Sexual Orientation Data, the Good and the Bad
Two stories this week seemed to be woven into a larger narrative about privacy and information. Well, three. There was the one where the Detroit police force measured everybody for bulletproof armor and then sent a spreadsheet out to the entire department with every woman's weight and bra size listed. It was an accident, but that's what happens if you are not careful.
A few days ago, a guy in California went to the doctor for an exam.
The man was not concerned that his sexual orientation was documented, but was alarmed that it was coded as a diagnosed condition. The 300 series is listed as "Mental disorders."
The doctor's office refunded his $30 co-pay, and he is not going to sue or even tell the doctor's name. His point:
But we all know the problem with that. Right here in our sleepy suburban county someone went into the database at Shady Grove Adventist Hospital and queried information on an abortion patient who had died and smeared that person's name in public, with no consequences. If you have personal metadata in a medical database, you can be sure that it won't be long before someone breaks into it or misuses the information somehow.
In the past few months the American public has realized that confidential data are not confidential at all. Government agencies are watching our every move, using phone data, traffic-camera data, Internet data, prowling through databases owned by Google, Yahoo, Facebook. Do you really think your medical information is secure from prying eyes?
This issue is about sexual orientation but it is bigger than that. Some parts of a person's life need to remain private, and sometimes private things are shared with a doctor, or with the IRS, or in an email message to a friend. Now that everything is digital we need a system to maintain personal confidentiality.
Normally when there is villainy afoot the government will be expected to step in to block it. The irony here is that the government is the worst offender. What agency would you want in charge of protecting your confidential information? Yeah, I couldn't think of one, either.
It seems that there might be long-term benefit in capturing sexual identity information in medical data, along with other health-related variables. Sexual orientation and gender identity should not be entered as diseases, but tracking such variables can help medical science predict and understand trends in disease.
It is something like nuclear power unleashed in our parents' lifetimes, this technology is so new that we don't know how to handle it. There will be some disasters and in the end some good will also come from the power to communicate and analyze huge datasets. At this stage in the information revolution's young life we need to learn to contain it, to control access to confidential information so that tyrannical governments, criminals, and gawkers don't trot our secrets around in public and use them against us.
The potential benefits can be seen but we are not yet ready to take it outside the sandbox.
A few days ago, a guy in California went to the doctor for an exam.
The tests revealed he was B-12 deficient, and had high blood pressure and high cholesterol -- conditions that he called "normal for me."In the 2013 ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification), "Homosexuality" is listed in the index with the phrase, "omit code." The code 302.0 is for "Ego-dystonic sexual orientation," that is, it is for a patient who is distressed about their sexual orientation. Which this guy is not.
When Moore, who is openly gay, went back to the Manhattan Beach office to discuss the findings, the nurse gave him the results of his physical.
Among other diagnoses, the doctor listed "Homosexual behavior (302.0)," according to medical records obtained by NBC4. "Homosexual behavior" was also listed as a chronic condition on Moore's patient plan.
"When I look up code 302.0 and its sexual deviancy or mental illness, and that code has been removed or suggested heavily not to be used since 1973," Moore said.
"My jaw was on the floor. At first, I kind of laughed, I thought, 'Here's another way that gay people are lessened and made to feel less-than,' and then as I thought about it and as I dealt with it, it angered me," Moore said.
He later returned to the office, at the suggestion of an attorney and friends, to let the doctor explain her decision. He said when asked, the doctor defended her position.
"I was dumbfounded," Moore said.
Asked how one could treat homosexuality, the doctor said that "is still up to debate" and that the sexual orientation is "still being thought of as a disease," Moore said. SoCal Doctor Diagnoses Man as Gay, Patient Says
The man was not concerned that his sexual orientation was documented, but was alarmed that it was coded as a diagnosed condition. The 300 series is listed as "Mental disorders."
The doctor's office refunded his $30 co-pay, and he is not going to sue or even tell the doctor's name. His point:
"If I was a 14-year-old in a small town in Indiana, where I'm from, and I had a doctor tell me or my parents that I was sick because they thought I was gay, it would've been very damaging," he said.In contrast, yesterday the publisher of a journal called LGBT Health posted a press release summarizing research they had published.
New Rochelle, NY, August 13, 2013—Recording the sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) of individuals in their health records would greatly facilitate identifying the unique health needs and health disparities of LGBT individuals, leading to improved quality and outcomes of their health care. The advantages of reporting this information and the growing support for including it in electronic health records (EHRs) are described in an article in LGBT Health, a new peer-reviewed journal from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers, launching in fall 2013. The article is available free on the LGBT Health website.The case can be made for collecting potentially meaningful metadata on a patient, if only for research purposes. Do they smoke? Exercise regularly? What is their sexual orientation? These things can help in diagnoses and treatment plans, and at some level the information can be used for group comparisons, as suggested in this article.
...
"The Obama Administration has taken significant strides toward increasing LGBT data collection on health surveys," said Cahill. "Right now the federal government is considering whether to include SOGI as standard demographic questions in Stage 3 meaningful use guidelines, which set the standard for data collection in EHRs. We believe that including SOGI measures in these guidelines would dramatically increase our understanding of LGBT health disparities and our ability to address them."
"While there is no question about the benefits of collecting such data, some concern has been raised about the security of the EHR and potential misuses," says Editor-in-Chief, William Byne, MD, PhD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. "In addition to addressing how to best elicit the data, Cahill and Makadon also address such implementation concerns." GBT Identity Data in Health Records Would Improve Care, Reduce Disparities
But we all know the problem with that. Right here in our sleepy suburban county someone went into the database at Shady Grove Adventist Hospital and queried information on an abortion patient who had died and smeared that person's name in public, with no consequences. If you have personal metadata in a medical database, you can be sure that it won't be long before someone breaks into it or misuses the information somehow.
In the past few months the American public has realized that confidential data are not confidential at all. Government agencies are watching our every move, using phone data, traffic-camera data, Internet data, prowling through databases owned by Google, Yahoo, Facebook. Do you really think your medical information is secure from prying eyes?
