The Myth of the Down-Low
Recently I was chatting with a woman at work who grew up in DC. I had recently read something about the ratio of men and women in the Ukraine, and we were small-talking about that when this woman mentioned there have always, in her lifetime, been more black women than men in Washington, DC. At least "available ones," she said. I had never heard this before, and asked her why it was. The first thing that came up was imprisonment, a significant proportion of African-American men are in jail or prison or on probation of some sort. DC also has a lot of deaths by homicide each year, young African American males are overrepresented there. We ended up talking about the AIDS epidemic in DC, and especially in the black community.
The number varies according to where you get it, but it seems that the HIV infection rate for black women in America is about twenty times that of the population as a whole. My friend said this is because men get infected on the down-low and bring it home to their wives and girlfriends. I asked her a little bit about the down-low, she said this meant that men were gay but were trying to live as if they were straight, and not quite perfectly succeeding at that.
I was not trying to get facts or, you know, CDC statistics from the lady I work with, but I am curious to learn about the public's perception of this terrible social problem. This idea of black men and the "down-low" is persuasive and seems plausible, given ordinary stereotypes, and it is very widespread.
GLAAD -- the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation -- issued a press release just a few weeks ago on this very topic. It turns out that the ladies on "The View" were talking about this exact thing, and agreeing among themselves that yes, this down-low business, the black men are having gay sex and passing HIV to their women.
I always found the whole "down-low" scenario to be a little hard to picture. Was this supposed to be gay men who were living in the closet, or was it supposed to be straight guys doing a little something to take the pressure off? The percentage of black men who are gay is probably the same as the rest of the population, and the percentage of those who are in the closet might be higher, given the importance of the church and some obvious social pressures, but I can't imagine that it is that many guys who are secretly having gay sex and then going home to their wives and girlfriends for some hetero-sex. Black or white, it doesn't quite hold together. In a community that stigmatizes homosexuality, you can see that gay men may be likely to try to cover it up, but still, it's not going to be more than a small percentage of the population, not enough to create an epidemic.
I know you didn't click on that link, so let me do it. Here's the start of an article at BlackPressUSA.com:
The pivotal statement does not exactly jump out at you, so let's make it more salient:
The CDC is saying that injection drug use, not gay sex, is the main source of HIV infection for black men. These men, then, have sex with multiple partners, spreading the virus. The real problem is men having sex with more than one woman, it has nothing to do with men having sex with men or the "down-low."
I am not sure what the CDC director means by "injecting drugs or using drugs or have some other risks." Unprotected sex and intravenous drug use are the two main high-risk behaviors for HIV.
You can see how this down-low business easily extends the standard negative stereotype of the black man. Its proximity to the stereotype makes it easy to imagine, and that makes the hypothesis seem more plausible but it does not make it correct.
The number varies according to where you get it, but it seems that the HIV infection rate for black women in America is about twenty times that of the population as a whole. My friend said this is because men get infected on the down-low and bring it home to their wives and girlfriends. I asked her a little bit about the down-low, she said this meant that men were gay but were trying to live as if they were straight, and not quite perfectly succeeding at that.
I was not trying to get facts or, you know, CDC statistics from the lady I work with, but I am curious to learn about the public's perception of this terrible social problem. This idea of black men and the "down-low" is persuasive and seems plausible, given ordinary stereotypes, and it is very widespread.
GLAAD -- the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation -- issued a press release just a few weeks ago on this very topic. It turns out that the ladies on "The View" were talking about this exact thing, and agreeing among themselves that yes, this down-low business, the black men are having gay sex and passing HIV to their women.
June 24, 2010 - On the June 22 broadcast of ABC's daytime talk show "The View," host Sherri Shepherd and guest host D.L. Hughley perpetuated dangerous myths about African American gay and bisexual men.
While discussing the FDA's ban that prevents gay and bisexual men from donating blood, Shepherd and Hughley communicated misinformation about the causes of increased HIV rates among African American women and used the phrase "down low" to describe men who have sex with men but publicly identify as heterosexual.
Here are excerpts from a transcript of the segment:Hughley: When you look at the prevalence of HIV in the African American Community, it's primarily young women who are getting it from men who are on the down low. That's the thing.
