winner!
Duros, John Kerry tried to scare people in 2004 by saying that if Bush was re-elected, he’d bring back the draft. But the main proponent for reinstating the draft has been Charlie Rangel. You might have heard of him — he’s a very influential (and, apparently very corrupt, but I repeat myself) Democrat from New York. He’s the one who tries to write new tax code while violating the old ones.
The school choice issue — the message parents are told is “feel free to send your kids to private schools, but you’re still gonna pay for the public ones.” School vouchers — letting parents vote with their wallets — is anathema because it might threaten teachers’ unions.
I am a militant on seat belt use. I put mine on whenever I get in my vehicle. If you ride with me, you buckle up, too. I also think that anyone who doesn’t wear a helmet on a cycle (motor or bi) is an idiot. I just don’t think it’s the place of government to protect idiots from themselves.
Yeah, it was the insurance companies who lobbied for it. But who did they lobby? Which party did they go to for getting it passed? Here’s a hint — it wasn’t very many Republicans.
I’ve already written off Social Security. I’m fairly certain I’ll never see a penny of the tens of thousands I’ve paid in. I’ve heard some people say they’ll cheerfully forgo any collections ever and write off all they’ve already paid if they can just take it and put it into their own retirement funds — and I can’t say I blame them.
If I had had the chance to put some of my Social Security into a private investment fund, then at least I’d know that I had had some choice in the matter. (My own 401K has lost about 25% of value in the last six months or so, and I count myself lucky there.) As it is, I get to keep paying into a bigger Ponzi scheme than Madoff ever imagined possible, whether I want to or not.
Repack, I don’t own a gun. Never have, probably never will. Fired one exactly once. But I think the gun control laws we have now are more than enough, and probably too much. The talk about bringing back the Assault Weapons (alias “the scary-looking guns”) ban is ludicrous. The “we’re supplying the guns to Mexico that the gangs are using” is an out-and-out lie. The “gun show loophole” is a figment of some idiot’s imagination.
The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who have already broken the law in some way to get the gun. Passing more laws only affects those inclined to obey the laws — kind of like drug laws. Prohibition works so wonderfully there, why not try it on something that is Constitutionally protected?
I choose to not own a gun. I may change my mind someday. Further, I know a lot of people who do own guns, and they don’t scare me in the least. In fact, I felt safer when I lived next door to a guy who had about a dozen guns, because I lived in a scummy part of town, and I liked knowing that he and his guns were only a door away if I ever needed help.
Choice is a wonderful thing. Too bad that your side only believes in “choice” when people make the “right” choices, and need to be protected from the “wrong” choices.
J.
School vouchers — letting parents vote with their wallets — is anathema because it might threaten teachers’ unions.
Uh-oh, Mr. Tea. You went and gave away the game that time.
You see, most of the folks who oppose vouchers (and there are lots of us–voucher programs have been voted down in plenty of elections) don’t really talk about the teachers’ unions all that much. Mostly, we just want the schools our kids attend to be well-funded.
No sir, the concern with the teachers’ unions resides mostly on your side of the aisle.
The drive to de-fund public schools through “choice” would allow a select few students to enter private schools while leaving the remainder in a less well-funded public system.
Why on earth would anyone promote a “choice” that works to the disadvantage of the majority of students, Mr. Tea? It wouldn’t be to attack the unions, would it?
I’m fairly certain I’ll never see a penny of the tens of thousands I’ve paid in.
Don’t worry, Mr. Tea. With luck, we won’t have another Republican-controlled Congress before you retire. That’s the only thing I can think of that would prevent you from collecting your Social Security.
If you want to send your kids to private school, by all means do so. Just don’t expect the government to pay for it.
Why is a durty librul like me making this point against Jay? Oh, that’s right — for all of his bluster about the free market, he’s the guy who received life-saving socialized health-care at my personal expense but somehow doesn’t register that as a government hand-out.
Idiot.
The school choice issue — the message parents are told is “feel free to send your kids to private schools, but you’re still gonna pay for the public ones.”
You pay for roads even if you don’t own a car. You pay for police service even if you don’t call the cops after being robbed. You pay for schools even if you don’t have kids. You pay for a fire department even if you burn your house down on purpose and don’t call them.
We in a democratic society get to decide which things we want our government to do, and fire protection, roads, police and public schools all get on the list because they improve our society.
If you don’t like these public services, no one forces you to use them, but if you choose to own land, you will pay for them. There is no free lunch in the world, so quit your whining about how your needs are more important than everyone else’s. You don’t have to live in a society, but some of us choose to.
Last time I checked one didn’t need to have a college degree to know how to help prevent pregnancies.