This issue is about sexual orientation but it is bigger than that. Some parts of a person's life need to remain private, and sometimes private things are shared with a doctor, or with the IRS, or in an email message to a friend. Now that everything is digital we need a system to maintain personal confidentiality.
Normally when there is villainy afoot the government will be expected to step in to block it. The irony here is that the government is the worst offender. What agency would you want in charge of protecting your confidential information? Yeah, I couldn't think of one, either.
It seems that there might be long-term benefit in capturing sexual identity information in medical data, along with other health-related variables. Sexual orientation and gender identity should not be entered as diseases, but tracking such variables can help medical science predict and understand trends in disease.
It is something like nuclear power unleashed in our parents' lifetimes, this technology is so new that we don't know how to handle it. There will be some disasters and in the end some good will also come from the power to communicate and analyze huge datasets. At this stage in the information revolution's young life we need to learn to contain it, to control access to confidential information so that tyrannical governments, criminals, and gawkers don't trot our secrets around in public and use them against us.
The potential benefits can be seen but we are not yet ready to take it outside the sandbox.
posted by JimK at 3:20 PM
106 Comments:
so they ask all sort of crazy things on the standard health surveys, which an administrator asks before you see a doctor on an annual checkup (I just had a way overdue one in Feb).
Including, whether you wear a seat belt all the time, whether you wear a bike helmet when bike riding, and whether your family owns guns...
All of which I thought were quite frankly, none of their business.
but hey, Jim, this is just the first step on the way to a single payer system (which you voted for when voting for Obama).
If you don't want this type of govt intrusiveness/big daddy policies.... you shouldn't have voted for them...
my husband's company offered a 500.00 cash card if you went to the doctor for an annual checkup and then filled out a health survey, where they wanted to collect your cholesterol/height/weight/blood pressure etc....
I was going to do this until I realized all the personal data they wanted... no thank you.
you voted for it. I actually too, would have pegged you more of a libertarian than a big govt guy.
how do you feel about Ron Paul ?
The more information medical science can collect, the better they can understand disease processes, the better they can diagnose them, the better they can treat illness. And all that is good; big data can make a better world.
I think what you object to, and what I object to, is the intrusive misuse of personal information. My doctor may record the fact that I have hair growing out of my ears, and it may turn out that when they analyze a huge data set they find that people with hair growing out of their ears are prone to some particular condition, and I am in favor of knowing that.
I am not in favor of my medical records becoming part of a police workup, or a spy workup, or a terrorist workup, where they use the hair growing out of my ears as a sign that I am some kind of problem child and single me out for questioning and closer surveillance. I don't want my medical records sent to the police force or 4chan or twitpics for giggles and I don't want Target sending me junk-mail specially tailored for people with hair growing out of their ears.
Our society is not yet sophisticated in harnessing the power of information. There will be a time when we master it, maybe not in our lifetimes but it will happen, and there will probably be informational Fukushimas far into the future.
Computer security is in its infancy. Right now the government has the upper hand, they are getting SSL keys and everything else, backdoors into everything, and that has to be stopped. A sensible, distributed security system needs to be implemented, where people are responsible for their own passwords, PINs, and keys, where end-to-end encryption is the norm and only the intended audience for a message gets it. We have a long, long way to go.
It has nothing to do with single-payer health care, and everything to do with the rise of digital computing.
In fact, actually, it has nothing at all to do with single-payer health care, that is one of the dumbest non sequiturs I have ever heard.
JimK
Of course it does.
One of the requirements of Obamacare was that they go to electronic medical records everywhere....
which implies either a standard format for storing the information or that the govt stores the information.....
and Obama care mandated digital information, sooo....
http://www.ohiolibertycoalition.org/irs-steals-60-million-medical-records-what-other-personal-liberties-will-obamacare-destroy/
well you are going to not like this source, I would have liked to quote the bill directly, but it was Obamacare that mandated electronic health records Jim.
and when I called my doctor's office later, to complain about why in the heck they were asking if I owned a gun, the answer was it was a standard questionnaire that all doctor's offices were using.... which had to have come from ????? DHS I would imagine. where else ?
sorry I meant HHS
Theresa, I do not mind medical science keeping good records. The good that can come from thorough medical data is tremendous, and it is rare that something happens like at Shady Grove, where somebody actually goes into a medical database and publicizes private information about a patient's personal tragedy.
Say, you don't happen to know who did that, do you? Some very conservative, anti-abortion doctor, perhaps, at Shady Grove?
JimK
Jim.
as you are aware, they can use computer technology to hide the name of the person and just track the trends... both on security and on medical, and set up a key to a different database that identifies the person.
the general data, without ss or phone numbers or email addresses, could then be made available to organizations searching for trends with the personal identifying information restricted by court order or signed consent of nearest relative for medical in the event of a trauma (maybe a pre-signed consent form if you are incapable of personally giving the permission).
It certainly would be convenient, when trying to help aging parents, to have it all on line to review what each doctor they visited said at anytime, with a password and account access. but you are right, fraught with problems.
I didn't read that section of the law, ie, what format they are expecting the information to be in, or whether the insurance companies are turning over the information or just have to use some privately owned data storage company that provides all the doctor offices or what... would be interesting to dig into if one had the time.
but no, the problem with having many folks have access to it is that everyone might not necessarily behave in a ethical fashion. apparently some CIA guy was using their database to track his ex-wife.
and one thing we can count on, that we absolutely agree on, is that the govt is too big and you can't trust them.
so if you can't trust them to not misuse the data, is what they could accomplish with access to the data worth the privacy and freedom you sacrifice ?
I don't think so. I am going to side with Michael Moore and Ted Cruz on this one... and I can't think of another issue where the far left and the far right are in vehement agreement... okay maybe also drones.
Theresa, medical data is less risky than lots of other information, and has more potential to have a beneficial effect. It may be embarrassing to have a medical fact about yourself publicized, but there really aren't many ways they can use your medical history to accuse you of being a terrorist or criminal, or to justify scrutinizing your tax forms.