Shepherd: The down low is black men who've been going out. They are having sex with men and they're not telling their girlfriends or their wives that they're gay and their husbands, as well. And it's very prevalent with African American women because they come home and have sex with their wives or their girlfriends. And they're not telling them that they're gay.
Shepherd: It's so big in the Black community with women because they're having unprotected sex with men who have been having sex with... with men.
view the clip on Hulu
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), however, has debunked the dangerous myth that Shepherd and Hughley cited on the program. Dr. Kevin Fenton, director of the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention talked about his research to NNPA News in October 2009. Fenton said that the CDC "has looked to see what proportion of [HIV] infections is coming from male partners who are bisexual and found there are actually relatively few," and goes on to attribute most infections to other factors.
Read Fenton's entire interview.
GLAAD reached out to ABC's "The View" today and asked the show to educate its audience with the facts. Unfortunately the network refused to take responsibility or correct the faulty information.
"Sherri Shepherd and D.L. Hughley's claim that African American gay and bisexual men are ‘primarily' responsible for increased HIV rates among African American women is inaccurate and dangerous," said GLAAD's Senior Director of Programs Rashad Robinson. "Medical experts, including the Centers for Disease Control have dispelled that myth and ABC has a responsibility to its viewers to correct the information. Shepherd and Hughley's comments fuel a climate of homophobia and racism." Call on ABC’s “The View” to Retract Hosts’ Damaging Myths about African American Gay & Bisexual Men
I always found the whole "down-low" scenario to be a little hard to picture. Was this supposed to be gay men who were living in the closet, or was it supposed to be straight guys doing a little something to take the pressure off? The percentage of black men who are gay is probably the same as the rest of the population, and the percentage of those who are in the closet might be higher, given the importance of the church and some obvious social pressures, but I can't imagine that it is that many guys who are secretly having gay sex and then going home to their wives and girlfriends for some hetero-sex. Black or white, it doesn't quite hold together. In a community that stigmatizes homosexuality, you can see that gay men may be likely to try to cover it up, but still, it's not going to be more than a small percentage of the population, not enough to create an epidemic.
I know you didn't click on that link, so let me do it. Here's the start of an article at BlackPressUSA.com:
ATLANTA (NNPA) – Despite all the talk about “Down Low” Black men – who have sex with women while secretly having intercourse with other men – the major cause of the extremely high HIV/AIDS rates among African-American women is being fueled by heterosexual Black men with multiple sex partners, a top federal official says.
In an interview with the NNPA News Service, Dr. Kevin Fenton, director of the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, said the CDC has studied why Black women make up 61 percent of all new HIV cases among women, with 80 percent contracting the disease through heterosexual contact.
“We know that a lot of the infections are actually coming from male partners who have high-risk behavior,” Fenton said in an interview in his Atlanta office. “In fact, we have looked to see what proportion of infections is coming from male partners who are bisexual and found there are actually relatively few. More are male partners who are having female partners and are injecting drugs or using drugs or have some other risks that may put those female partners at risk of acquiring HIV.”
At 61 percent, Black women have an infection rate nearly 15 times higher than White women. Latina represent 17 percent of all new HIV cases among women. White women are only 15 percent. AIDS is the leading cause of death among Black women between the ages of 25 and 34.
Although African Americans make up 12 percent of the U.S. population, Blacks represent nearly 50 percent of all people living with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The Black share of AIDS cases has jumped from 25 percent in 1985 to 49 percent in 2007. There are about 1.1 people in the United States living with HIV, more than 500,000 of them Black. Official Says 'Down Low' Men Not Responsible for High HIV Rates Among Black Women
The pivotal statement does not exactly jump out at you, so let's make it more salient:
“In fact, we have looked to see what proportion of infections is coming from male partners who are bisexual and found there are actually relatively few. More are male partners who are having female partners and are injecting drugs or using drugs or have some other risks that may put those female partners at risk of acquiring HIV.”
The CDC is saying that injection drug use, not gay sex, is the main source of HIV infection for black men. These men, then, have sex with multiple partners, spreading the virus. The real problem is men having sex with more than one woman, it has nothing to do with men having sex with men or the "down-low."