Actually, with the abstinance-only sex ed programs in place (put there by George W & the Republican congress), you kinda do.
And rubbers don’t cost that much money.
Again, lack of sex education = not know about condoms or how to properly use them.
Spider, you’re offering up a red herring. I’m not talking about sex ed so all of this blather about “abstinence only” education is a deflectio
No it’s not, dumbass. Just because you don’t want to talk about sex ed, since it makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t mean it’s irrelevent to the topic at hand.
You might have heard of him
No, I only pay attention to things that matter.
Jay Caruso: “Spider, you’re offering up a red herring. I’m not talking about sex ed so all of this blather about “abstinence only” education is a deflectio”
Zython: “No it’s not, dumbass. Just because you don’t want to talk about sex ed, since it makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t mean it’s irrelevent to the topic at hand.”
It is relevant as long as it has a connection to the topic at hand. But if you bring it up a few times, they’ll start calling you Sex Ed Zython.
You see, most of the folks who oppose vouchers (and there are lots of us–voucher programs have been voted down in plenty of elections) don’t really talk about the teachers’ unions all that much. Mostly, we just want the schools our kids attend to be well-funded.
Why, Quaker? Why is “well-funded” so important?
Compare public school quality on any objective standard vs. dollars per student, and there seems to be an INVERSE relationship — the more money spent on schools, the worse they are.
Washington, DC is widely acknowledged to have some of the worst public schools in the nation. They also spend the most per student.
On the other hand, some of the best public schools spend below the average per student. Here in New Hampshire, our schools are pretty damned good, and we rank fairly low on spending.
“More money” is obviously NOT the answer. Better spent money is part of the solution. Merit pay for good teachers. Streamlining the firing process for bad teachers. Less money on senseless, redundant, pointless bureaucracies.
Hell, can someone explain to me why college tuition has been rising far faster than the annual inflation rate for decades?
“More money” is NOT the answer for education reform. “More money” is the answer to “how can we best perpetuate a failing system?”
And it’s no sin to point out that the biggest opponents to meaningful educational reform are the teacher’s unions, who have solidified their position as a key Democratic constituency (or, dare I say it, “special interest group”) the old fashioned way, with cash and campaign volunteers.
J.
“On the other hand, some of the best public schools spend below the average per student. Here in New Hampshire, our schools are pretty damned good, and we rank fairly low on spending.”
Class size,Class size, Class size….I can’t say this enough.
Better spent money is part of the solution. Merit pay for good teachers. Streamlining the firing process for bad teachers. Less money on senseless, redundant, pointless bureaucracies.
This is one of your better points. Teaching is a hard job and if your not cut out for it, find another profession. Kids futures are at stake. On the money issue, there is a way to cut down on wasteful spending in education but I can’t emphasize enough the “cut education” crowd (Republicans and thier whining on spending in the stimulus) is causing firings across the country. Unlike you Jay, I believe that every person is entitled to an education. The John Stossel crowd doesn’t believe this and preaches “free market…what is thy will my Lord?” but fails to realize that demolishing public education will bring about: richer=better education, poorer= tough breaks kid.
Merit pay is becoming the topic du jour in my field lately. I am not opposed to this but do worry that if not properly regulated will make teaching a solo job and not working as a team.
Jay Tea: Can anyone contradict the following statments?
* The vast majority of unplanned pregnancies are the result of people consensually engaging in the activity that leads to pregnancy.
* The vast majority of new AIDS infections are the result of the victims engaging in activity that they know puts them at risk of infection.
* The vast majority of people facing mortgage foreclosure willingly signed voluminous piles of documents specifying precisely what the mortgage entailed and outlined the penalties for defaulting thereof.
Sure. Now you’re phrasing them as vague generalities which can be harder to refute, but the point you’re trying to make is easily shown to be bogus.
Just to take the first one, for example. “The vast majority of unplanned pregnancies are the result of people consensually engaging in the activity that leads to pregnancy.” Yes, that’s probably true. Given the total number of pregnancies that occur a small percent are the result of rape or acts in which one participant is unwilling. But a key thing to include, which you conveniently leave out, is not whether the participants are willing, but whether they know their acts carry a risk of pregnancy.
“You can’t get pregnant the first time.” “If she’s on top.” “If you rinse afterward.” “If you do it standing up.” “If you use the rhythm method.” “First thing in the morning.” And literally hundreds of other sometimes astoundingly unbelievable misunderstandings of when pregnancy can occur.
Duros, John Kerry tried to scare people in 2004 by saying that if Bush was re-elected, he’d bring back the draft.