Your phone data, Internet browsing and email, traffic cameras, credit cards ... they can profile you from that. Did you know the Post Office takes a picture of every letter that gets mailed, and saves it?
Medical data may be misused sometimes but not much. The Shady Grove incident is a rare case where someone had the audacity to spill another person's personal and very private data out in public, in the midst of a family tragedy. I cannot really remember any other case so egregious and personally devastating.
I notice you did not mention if you have any ideas about who might have done that.
JimK
No idea. I am not even familiar with the case you are talking about.
Truly. I'm not.
hey you do realize that they were scrutinizing tax forms and targeting people based on political leaning under Lois Lerner, who took the fifth, and that the hearing have revealed that this was deliberate political targeting that went all the way up the chain to the politically appointed IRS counsel head, right ?
your comment about using your data to target your tax returns implies that you weren't familiar with the latest developments in that case.
I know that the post office scans letters and I would expect they have to do so.. they use OCR character recognition and the label postage printers with addresses print bar codes (wonderfully convenient). so they use real time operating systems to help sort the mail (though I believe much of this has gone to real time Linux) and they snap pictures to use a computer to compare the address so that they can electronically sort the mail.
perfectly understandable.
storing the images, not so much... unless you want to go back and try to see where a letter with anthrax came from... even that is somewhat understandable for a short period of time.
again, depends on WHERE the data is stored, WHO has access to it and whether you trust that entity.
which I believe was the point of your original post.
"But we all know the problem with that."
yes, we do
medical professionals are perfectly aware that homosexual preferences are a health risk but it's become legally hazardous to state the truth
or record it for your own recollection
it's called authoritarianism
and it goes together with the gay agenda like a horse and carriage
"No idea. I am not even familiar with the case you are talking about.
Truly. I'm not."
OK T. Here is a link to the case you are truly not familiar with:
What's Going On At Shady Grove? Part Two
You're welcome.
Bad anonymous said "medical professionals are perfectly aware that homosexual preferences are a health risk but it's become legally hazardous to state the truth".
Bad anonymous is well aware he's tellng a lie. Same sex sex in monogamous relationship is 100% health risk free. Promiscuous heterosexual sex is a health risk. It is promiscuity that is the health risk, not the gender of your sex partner.
It is not legally hazardous to state the truth and unfortunately generally not legally hazardous to lie chronically like bad anonymous does.
"Same sex sex in monogamous relationship is 100% health risk free."
the problem, lazy Priya, is that the risk of promiscuous, and random, is vastly higher among homosexuals
and, further, for those who are promiscuous, homosexuals are more to have a partner who has AIDS
otherwise, why wouldn't even Jim here suggest that it's a good idea to track sexual preference, if it can be kept secret?
same as the doctor, he knows that homosexuality is a health risk
No, gayness in a monogamous relationship is 100% risk free. Promiscuity is a health risk. You childlishly assert that gayness is necessarily promiscuous. No honest or ethical person would make such an assertion once, let alone over and over.
Does it ever bother you when you think about how you lie repeatedly? Or are you a sociopath?
If security problems were solved, including impermeable brick walls between government agencies and the prevention of rogue rightwing Shady Grove doctors spilling patients' personal data, then I think medical science would benefit from a good comprehensive set of metadata, including sexual orientation.
The security problems are far from being solved, and it is not time yet to collect that kind of data, but in the long run it could be quite helpful in building a statistical model of health predictors.
JimK
"No, gayness in a monogamous relationship is 100% risk free. Promiscuity is a health risk. You childlishly assert that gayness is necessarily promiscuous."
I didn't say homosexuality was necessarily promiscuous. There are isolated and lonely people, desert island.
I said promiscuity is more prevalent among homosexuals, vastly more prevalent, likely because it is part of the nature of homosexuality. This is why AIDS is so disproportionately represented among homosexuals in free societies.
"No honest or ethical person would make such an assertion once, let alone over and over."
Over and over again, you've made the accusation that your opinion is so clearly right that all who disagree are immoral. You are wrong.
"If security problems were solved, including impermeable brick walls between government agencies and the prevention of rogue rightwing Shady Grove doctors spilling patients' personal data,"
I hardly think the right monopolizes, or even greatly exhibits such behavior.
Abortion, btw, is a life and death issue. Homosexuality is not, at least not directly.
"then I think medical science would benefit from a good comprehensive set of metadata, including sexual orientation."
if you mean sexual preference, you are quite right
even if you believe there is no health risk involved with homosexuality, which I think few medical professionals do, closing off the possibility of ever detecting such risk is not in the best interest of homosexuals
"The security problems are far from being solved, and it is not time yet to collect that kind of data, but in the long run it could be quite helpful in building a statistical model of health predictors."
interesting that some gay agenda advocates believe all gays should be out and some believe it is a private manner
truth is, homosexuality has long been tolerated in Western societies as long as it remained private
the gay agenda is not about tolerance and rights, it's about normalization and coercing its affirmation
I was diagnosed (and treated) for ego-dystonic homosexuality decades ago, under the DMV; didn't do me a lot of good. It's a long since that category was dropped from that record, I didn't realize it was still in the ICD? Why?
Theresa, I understand your concerns about privacy, I have many of the same ones myself. The only people I can imagine needing to know whether I wear a seat belt are my car insurance actuaries.
That said, I take your concerns with a grain of salt. I remember many years ago you took what I thought was personal medical information communicated privately to your friend Regina, and posted it on your website, to discredit my testimony for TTF. Having written Regina myself, I had no room for complaint, but learned a hard lesson about people seeming friendly, but not in fact having one's best interests at heart. I became less naive.
Bad anonymous said "I didn't say homosexuality was necessarily promiscuous. I said promiscuity is more prevalent among homosexuals,".
You said both. Specifically "medical professionals are perfectly aware that homosexual preferences are a health risk" and then after I said that was a lie you responded with "same as the doctor, he knows that homosexuality is a health risk".
Gayness is not a health risk unless it is necessarily promiscuous, that conclusion necessarily follows from your assertions. Therefore saying "gayness is a health risk" is indirectly saying "gayness is necessarily promiscuous." - you constantly try to mislead people with your statments.