I am not sure what the CDC director means by "injecting drugs or using drugs or have some other risks." Unprotected sex and intravenous drug use are the two main high-risk behaviors for HIV.
You can see how this down-low business easily extends the standard negative stereotype of the black man. Its proximity to the stereotype makes it easy to imagine, and that makes the hypothesis seem more plausible but it does not make it correct.
posted by JimK at 8:35 AM
33 Comments:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/poll-55-of-likely-voters-think-obama-is-a-socialist/59463/
SOCIALIST.
YES HE IS
Anon claimed yet again:
“SOCIALIST.
YES HE IS”
Based on an opinion poll.
First of all, a majority of opinion does not make something a fact, merely a more common opinion.
Secondly, the charge of “SOCIALIST” was often leveled at F.D. Roosevelt, for his expansive work programs that put tens of thousands of people back to work, at the expense of rising public debt. The programs that Obama has put into place are mere shadows of what Franklin put together.
What conservatives seem to be blissfully unaware of or conveniently forgetting about the great depression, (which started in roughly year 8 of 12 years of continuous republican presidents), it was the LACK of spending by the US government that led to millions of unemployed people in soup lines, getting angrier by the day at their government, causing many of them to join the communist party. By 1934, (only a year into Roosevelt’s first term, and not long enough for all the “socialist” programs to turn the economy around) the Socialist Party of America adopted its “Declaration of Principles,” which many viewed as a call to overthrow democratic capitalism (and its leaders, including Roosevelt).
This was the time when America was most likely to be overtaken by socialists, communists, or an amalgamation of the two (they weren’t always allies). It was Roosevelt’s job programs and government spending (massively, through WWII) that kept this country safe from the socialists and communists, as well as the fascists. (FYI, the communists and socialists also opposed the fascists of that day.) Roosevelt also turned the US into the preeminent world power in the process.
Looking at the policies of Hoover in the early 30’s, they seem eerily similar to those espoused by conservatives today, including immigration reform. Hoover didn’t change his strategy until very late in his term, when it was woefully apparent that his conservative approach was yielding no positive effects. Despite Roosevelt’s blasting of Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation and other programs for raising the national debt, Franklin expanded on these programs many-fold. Prior to the Great Depression, Hoover’s administration dropped the top income tax rate from 73% to 24%. Prior to the stock market crash of 1929, there was a boom, fueled in part by the ability to buy stock with only 10% on margin, and little regulation of the financial markets.
With the repeal of the Glass-Steagall at the end of the Clinton administration, investment banks could now get into the business of creating a variety of mortgage derivatives, many of which received little or no regulation, thanks to powerful lobbying by the financial industry, which managed to get Phil Gramm (R), Jim Leach (R), and Thomas Bliley, Jr. (R) to introduce their eponymous repeal bill in both houses of congress. This, along with regular reduction of the Fed rate by Greenspan led to the housing bubble, mortgage fraud, people using their increased home values like an ATM machine (building up even more consumer debt), and the subsequent crash.
There are a few things we can learn from our vaunted American economic history. (Some of which has been learned in other parts of the world throughout the history of modern markets.)
The idea the markets can “regulate themselves” runs contrary to all historical evidence. Just look up the Tulip Bulb Bubble, the South Seas Bubble, and the modern “housing bubble.” All of these catastrophes were followed by new regulations to minimize the chances of such damage occurring again. Yet conservatives still consistently maneuver to get these safety valves removed.
A review of Hoover administration policies gives us a good idea of what will NOT work in the grip of a major financial downturn. The reasoning and rhetoric behind these policies are frighteningly similar to the policies being promoted by conservatives today. Had Hoover not changed his approach and started a slow turn-around, these could have lead to a TRUE socialist or communist takeover by millions of unemployed and disgruntled workers taking over our government by force, or by actually voting in a socialist candidate.