That’s why I said “In the past 3 years..”
Thanks for making my point for me.
J.G.Thayer: “Compare public school quality on any objective standard vs. dollars per student, and there seems to be an INVERSE relationship — the more money spent on schools, the worse they are.”
I bet you can’t back that up in a comprehensive fashion.
“Washington, DC is widely acknowledged to have some of the worst public schools in the nation. They also spend the most per student.
On the other hand, some of the best public schools spend below the average per student. Here in New Hampshire, our schools are pretty damned good, and we rank fairly low on spending.”
Wow. Two examples. And absolutely no figures.
Not impressive.
“And it’s no sin to point out that the biggest opponents to meaningful educational reform are the teacher’s unions…”
It may not be a sin, but it is factually incorrect.
What you call ‘meaningful educational reform’ is likely, very likely to be complete shite. A waste of time at best, counter productive at worst.
Hmm… my information appears to have been a wee bit out of date. But comparing the numbers from here (hlaboratoryofthestates.com/cgi-bin/correlate.cgi?vertical=&horizontal=SATRankCorrectedForParticipationRate&.submit=Submit+Query&.cgifields=statistical_identity) with the numbers from here (74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:qJ51R0BQ60QJ:www.georgiaeducation.org/documents/2006%2520SAT%2520Rankings%2520by%2520State.pdf+sat+rankings+by+state&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us), we get some interesting results:
Of the 50 states and DC, how many have both rankings within, say, ten digits? 19.
What is the average discrepancy? 16.
Number of states with perfect correlation: 2 — Maryland, 13; Nevada, 40. (Congratulations, Oliver!)
Greatest discrepancy: DC — 1 in spending, 51 in SAT scores.
Greatest discrepancy among actual states: Tennessee — 10 in SATs, 49 in spending.
Hmm… I might have to save this work, and possibly use it elsewhere. It’s interesting. Thanks for the prompting, Strowbridge.
J.
Jay Tea: But comparing the numbers from here…
I’m assuming you meant that first link to get to the “correlated with -log(PublicEducationExpenditurePerStudent1998)” link (here). It’s the only mention on the page you did link to that seemed to have anything to do with educational expenditures. And it does seem to have the numbers you refer to (MD at 13, NV at 40).
But the second link, which shows SAT Rankings by state lists MD at 36 and NV at 41. So I’m not sure what exactly you’re looking at.
In any event, as reported by you only 19 of 51 are within 10 digits of each other on the two lists. So how does that suggest anything could be said about expenditures vs performance when the data is all over the place?
Far better would be if you had some data on HOW money was spent. For example, when spent to reduce class size more money correlates with higher performance, when spent to provide additional classroom materials no noticeable change in performance, when spent on extracurricular equipment performance drops.
But I would think that data would be hard to come by as it would need detailed breakdowns and considerable analysis having been done. Probably at a more district or even school by school level. When looking at things on an overall state level everything averages out too much.
Sean, in many cases there is an inverse relationship, as I initially said, but you’re absolutely right — the data IS all over the place. I am absolutely no statistician. I chose the “corrected by participation” numbers because that seemed like a good idea — it addressed a criticism I’ve heard many times in arguments like this.
Which reinforces my initial point — simply spending more money on schools is absolutely no guarantee that it will do a damned bit of good.
And I don’t like the idea of the federal government setting rigid controls on education — that should be left up to the states and local communities.
With literally thousands of schools trying thousands of different approaches and ideas, we can see what works and what doesn’t. One size quite definitely does NOT fit all.
As far as I can tell, simply throwing more money only guarantees one thing: calls that the money isn’t enough.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Hmm… I might have to save this work, and possibly use it elsewhere.”
I’m sure you will. And I’m sure you will ignore Sean’s points.
Another point you will likely ignore… It costs a whole lot more to build and maintain schools in D.C. than it would in Nebraska, for instance. This will throw off the curve.
There is a strong correlation between class sizes and test scores. It costs money to build more schools and hire more teachers.
And I noticed you missed this point…
J.G.Thayer: “And it’s no sin to point out that the biggest opponents to meaningful educational reform are the teacher’s unions…”
Me: “It may not be a sin, but it is factually incorrect.
What you call ‘meaningful educational reform’ is likely, very likely to be complete shite. A waste of time at best, counter productive at worst.”
I would love to hear how you would improve the educational system.
On a side note… there’s a correlation even using the numbers J.G.Thayer provided. Not a strong correlation, but it does exist.