Being same sex attracted presents no health risk whatsoever, a same sex attracted person may not even be having sex, or may be in a monogamous relationship in which case there can be no risk associated with it. The only time gays are at risk is when they are promiscuous, just as is the case with heterosexuals. You lied.
If you had a problem with some gays being promiscuous you'd be demanding that they be allowed to marry as legal recognition of gay relationships lowers promiscuity. It is your demonization of gays that is responsible for much of their promiscuity. When society sets boundaries that are unlivable for most people it is inevitable that they cross them and when they do a single time many think "If I'm evil and and outcast for having gay sex once then it doesn't matter how many times I have it or with how many partners, I'm still evil and an outcast.". By setting unlivable boundaries on gays society secedes all influence it has over their behavior and tells them to do whatever they feel like. You admitted this yourself once but were too dishonest to acknowledge what the obvious solutiton is.
By making same sex relationships a shameful thing society encourages many gay men to enter into marriages to heterosexual women and when they can't resist their desire for sex they enjoy they try to keep it a secret by having regular anonymous encounters so no one knows who they are and they are less likely to be exposed as being gay. By shaming gay men society discourages them from having a long term live in relationship with another man because that would make their gayness all too obvious. It is the desire to hide that people like you insist gays have that is responsible for many of them being promiscuous. But then you couldn't care less if they are promiscuous, in fact you like that they are because then it gives you a specious excuse for oppressing them.
Bad anonymous said "I didn't say homosexuality was necessarily promiscuous." (As previously shown, you indirectly did.) Bad anonymous said "I said promiscuity is more prevalent among homosexuals vastly more prevalent, likely because it is part of the nature of homosexuality. This is why AIDS is so disproportionately represented among homosexuals in free societies.".
It is in the nature of men to be more desirous of different partners. It is in the nature of women to be more content with one. You mention AIDS as though that is your reason for oppressing gays but of course that's just a facade. If your concern truly were AIDS then you'd be advocating that blacks not be allowed to marry because they have higher rates than whites. And you'd be advocating that heterosexuals not be allowed to marry because they have far higher rates of STDs than lesbians. If your true concern was minimizing AIDS you wouldn't be opposed to lesbians marrying because they have the lowest rate of STDs of any group in society but of course as I said, concern for minimizing AIDS is merely a facade so you can pretend you have a legitimate reason for oppressing gays and lesbians. If your true concern were miminizing AIDS you wouldn't be trying to justify oppressing all gays and lesbians, the majority of which don't have AIDS and are at little or no risk of contracting it.
Bad anonymous said "Over and over again, you've made the accusation that your opinion is so clearly right that all who disagree are immoral."
I never, ever, made any such assertion. I say you are immoral because you promote oppressing people who harm no one. That we happen to be disagreeing is coincidental to my statement that you are immoral. I've never asserted, for example, that if someone says chocolate ice cream is the best and I say its coffee ice cream that they are immoral. Or if they say Angelina Jolie is incredibly beautiful and I say she's nothing special I've never asserted this automatically means they are immoral. That would all be true if, as you claim, I said without qualification that my opinion is clearly right and merely disagreeing with me is necessarily immoral. Once again, you are lying, this time by falsely asserting that if I say in a specific instance that your position is immoral that I am saying its a general rule that disagreeing with me is immoral. Like the snake you are, you try to slither from what is true to making a somewhat similar but critically modified claim that has no truth and falsely asserting that modified claim is what I said.
Jim said "then I think medical science would benefit from a good comprehensive set of metadata, including sexual orientation."
Bad anonymous said "if you mean sexual preference, you are quite right".
No, we mean sexual orientation. Sexual desires aren't something that can be changed as you dishonestly suggest by calling them "preferences".
Bad anonymous said "even if you believe there is no health risk involved with homosexuality, which I think few medical professionals do, closing off the possibility of ever detecting such risk is not in the best interest of homosexuals".
No one advocated closing off such the possibility of detecting people at risk. But the way to do that is not to track people's sexual orientation but rather they're sexual behavior. That is a targeted approach that will be more accurate and successful and won't necessarily exclude promiscuous heterosexuals as will the faulty assumption that sexual orientation determines the variety of partners one has.
Bad anonymous said "interesting that some gay agenda advocates believe all gays should be out and some believe it is a private manner".
No, its not interesting at all. Many gays recognize the fact that people who know gays often gradually lose their desire to discriminate against them and therefore advocate people to come out if they feel they can safely. But almost all gays recognize that there is still a great deal of risk associated with comming out and doing so may cause them to lose their job, be evicted from their home, or be assaulted, and so on. So almost all gays believe it should be the individual gay person's choice to come out, not anyone else's choice to out them.
Bad anonymous said "truth is, homosexuality has long been tolerated in Western societies as long as it remained private".
Being asked to hide a harmless major aspect of who you are under penalty of serious abuse and being denied the same rights others have is not a reasonable burden to place on anyone. EVER.
Bad anonymous "the gay agenda is not about tolerance and rights, it's about normalization and coercing its affirmation".
You don't even believe your own rhetoric on that one, you just need a specious but tired old excuse to throw out frequently to pretend you have a justication for abusing others and denying them equal rights. As long as LGBTs aren't abused and are given equal rights we couldn't care less if you continue to think being that way is bizarre and abnormal or if you refuse to attend gay weddings or continue to think gayness is evil. You're pretending that its a reasonable balancing of rights if gays are fired from their jobs, or evicted from their homes and don't have equal rights so that people like you don't have the trivial discomfort of seeing gays being treated as your equals. Not even close. You gave away your sick beliefs by casually saying "truth is, homosexuality has long been tolerated in Western societies as long as it remained private" as though that were a reasonable thing. You are a deeply unethical person (not merely because we disagree, but because you seek to harm those who harm no one).