Obama is even less of a “socialist” than Roosevelt was, and his programs aren’t nearly as comprehensive. With any luck though, it will be enough to pull us through this debacle created by lax regulation and poor long-term economic policies rooted deeply in a conservative misunderstanding of what actually constitutes *good* policy. And no, cutting taxes so you can put more of the national debt on the Bank of China credit card is NOT a good economic policy. Even Hoover (R) did not veto the Revenue Act of 1932 which increased the top tax rate from 25% to 63%. It seems SOMEONE has to pay for this mess. It also seems that when the crisis gets bad enough, even politicians have to give up the dogma and rhetoric and deal with economic reality. Fortunately that’s what Obama is trying to do. If Roosevelt’s term is any indication, a number of the first attempts will flop, but they’ll get better as we all learn the unique facets of this downturn, and what it requires to recover. Hopefully, we won’t need to go to war to fix it all.
Oh, wait a minute; we’re already in TWO wars! That should keep spending on the military industrial complex quite high for a while, and our record for spending nearly as much on our military as the rest of the world combined should go unchallenged.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"Roosevelt also turned the US into the preeminent world power in the process."
Have you considered geography?
Every other major power had their infrastructure and industrial capacity bombed into oblivion.
Or think of the fact that one man, Albert Einstein, fled here to be out of the war theater and developed atomic weapons.
Being the only major power that could blow destroy a city with one bomb would tend to make you "preeminent".
Socialism didn't make us the only power whose infrastructure was not only not destroyed by the war but was expanded by it nor did socialism make us the lone atomic power.
The Atlantic Ocean did.
Four years after Roosevelt took over, unemployment climbed from 9% in 1937 to 12.5% in 1938.
And after all that government spending.
Obama is trying to sell the unsellable — that the economy is getting better. In Las Vegas, he said: “But the question is, No. 1: Are we on the right track? And the answer is, yes.” Presumably those who are gullible enough to think they can beat the casino odds in Vegas are ripe for this form of self-delusion, but it leaves the rest of us cold. The fact is that, when asked directly in polls whether the U.S. is on the right or the wrong track, by more than two to one, Americans feel the nation is on the wrong track.
Fifteen million are unemployed and, adding in underemployed, part-time workers and those who have given up looking, the total is 26 million. So Obama’s statements of confidence are a bit like Herbert Hoover’s ritual incantation that “Prosperity is just around the corner.” All 26 million will have nothing better to do but vote on election day.
Polls show that 70 percent of Americans do not believe that the stimulus program has worked and a similar percentage feel the best thing we could do to create jobs is to cut taxes.
Economists are increasingly coming to see that the so-called recovery was, in fact, a false dawn and that we are entering a double-dip recession (if, indeed, we ever left the initial downturn).
It is now time for the Republicans to counterattack against Obama by calling him out of touch with the realities of the economy and to take advantage of the commonly held idea that the president doesn’t know what is going on in the streets. They can push the idea that Obama is so wrapped up in his liberal ideology that he cannot see the reality in front of him — that big spending stimulus hasn’t worked and won’t work.
A Fox News poll now shows that 55 percent of all likely voters feel that it is appropriate to call Obama a socialist. This epithet fits him well. Republicans should make the point that he is willing to sacrifice all for his ideology and that he is blind to the reality of the damage his spending and borrowing are causing.
When a president runs around the country saying things that two-thirds of America does not believe, it is time to counterattack vigorously and show how out of touch he really is.
Then, with every invocation of optimism, Obama will be digging himself deeper and deeper into the hole.
happy news for TTFers:
(July 14) -- Levi Johnston has popped the question to Bristol Palin.
The cover of US Weekly shows Bristol Palin, 19, wearing an engagement ring. Johnston, 20, has his arm around her, and both are holding their 18-month-old out-of-wedlock son, Tripp. The cover blares "We're Getting Married!"
"We got engaged two weeks ago," she says in the magazine. "It felt right."
"Levi has grown up and he's going to be there as a dad."
The couple haven't set a marriage date but told the magazine they now believe in abstinence and will live separately until the wedding.
Oiiohh claimed:
“Or think of the fact that one man, Albert Einstein, fled here to be out of the war theater and developed atomic weapons.”
Although Einstein fled Germany and wrote a letter to Roosevelt imploring him to develop an atomic bomb before Hitler did, Einstein only spent a few days actually helping with the development of the bomb – the folks in charge of developing the bomb didn’t trust him. ( http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm )
“Socialism didn't make us the only power whose infrastructure was not only not destroyed by the war but was expanded by it nor did socialism make us the lone atomic power.”