Here’s one proposal I made a while ago, Strowbridge: abolish the federal Department of Education. Take half the existing budget and apply it to the national debt; take the other half and divide it equally, on a per student basis, among every school district in the nation. The additional money, coupled with a marked decrease in federal regulation and the costs involved in abiding by and documenting compliance, will tremendously reduce the percentage of educational spending on bureaucratic overhead.
Here are some other ones: make teaching more like other jobs. That means things like merit pay and streamlining the process for removing bad teachers.
Investigate why the costs of college have been going up so much faster than the inflation rate.
Shift some college funding towards trade schools and technical colleges.
What are YOUR ideas? Or are you just going to find some way to call me a racist, as you do with knee-jerk predictability whenever you can’t find some other argument to make?
J.
Jay Tea: Here’s one proposal I made a while ago, Strowbridge: abolish the federal Department of Education. Take half the existing budget and apply it to the national debt; take the other half and divide it equally, on a per student basis, among every school district in the nation. The additional money, coupled with a marked decrease in federal regulation and the costs involved in abiding by and documenting compliance, will tremendously reduce the percentage of educational spending on bureaucratic overhead.
And the next year? With the Dept of Education gone there would be no DoE budget from which to give half to local districts. So is this intended to be a one time surge after which the districts are back to what they currently have? (Less, actually, since they do already get some money from the DoE which, with no DoE, they would no longer get.) Or would the Dept be gone but the funds continue to flow? Wouldn’t there then have to be some thing in place to manage that?
Second question: What percentage of educational spending is spent on bureaucratic overhead? Enough so that a reduction in it makes a significant difference in the overall money available to schools? And how to you assure that we don’t end up with the bureaucracy just pushed down to local districts?
Mind you, I’m not opposed to getting rid of the DoE if it makes sense to do so. Similar arguments could be made for getting rid of several other Depts (Commerce, HHS, etc.) if one wanted to. But I do see “get rid of it and give the money in its budget to local districts” as more of a knee-jerk “get the Feds ’cause that’s always a good thing to do” solution rather than any rationally argued one.
J.G.Thayer: “Here’s one proposal I made a while ago, Strowbridge: abolish the federal Department of Education.”
Yep. You are stupid.
“…half and divide it equally, on a per student basis, among every school district in the nation.”
Costs vary depending on where you live. It costs less to hire a janitor in rural Iowa, for instance, than it would in downtown New York City.
Congratulations, you just fucked over urban students.
“The additional money, coupled with a marked decrease in federal regulation and the costs involved in abiding by and documenting compliance, will tremendously reduce the percentage of educational spending on bureaucratic overhead.”
How much is spent on overhead now, compared to private schools?
“Here are some other ones: make teaching more like other jobs. That means things like merit pay and streamlining the process for removing bad teachers.”
Merit based pay for teachers? I knew you would bring this up. I knew because it sounds smart, but anyone with any real experience in the field would know it doesn’t work.
You realize the number one determining factor for a kid’s education is parental involvement? And this is something the teachers have no control over.
That would be like asking for merit based pay for personal trainers. They only get paid if you lose weight. However, personal trainers have no control over what you are eating. So you could go home and eat a quart of Ben & Jerry’s every day and then complain your personal training is failing at their job.
“Investigate why the costs of college have been going up so much faster than the inflation rate.”
Investigate? Wouldn’t that be a job of the DoE? The Department you just axed? And more overhead! Oh no!
“Shift some college funding towards trade schools and technical colleges.”
Again, no DoE, so this doesn’t happen. Secondly, you are messing with market forces, are you not? YOU are determining where money goes to, instead of supply and demand. Thirdly, there’s too long of a delay here. By the time you implement this change, educate people, and get them into the market, the market will have changed.
It’s been tried. It doesn’t work.
“What are YOUR ideas?”
More teachers. More specialized teachers to help with kids with special needs. More money to train teachers. More pay for teachers. Get rid of standardized tests, because it encourages teachers to teach for the test, not teach kids to learn.
“Or are you just going to find some way to call me a racist…”
If it quacks like a duck.
By the way, I laugh every time one of you right-wingers complains about me calling you guys racists. A.) You guys bring it up more than I do. B.) If you don’t want me to call you racist, don’t act racist. Don’t support racism. Don’t pretend racism doesn’t exist.
CSS: More teachers. More specialized teachers to help with kids with special needs. More money to train teachers. More pay for teachers. Get rid of standardized tests, because it encourages teachers to teach for the test, not teach kids to learn.
Indeed.
It’s not really free, of course. It’s paid for with taxes. But I wouldn’t mind at all forgoing a couple of aircraft carriers and scrapping some fighter planes to direct the money toward education. It’d be a much better investment for us on so many fronts.