"truth is, homosexuality has long been tolerated in Western societies as long as it remained private....the gay agenda is not about tolerance and rights, it's about normalization and coercing its affirmation"
and that is true, my primary objections are not to the behavior or private behavior between adults...
it's teaching it to the kids as normal using my tax dollars to do so.... well not okay.
establish charter schools everywhere and give EVERYONE a TRUE choice about how their children are educated. Robert, you will see many of the gay marriage advocates back off...
well, I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for me.
I don't appreciate my tax dollars being used for public education teaching my children something I don't believe in.
Period.
what you do in the privacy of you own home I could care less... as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.
do you understand where I am coming from ?
Chris Christie Signs Ban On Gay Conversion Therapy
"TRENTON, N.J. -- Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill Monday barring licensed therapists from trying to turn gay teenagers straight, making New Jersey the second state to ban so-called conversion therapy, along with California.
The bill passed both houses of the New Jersey Legislature with bipartisan support in June. Assemblyman Tim Eustace, who sponsored the bill and is openly gay, described the therapy as "an insidious form of child abuse."
In a note accompanying the bill, Christie said he believes people are born gay and that homosexuality is not a sin. That view is inconsistent with his Catholic faith, which teaches that homosexual acts are sins.
The Republican governor also said the health risks of trying to change a child's sexual orientation, as identified by the American Psychological Association, outweigh concerns over the government setting limits on parental choice.
"Government should tread carefully into this area," he said in the note, "and I do so here reluctantly."
"However, I also believe that on the issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards," Christie said, citing a litany of potential ill effects of trying to change sexual orientation, including depression and suicide. "I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate."..."
Theresa said "establish charter schools everywhere and give EVERYONE a TRUE choice about how their children are educated. Robert, you will see many of the gay marriage advocates back off...".
You're a fool. It doesn't matter what you teach your children LGBT people are never going to stop demanding justice.
Theresa said "I don't appreciate my tax dollars being used for public education teaching my children something I don't believe in.".
Too bad for you. Public schools have an obligation to teach reality whether you like it or not.
Theresa said "what you do in the privacy of you own home I could care less... as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.".
See, that's where your grotesque selfishness comes through. You don't expect heterosexuals to deny having a romantic partner, to pretend they're single, never to talk about their spouse, never to put a picture of their spouse on their desk at work, never to hold hands or show a hint of affection in public. You demand of gays and lesbians what you'd never accept for yourself - enforced total invisibility, hiding who you are every day of your life, if not pretending to have a sexual orientation that doesn't belong to you.
You have no right to demand that anyone other than yourself live in a closet. It is just sickening that you think that is somehow okay.
You live in a million dollar home, have a $200,000 a year income and you are still so incredibly selfish you demand others hide so you aren't offended by their mere presence. Your greed literally knows no bounds.
A recent study shows that schools which have a gay/straight alliance and/or anti-bullying programs that specifically include gays and lesbians resulted in less binge drinking for all students, not just the LGBT ones.
This is what Theresa opposes even though it improves society for everyone - teaching students that there is nothing wrong with being LGBT and that LGBT people should be treated the same as anyone.
The state has the right and obligation to intervene when parents are abusing their children and it is abuse to teach children (who may be LGBT themselves) that gayness is a wrongdoing. The state has a right and obligation to teach all its citizens to be responsible members of society through the public school system. Parents may have the right to teach their children anti-social and destructive beliefs but the state is obligated to counter that for the greater good of society.
the state shouldn't be in the education business
state and church should be separated but education and religion shouldn't
separating education and religion advances ignorance because revealed truth is then consciously suppressed
sexual education should have a moral context and should be done by whatever institution a particular family's religious values come through
btw, are we having the first August ever without a ninety degree day because too many people drive cars?
"Revealed truth" says bats are birds, PI=exactly3, there's an invisible barrier supporting the sky, sun, stars and moon called the firmament, it rains when god opens a window in the firmament, birds walk on all fours, the earth is a flat disk, etc, etc, etc. "Revealed truth" is well debunked nonsense.
The American first amendment rightly prohibits education being forced on children through schools.
Sexual education should have a moral context and that context necessarily must be based on the concept of harm - if no one is harmed then a action is necessarily moral. Oppressing innocent gays and teaching that gayness is a wrondoing is immoral by definition.
By the way, temperatures vary widely all over the globe and no scientific conclusions can be drawn by looking at a few weeks of data in one isolated locale. Climatoligists agree that the only way to establish whether or not there is a trend is to look at average global termperatures over a period of at least 15 years. The last 10 and the last 15 years have been the hottest ever recorded.
Scientific testing has verified that higher levels of C02 in a model of our atmosphere raise temperatures. It is impossible for higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere to not make termperatures warmer than they would otherwise be.
""Revealed truth" says bats are birds, PI=exactly3, there's an invisible barrier supporting the sky, sun, stars and moon called the firmament, it rains when god opens a window in the firmament, birds walk on all fours, the earth is a flat disk, etc, etc, etc."
your first example is preposterous since the classification of living things is man-made construct
the rest are disingenuous, based on a misinterpretation of literary form
""Revealed truth" is well debunked nonsense."
that depends on who's doing the revealing
"The American first amendment rightly prohibits education being forced on children through schools."
you idiot
schools weren't tax-supported until long after the Bill of Rights was written
the Founding Fathers had no idea that this would result in the exclusion of religion from public schools a couple of centuries later
"Sexual education should have a moral context and that context necessarily must be based on the concept of harm - if no one is harmed then a action is necessarily moral."
we've discussed this before
you have an unorthodox view (held by so few that it closely mirrors the rate of homosexuality in the general population) that morality only involves abstaining from harming others directly
there are actually moral obligations
most people know that
"Oppressing innocent gays"
innocent of what?