I never claimed that socialism did any of that. If you read my post more carefully, I put “socialist” in quotes when referring to Roosevelt’s and Obama’s policies. Although people have often referred to them as “socialist,” they spending programs were necessary economic stimulus packages that actually kept the country out of the hands of the REAL socialists, and in the long run, kept our society capitalist.
The kind of planetary financial meltdown that occurred at the end of the Bush Administration, and showed the ultimate conclusion of Reaganomics, is not going to be turned around in a couple of years. If we’re lucky it will take only a decade to rebuild the economies of world and put us all on a stable footing again. Not every spending program will be successful, especially the early ones, as we’ve seen from countries in the past trying to claw themselves out of similar situations.
While Republican ideals dominated economic policy during the ‘90s and ‘00s, blaming much of America’s problems on “big government, tax and spend” democrats, we now see that the fiscal irresponsibility of “cut taxes, deregulate, borrow and spend” republicans has left us with a balance sheet that looks more like that of a third world country than a preeminent world power. Unfortunately, basic economic principles dictate we spend even more if we want to avoid an even worse disaster.
These problems can not be expected to go away during the term of a single president. The best he can do is start putting our utterly derailed economy back on the right track. It will take some time to boil up enough steam to get the locomotive running again.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
here's our daily reminder how much November will be this year:
"Americans disapprove of U.S. President Barack Obama’s handling of almost every major issue, offering a bullish environment for Republicans in the November congressional elections.
A majority or plurality disapproves of Obama’s management of the economy, health care, the budget deficit, the overhaul of financial market regulations and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted July 9- 12.
Almost two-thirds say they feel the nation is headed in the wrong direction. Two-thirds of independent voters are pessimistic, while just 56 percent of Democrats offer a vote of confidence.
Among those who say they are most likely to vote, Republicans are favored, 48 percent to 40 percent. The Republican advantage is even greater among likely voters who view the election as exceptionally important, with Republicans beating Democrats 56 percent to 34 percent."
on so many liberals tables this year, crow will be served rather than turkey
Republicans: gobble-gooble
Democrats: caw-caw
November will be National Hopey-Changey Month
in a lot of countries, when the President's performance causes his party to lose the legislature, he resigns
since Barry likes the European model so much, maybe he should go with that!
Gosh, Tom Turkey: your infantile comment , "November will be National Hopey-Changey Month" puts you in the same league as the cutesy-pie comments that eminate from the laquered lips of the Princess of Empty-Headedness, HRH Sarah Palin.
Oh, "oiiohh"...what a wonderful idea ("in a lot of countries, when the President's performance causes his party to lose the legislature, he resigns")!
If only had that practive been in place in the very early years of the notorious Bush administration we all could have been spared the systematic destruction of this country for eight horrendous years!
Cato
Jim.
I am really confused. Because I was pretty sure that because I was outraged that the school district would think uttering the words "anal sex" that made me a bigot.
But EVERYONE - okay 90% of the parents - in Montana are ALSO outraged and don't think teaching ten year olds about anal sex is okay.
So are 90% of the parents in Montana bigots ?????
Confused.
Please help.
"Princess of Empty-Headedness, HRH Sarah Palin"
that would be the Future President of the United States, Sarah she- scares-the-bejeebies-outta- liberals Palin to you
Sarah knows just what drives you nuts and, instead of changing her tune, she turns up the volume – and triples down. Don't like her little red shoes? She'll add a red leather jacket. Got gloss?
This woman is a public relations machine who manipulates public perception with well-timed and sophisticated messaging.
Her newest YouTube hit, recently released by her political action committee, SarahPAC, is a montage of video clips from various speeches. Jaw-juttingly patriotic and estrogen rich, not to mention cute as a button, Sarah rallies her fellow grizzlettes to show Washington a thing or three come November.
The genius isn't the message, but the messenger. Sarah has positioned herself as the spokesperson for The Good Woman and thus has inoculated herself and her message from criticism. To criticize Sarah now is to impugn Womankind. Worse, it is anti-Mom.
Sarah's long-term plans are anybody's guess. Anyone who thinks she won't run for president because she's making too much money on the celebrity circuit is missing a big point. You make money as a presidential candidate, too. If you win, you're president. If you lose, you're rich.
Look outcha!
"what a wonderful idea ("in a lot of countries, when the President's performance causes his party to lose the legislature, he resigns")!"
Barry needs to come out of the closet and let everyone know he is a European
I am really confused. Because I was pretty sure that because I was outraged that the school district would think uttering the words "anal sex" that made me a bigot.
But EVERYONE - okay 90% of the parents - in Montana are ALSO outraged and don't think teaching ten year olds about anal sex is okay.
The Helena school district has proposed a plan and people are discussing it. I am pretty sure that the proposed curriculum goes outside what the community considers appropriate, and you will see it trimmed back. Personally it makes sense to me to talk about human relationships in general, and not single out male-female couples, it makes sense to teach kindergartners the right names for things, even scrotums and breasts. I think fifth-graders are ready to know what sexual intercourse is, but do not think it is a good educational approach to group vaginal-penile intercourse in with anal and oral sex as if they were equivalent. On the other hand, given the inherent riskiness of anal sex, it is important to teach students what it is before they start doing it, and that could be middle school -- that community will decide for themselves what age is appropriate for that.
And Theresa, the discussion had to do with saying "anal sex" in a second or third grade classroom, as I recall. It wasn't about teaching students what anal sex is, it was about using the word itself in front of a classroom of students who have no idea what it means. You objected to a teacher agreeing to "read every question" submitted to a question jar, as I recall. She read a question out loud about anal sex, then changed the subject. No harm done. That was not what made people decide you were a bigot.
You certainly are confused, Theresa, because when a teacher is "...uttering the words "anal sex"..." because she is reading a question put in a question box by a student, she most certainly is not "...teaching ten year olds about anal sex..."
Here's what you reported on Vigilance that took place at your child's MCPS parents' meeting in 2005, Theresa:
"...The health teacher said at the end of the week they let the kids ask questions - I specifically, in front of the whole room, asked if a child wrote down the question "what is anal sex" if they would read that question to the whole class. The answer was yes. Ask the petite blond haired lady who showed up at the CRC town hall and was so vocal for your side - she was at this same North Chevy Chase sex ed meeting. She heard me ask this question and she heard the health teacher answer in the affirmative...."
But is that all the teacher said, Theresa? Is what you reported took place back then really truth, the whole truth as you understand it?
On that same thread, Jim reported the petite blond lady was was "Karen, a former member of the citizens advisory committee", and here's what she told him that you omitted from your report about how the teacher answered your question:
"...******* QUOTE *******
She's refering to the parent meeting that our science teacher/health ed. teacher did regarding the 5th grade sex ed program. Our teacher, Ms. Thompson, did a fabulous job by the way.
Ms. Thompson was explaining how kids can submit anonymous questions on index cards at the end of class and that she'll read them outloud and answer those she can. Theresa's hand shot up and she asked the question, so if a kid asks what is anal sex you'll read it to the whole class? Ms. Thompson said yes -- not that she'd answer it, but that she'd read it. **Her explanation was something along the lines that if you don't read a kids' quesiton, you imply that it's dumb, wierd, unimportant etc -- that is, all kids' questions should be acknowledged, even if the reply is "I can't answer that here, but you can ask your parents," which is a reply Ms. Thompson said she uses a lot because the curriculum parameters are very specific. It was clear to me at the time, that Theresa felt she had somehow exposed some evil doing here, but all the other parents in the room seemed quite satisfied by that answer.**
****** END QUOTE ******"
How pathetic. As the teacher made clear back in 2005, Theresa, reading a question from a student and telling them to ask their parents is not "...teaching ten year olds about anal sex...". Failing to report the entire truth as Karen did, specifically failing to report that "...the teacher said she would not answer the question...", and so would not teach anything about the topic, is a typical tactic used by the fear-mongering pro-pitchfork, anti-science crowd.
Who relies on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Not Theresa, apparently.
"a typical tactic used by the fear-mongering pro-pitchfork, anti-science crowd"
what does this have to do with science?
So even my extremely liberal sister (who voted for Obama) does not want her now 10 year old daugther hearing the words "anal sex" from her teacher.