"teaching that gayness is a wrondoing is immoral by definition."
if you think that it is immoral to teach that homosexuality is wrongdoing, you've crossed a line
our society has allowed you tolerance but you demand affirmation
eventually this will lead to you having neither
"By the way, temperatures vary widely all over the globe and no scientific conclusions can be drawn by looking at a few weeks of data in one isolated locale."
that's what you say now but just last autumn the alarmists were saying Sandy was proof positive of global warming
"Climatoligists agree that the only way to establish whether or not there is a trend is to look at average global termperatures over a period of at least 15 years. The last 10 and the last 15 years have been the hottest ever recorded."
while it is warmer than the sixties, when scientists thought we were entering a new ice age, the warming hasn't increased appreciably in the last ten years
"Scientific testing has verified that higher levels of C02 in a model of our atmosphere raise temperatures."
they don't know what natural processes may counterbalance
but some must because the rate hasn't increased uniformly with the increase CO2 levels
there have been long periods during the last hundred years where no advance in global warming has been seen
we seem to be in one now
"It is impossible for higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere to not make termperatures warmer than they would otherwise be."
you don't know that
partly because you don't have a degree in meteorology
but more because it obviously isn't true
"btw, are we having the first August ever without a ninety degree day because too many people drive cars?"
No. People here in the DC area are experiencing cooler temperatures this August thanks to man-made climate change. Meanwhile, our normally cooler neighbors to the far North have been sunbathing this summer.
Get your head out of the clouds, open your eyes, and check out what's happening in Siberia and Alaska.
some witty commenter said:
"btw, are we having the first August ever without a ninety degree day because too many people drive cars?"
then, some clueless commenter said:
"No."
but then repeated what the witty commenter said:
"People here in the DC area are experiencing cooler temperatures this August thanks to man-made climate change."
for the sake of charity, let's focus of this latter statement of clueless anon
any evidence for this dubious assertion?
or is it just wish fulfillment for a devotee of the Whole Mother Earth Catalog?
US News & World Report reports
Severe Heat Waves Are Expected to Double by 2020:
By 2100, extreme heat waves could cover 80 percent of the globe
Hundreds of thousands of East Coasters suffered through hot and sticky climates for much of July, as temperatures reached record highs in some places. Although these types of extreme heat waves are unusual, they will become more frequent and severe across the globe in the next 30 years, and there's nothing that can be done about it, according to a new study from a team of international researchers.
Most environmental and climate researchers believe that extreme heat waves are the result of global warming and high levels of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. But no matter what actions are taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, intense summer heat waves are expected to double by 2020 and quadruple by 2040, according to a study to be published Thursday in the journal "Environmental Research Letters."
"We find that up until 2040, the frequency of monthly heat extremes will increase several fold, independent of the emission scenario we choose to take," said lead author Dim Coumou, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in a statement. "Mitigation can, however, strongly reduce the number of extremes in the second half of the 21st century."
Coumou, along with Alexander Robinson of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, used a computerized climate model to predict how many extreme heat waves will occur over the next few decades. Dubbed "3-sigma" events, these heat waves have unusually high temperatures that are three standard deviations from the historical average, and are expected to become the norm over the course of the 21st century.
In 2010, a 3-sigma heat wave in Russia, for example, brought temperatures as high as 104 degrees Fahrenheit. In Australia, an extreme heat wave during the summer months of January and February in 2009 caused temperatures to spike above 110 degrees in some places.
And the more intense "5-sigma" heat waves, which are virtually non-existent today, are expected to occur in about 3 percent of the world by 2040.
But even past the year 2040, if carbon dioxide emissions are high, 3-sigma heat waves will be common in 85 percent of the world, and 5-sigma heat waves will be present in about 60 percent of the world by the year 2100.
Coumou said extreme heat can bring serious environmental and health-related consequences, often causing heat-related deaths, forest fires and damage to agriculture.
The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that more than 150,000 people in the United States could die by the end of the century due to excessive heat, for example.
"An increase in frequency is likely to pose serious challenges to society and some regions will have to adapt to more frequent and more severe heat waves already in the near-term," Coumou said.
[RELATED: Scorching Temperatures Spread Through Northeast]
I said ""Revealed truth" says bats are birds, PI=exactly3, there's an invisible barrier supporting the sky, sun, stars and moon called the firmament, it rains when god opens a window in the firmament, birds walk on all fours, the earth is a flat disk, etc, etc, etc."
Bad anonymous said "your first example is preposterous since the classification of living things is man-made construct the rest are disingenuous, based on a misinterpretation of literary form.
The classification is based on characteristics common to birds and mamals, it is not a man made contstruct, it is scientific observation. Amongst other things, birds lay eggs, mammals give birth live. Bats are mammals but as the bible was written by ignorant savages it not surprisingly classifies bats as birds. The bible is loaded with one scientific, geographical, and historical error after another. Its full of contradictions, mysogyny and one example after another of outrageous cruelty and injustice by the "loving" christian god. Its hilarious that stupid christians think they can sweep this litany of primitive thinking under the rug by pretending there is some sort of excuse for each idiotic thing in the bible - obviously not.
I said "The American first amendment rightly prohibits education being forced on children through schools."
Bad anonymous said "schools weren't tax-supported until long after the Bill of Rights was written the Founding Fathers had no idea that this would result in the exclusion of religion from public schools a couple of centuries later".
Irrelevant. The "founding fathers" couldn't possibly account for every future consideration. The only way to ensure the entire populace was educated to acceptable standards was to start a public school system. This public school system necessarily cannot impose religion on children, and nor should it.
I said "Sexual education should have a moral context and that context necessarily must be based on the concept of harm - if no one is harmed then a action is necessarily moral."
Bad anonymous said "we've discussed this before you have an unorthodox view (held by so few that it closely mirrors the rate of homosexuality in the general population) that morality only involves abstaining from harming others directly there are actually moral obligations.".
No, my view is the only one that can be universally accepted. Relgious viewpoints can never be universally agreed upon and that is why religion can never be a unifying global force. The concept of morality being based on harm is the view of morality ever child naturally achieves on their own and it is only after brainwashing by adults damaged by religion that they try to set aside what they know is right in favour of a subjective religious morality which has no rational underlying principles. Religion is entirely based on "because someone said so", there is no logic behind it and that is why there are hundreds of thousands of different religious sects fighting with each other. Even then people can never really set aside their natural understanding that morality is determined by harm and that is why if you ask a christian "If god told you to rape and set fire to the next innocent baby you encounter would it be moral if he said it was?" they don't want to answer the question. Despite their religious indoctrination they know it would be immoral for them to do that even if they god told them to and said it was moral.
I said "Oppressing innocent gays is immoral"
Bad anonymous said "innocent of what?".
Innocent of causing harm to others.
I said "teaching that gayness is a wrongdoing is immoral by definition."
Bad anonymous said "if you think that it is immoral to teach that homosexuality is wrongdoing, you've crossed a line"
Absolutely not. The only line that matters is when you cross the line into harming others. I have not crossed any such line.
Bad anonymous said "our society has allowed you tolerance but you demand affirmation eventually this will lead to you having neither".
It shows you are on the wrong side of morality when rather than being able to make rational arguments for your viewpoint you have to resort to threatening others to try to coerce them into doing as you demand. It illustrates the depravity of your position when you bizzarely think its acceptable to demand people hide a harmless major aspect of who they are under penalty of serious abuse and deny them the same rights you have.
I said "By the way, temperatures vary widely all over the globe and no scientific conclusions can be drawn by looking at a few weeks of data in one isolated locale."
Bad anonymous said "that's what you say now but just last autumn the alarmists were saying Sandy was proof positive of global warming".
Neither I nor any scientist said any such thing. What has been said by me and climatoligits was that global warming predicts more extreme weather and the Sandy storm is consistent with that prediction. You're just too willfully stupid to understand the difference.
I said "Climatoligists agree that the only way to establish whether or not there is a trend is to look at average global termperatures over a period of at least 15 years. The last 10 and the last 15 years have been the hottest ever recorded."
Bad anonymous said "while it is warmer than the sixties, when scientists thought we were entering a new ice age, the warming hasn't increased appreciably in the last ten years".
Both those statments are lies. There was never a scientific concensus that we were entering a new ice age, that's just a go-to lie for right wingers to try to obfuscate the clarity of scientific concensus that global warming is real and man made. The last decade has been the hottest on record. If you look at a statistically proper 10 year rolling average of temperatures we see a consistent rise in average global temperatures.
A study of nearly 12,000 scientific research papers done by climate scientists concludes that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are to blame for climate change, with a dissenting view held by less than two percent of scientists. The scientific community is virtually unanimous in agreeing that global warming is real and is caused by human activity.
I said "Scientific testing has verified that higher levels of C02 in a model of our atmosphere raise temperatures."
Bad anonymous said "they don't know what natural processes may counterbalance but some must because the rate hasn't increased uniformly with the increase CO2 levels".
As I've explained to you twice before, there are lots of natural ups and downs in the global temperature cycle over thousands of years. Global warming can't completely override the natural processes but will affect the natural fluctuations by making normal rises in global temperatures higher than what they would have otherwise been and making normal global drops in temperature less severe than they wou.ld otherwise have been. That is why to determine if there is a trend averages have to be looked at over longer periods of time than just, say, year to year, but a rolling average of temperatures for at least 10 and better yet 15 years. When we look at these rolling averages we see a quite steady increase in global temperatures since the industrial revolution.
Bad anonymous said "there have been long periods during the last hundred years where no advance in global warming has been seen".
That is a lie. While there have been some later years that were cooler than some earlier years when we look at average temperatures over a 10 or 15 year time frame there is a very steady increase of temperatures over the last hundred years. Even just by looking at the yearly data points once can see a linear regression would show a line with a gradual but steady temperature increase with time and of course that is exactly what a linear regression shows. But of course what's statistical analysis when compared with ignorant statments made by people such as you who don't even know what a linear regression is.
Bad anonymous said "we seem to be in one [period where there is no advance in global warming] now".
It only appears that way to the willfully ignorant determined to deny the tragic reality of the predicament we're in. The last decade has been the hottest on record. Once again, you can't detect a trend by making year to year, or a few years to a few years comparisons, it takes a 15 year average to overcome the statistical noise in the numbers to see what's really happening.
I said "It is impossible for higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere to not make termperatures warmer than they would otherwise be."
Bad anonymous said "you don't know that partly because you don't have a degree in meteorology but more because it obviously isn't true".
You obviously don't know the difference between meteorology and climatology. Virtually every scientist agrees with me and only the ignorant dweebs agree with you. Scientific testing easily demonstrates that increased CO2 levels trap radiated heat and increase temperatures. That is an inviolable principle of science established repeatedly for 100 years. It is simply impossible that this principle does not hold true on a larger scale even though a variety of other complicated natural processes my obfuscate the connection in the short term.
Bad anonymous said "some witty commenter said:
"btw, are we having the first August ever without a ninety degree day because too many people drive cars?"
Bad anonymous said then, some clueless commenter said:
"No."
Bad anonymous then added "but then repeated what the witty commenter said:
"People here in the DC area are experiencing cooler temperatures this August thanks to man-made climate change.""
In order to pretend good anonymous hadn't rebutted your point you conveniently left out a key part of his argument, that things are much warmer than normal in Siberia and Alaska even if they are cooler than expected where you are. This goes to the point you keep trying to hide from: A global temperature trend can't be determined by looking at one place at one time because even though it may be cooler where you are, it may be warmer in other areas and the global average warmer as well.
You keep trying to cherry pick one isolated place and time where its cooler and absurdly assert that means global warming isn't happening. Its childish and in no way scientific, but of course when you're desperate to deny the well established reality at all costs you have to ignore scientific principles and statistical analysis and behave like a child.
Its typical of bad anonymous and Theresa, they see GSA's and anti-gay bullying programs that include gays can make the lives of all students better but they're so eager to see LGBTs harmed they're willing to harm heterosexual students as well in the process - can't do things for the greater good if it helps LGBTs, right? If hurting LGBTs hurts everyone that's the moral thing to do, isn't it?
I said "teaching that gayness is a wrongdoing is immoral by definition."
Bad anonymous said "if you think that it is immoral to teach that homosexuality is wrongdoing, you've crossed a line"
Absolutely not. The only line that matters is when you cross the line into harming others. I have not crossed any such line - YOU have, YOU are the immoral one.
seven consecutive posts by the laziest person north of the border
wonder if anyone reads them all
Priya.