I asked.
I don't think that folks believe anal sex should be taught to 10 year olds in ANY form Jim. ANY form at all.
And by the way, my NJ sister is voting republican up and down the line this time. You see, she has an autistic son. The health care bill disses all special needs kids.... and she didn't hear that from me she heard it from all the autism organizations she subscribes to.....
She is so furious about the whole thing that she has flipped her affliation 180 degrees.... and she is a liberal, not an independent.
Isn't that interesting ?
Armagedddon is coming for the dems....
the montana curriculum TEACHES kids about anal sex. MC was just willing to utter the words in front of the classroom.
And there is no reason in the world my kindergarten nieces need any other words other than "privates" for those area. None, whatsover. They will think it is a big joke and start chanting them around the playground.
they are way too young.
way to flush innocence down the toilet jim. I have been asking my liberal sister and siter-in-law and my independent sister ... all of whom have children ... about this sex ed curriculum (while reminding them that if they vote for democrats this is what they can expect.... To a one, they are horrified.
not every one believes like TTF does Jim.
not everyone at all. but I am glad Montana's school board did this.
I am sure I am not the only one reminding all the moms they know that if you vote for democrats, this is what you get.
is it too late to start a mass resistance against the Apple ballot this year?
maybe even Dana could ride the wave!
I saw another of her signs this weekend so its apparently still on
I don't think that folks believe anal sex should be taught to 10 year olds in ANY form Jim. ANY form at all.
Are you suggesting that somebody in this discussion thinks that 10 year olds should be taught about anal sex, or are you outraged because a school district in Helena, Montana proposed defining the term in fifth grade? Our county does not talk about anal sex, it is mentioned in 10th grade but I think that's it, they are told you should use a condom when you practice anal sex, and that is good advice. I personally think 5th grade is young for that topic, they should learn how babies are made and should learn some basics about sexual intercourse, but I don't believe anyone in our county has proposed teaching 10 year olds how to have anal sex. The subject seems to have captivated your imagination for some reason.
JimK
She is so furious about the whole thing that she has flipped her affliation 180 degrees.... and she is a liberal, not an independent.
Isn't that interesting
Yes, very interesting. Apparently hysterical overreactions are the norm in your family.
< eye roll >
The Deepwater Horizon leak has been temporarily plugged, the relief wells are nearly complete, Jindal's expensive berms are being washed into the sea as oil still reaches Louisiana shores, Wall Street has been reformed, health care has been reformed, stimulus spending is creating some new jobs to begin to replace the eight million jobs lost under Bush, and the group of politicians held in lowest regard by the American public are GOP members of Congress.
But by all means, enjoy your expectations about this November!
< eye roll #2 >
well, Auntimus Beat
according to historical indicators, with the poll numbers we're seeing, it would be a miracle if the Dems were to keep control of the House and the majority of governorships
my only "expectation" is that Obama won't pull off a miracle
of course, you were also expecting a miracle when an inexperienced community organizer who went to a church run by a racist and palled around with terrorists was elected president
but it didn't turn out that way, did it?
what the heck:
slap Jefferson Starship into the 8-track deck and light up a toke
living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see
now Aunt Bea's a comedienne!
"The Deepwater Horizon leak has been temporarily plugged,"
wow, that only took three months
nicely played, Barack
"the relief wells are nearly complete,"
what's the chance those will work as expected?
nothing else has
"Jindal's expensive berms are being washed into the sea as oil still reaches Louisiana shores,"
that's the risk of taking action: those that dither will criticize
people in Louisiana have given Jindal their approval and BO their disapproval
"Wall Street has been reformed,"
not according to most economists
"health care has been reformed,"
oh boy, we get the privilege of paying more for less
thanks alot, Barry
"stimulus spending is creating some new jobs to begin to replace the eight million jobs lost under Bush,"
some= census workers
thank the founding fathers
"and the group of politicians held in lowest regard by the American public are GOP members of Congress"
they don't have any power so they won't be the focus on election day
the Tea Party will decimate the Dems with newcomers not incumbents
people in the Gulf states will be sooooooo tickled with Barack Obama in November:
"(Reuters) - Oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico will be curtailed far beyond the end of November, when the U.S. moratorium on drilling is set to end, putting dozens of planned energy projects at risk.
Drillers are beginning to move people out of the Gulf to work at overseas projects.
That would also have long-lasting impact on output from the Gulf, which contributes 30 percent of U.S. oil production and 11 percent of natural gas output.
"The biggest risk to the industry is rigs moving out," said Phil Weiss, an oil analyst at Argus Research. "If a rig goes, it's not a short-term decision, and it can put projects behind.""
thanks alot, Barry
"President Obama said in an interview Friday that voters should hold him accountable for the struggling economy.
Obama welcomed voters to judge his administration’s work on the economy as the November midterm elections approach. The economy and jobs consistently poll as the number one issue for voters.
“If somebody’s out of work right now, the only answer that I’m going to have for them is when they get a job. Up until that point, from their perspective, the economic policies aren’t working well enough,” he said in an interview with NBC News. “That’s my job — as president — is to take responsibility for moving us in the right direction.”
Though polls show that the voters are worried about the state of the economy and high unemployment, Obama used the interview to express confidence about his policies."
for the love of all that's decent, Barry, quit!
For crying out loud, "oiiohh"/"Anonymous" (ye of a thousand faces):
Do you think you are fooling anyone by constantly switching aliases to convince us that your "unusual" ideas are being expressed by a broad range of posters at this site?
You are indeed an interesting case; a good example of what Charles Pierce describes in his book, "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free".
No doubt if President Obama had taken whatever action was in the purview of any government agency to stop the oil leak, you would be the first one to complain about how "socialism" is destroying us and our capitalist nation and excusing BP from any responsibility it has in this situation. To blame the oil spill and the inability to stanch the flow on the President is the most glaring example of what Pierce describes as "Idiocy".
"for the love of all that's decent, Barry, quit!" President Obama does not subscribe to the vacuous philosophy of Resigned-Governor Palin and quit when the going gets rough.
Palin would not survive even her first day in the White House...she is simply not qualified for the job. "the Future President of the United States, Sarah she- scares-the-bejeebies-outta- liberals Palin to you." Yes..you are right! Having the likes of the dumbo Sarah and her cutsey-poo approach to serious issues as the leader of this country does scare people...the country already went through 8 years of that brand of "leadership" with President Bush and does not wish to see that mistake repeated.
Who knew !
The Constitution gave the government the power to decide what you eat ?
Maybe there WAS a good reason that Elana Kagan wouldn't answer the question about whether a law that forced Americans to eat two vegetables and two fruits per day was unconstitutional....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/17/feds-monitor-obesity-white-house-promotes-obama-cook-senior-position/
and again :
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/government_to_track_your_child.html
what happens if you just say NO, I don't want you monitoring this information.
Can you say no ?
liberals stand by while the constitution and personal liberty is ripped to shreds.
Anonymous, this article says that the federal government will offer money to states that choose monitor the body mass index of children. No state has to apply for it, but if they want federal money they will have to meet the specified standards.
Your paranoia is bizarre.
"A bill introduced this month in Congress would put the federal and state governments in the business of tracking how fat, or skinny, American children are. States receiving federal grants provided for in the bill would be required to annually track the Body Mass Index of all children ages 2 through 18. The grant-receiving states would be required to mandate that all health care providers in the state determine the Body Mass Index of all their patients in the 2-to-18 age bracket and then report that information to the state government"
every child will be measured, regardless of whether or not you want them to be. When you take the to your PERSONAL doctor for your private health insurance funded checkup.
This is none of the governments business Merle. It is a MASSIVE PRIVACY VIOLATION.
All you guys that jumped up and down about wire taps on phone lines to track terrorist, but you are perfectly okay with the government mandating that your kids doctor turn in their health statistics ??? HELLO, don't you see the hypocrisy in this ?
It is none of their business, period, I don't care why they want it !
Wow, the rightwing echo chamber is working on this one! Google finds 92,600 web sites quoting this exact paragraph already!
Read the bill. It will offer funding to states that want it, so they can monitor children's BMI. The source is easy to find, go look at it. This widely quoted paragraph does not describe the legislation accurately.
Post a Comment
<< Home