So I have a conference call for work that starts at 7 (working for an international company now, you will be happy to know) ... but I thought I would just take a minute to reply to your post.
I never said that gays should hide, did I ? I said I believed in school choice.. I believe my children belong to me, not the state and I believe public school are way out of bounds in what they deem their responsibility to teach..... In Germany you know this extended to recommending to dads to masturbate their young daughters.. it really gets quite of control and it not just about homosexuality in the schools. It is about starting sex ed at a very young age whether or not it talks about homosexuality or not. It is about permissiveness and lack of teaching right and wrong (how about don't lie, cheat and steal for starters).... etc, etc. etc.
If you simply give parents a voucher for education and allow them to enroll their children where they want, you will a lot of folks that are completely up in arms about having kindergarteners read "King and King" when they have expressed their wishes that their children not be exposed simply back off. I believe my children are my responsibility to educate and launch in society, not the states. Period.
It keeps me up at night and sometimes wonder if it will ever get easier... and I worry about them graduating and their grades and getting into a good school and paying off their loans and everything else related to their happiness and eventual success in life... and it is the ONLY reason I keep working. To make sure that they can graduate without loans and I can pay for weddings and hopefully get them launched and off the payroll.
I know lot of parents who feel the same way. But though I resent it and am exhausted, I wouldn't give up on them. I will chide them and scold them and send them 15 emails to make their dentist appts and go see their doctor for an annual checkup and cut out articles I think might be useful - and mail them to them (or email them) until hopefully I am 87 like my mom, who still chides me.
You are just about the most divisive person I have ever encountered and for one who accuses me of having a lot of anger... it is the pot calling the kettle black, dear.
And maybe I would get bored and want to go back to work...
but right now I just feel like I am trying to keep so many balls in the air it is exhausting at times, especially as my mom needs more help and my son works on college application and yes, I run all the finances for the house, and taxes, etc, etc. Many people who work full time and have a family have many of the same challenges. And yes, I resent Priya and anyone else I feel is not pulling their fair share - don't take it personally Priya, I have the same exact sentiments towards my own brother....
However, I wanted to switch the subject to one we can perhaps agree on - or at least maybe Cynthia can.
For those of us concerned about the out of control and constantly expanding federal govt and debt, and worried that the massive govt full of massive regulations is going to spend us all into oblivion, there might be a way that we can put aside the social issues and come together on a mission to save the country from bankruptcy.
I have almost finished reading Levin's the liberty amendments - and before you have a fit, I do believe that a lot of the folks on this blog might be able to agree with these.
He has proposed that the states hold a convention for adding amendments to the constitution. There are several that are really quite clever, and some obvious ones. Like. Term Limits. 12 years in Congress that's it. He points out that Britain's and just about every other democracy turns over their representatives far more frequently than we do, which results in representatives that are less beholden to the people and report only to their special interest groups.
there is another one that says if Congress doesn't pass a budget on time than the budget is automatically 5% less than the previous year. There is another about capping govt expenditures as a percent of GDP to 17% period...
and another one about govt surveillance of citizens, etc.
there is not a single amendment about social issues whatsoever. Several about limiting the power of the Supreme court (term limits for them too...)
One thing is obvious. If we keep spending the way we are we are going to bankrupt the country.
and Priya, I don't have time to go get the book and quote it, but the numbers or something like the top 1% pays 45% of the taxes.... the bottom 50% pays 1% of the taxes.. again that is declared income, after expenses, etc. I have been into this multiple times.
The bottom line, however, is that if we keep spending at this rate the US dollar will no longer be the base currency of the world and when that happens, watch out. The fed has already said it intends to devalue the dollar by 30% in the next 20 years.
But, the bottom line is everyone's children will suffer. They will pay for our irresponsibility. And I don't even care whose fault it is anymore (Bush was also WAY out of control on his spending)... I just want to see a path to fixing it. I see no such path even attempted right now.
http://conventionofstates.com/
"There is a little-known “emergency cord” built into the Constitution by the Founders. Find it in Article V. It allows for the States, rather than just the Congress, to propose Constitutional amendments. It is obscure yet entirely legitimate — and invaluable. It was extolled by James Madison in The Federalist No. 43.
Meanwhile, on August 15th, on the ground and the Web, a civic “Seal Team Six” — of operatives and activists — has constituted itself as ConventionOfStates.com."
"constantly expanding federal govt and debt"
The facts do not agree with your fears, Theresa.
Clinton left us with a budget surplus but during the Bush administration, that surplus became the "constantly expanding" debt that keeps you up drinking at night.
The fact is the CBO is abundantly clear that your growing fears about US debt are unfounded, Theresa, and your premise is wrong. The debt is not growing, but rather the U.S. on pace for lowest budget deficit in five years, CBO reports
..."The Congressional Budget Office has forecast that the annual deficit will be $670 billion when the budget year ends Sept. 30, far below last year's $1.09 trillion. It would mark the first year that the gap between spending and revenue has been below $1 trillion since 2008.
Steady economic growth, higher taxes, lower government spending and increased dividends from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have helped shrink the deficit."...
As for growing government, Theresa. Here are some more facts reported by Jon Ward in October 2008, for you to ponder.
Big government gets bigger
"George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.
Not since World War II, when the nation mobilized to fight a global war against fascism and recover from the Great Depression, has government spending played as large a role in the economy as it does today.
This time, it is a rapid mobilization against another global enemy — Islamist terrorism — that lies behind much of the growth. But rising spending on discretionary domestic programs has also played its part.
“We have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society,” said Sen. John McCain..."
Wake up, Theresa, and see the facts. In spite of GOP's desire to spend 2008-2012 trying to make sure Obama could not get reelected, we now know President Obama policies are working and the deficit is coming down. Tell your GOP friends in Congress to get to work and do their jobs since they don't have to make sure Obama can't win reelection in 2016. Tell them their job is to pass laws to help more than just the top 1% of American earners for a change.
"Clinton left us with a budget surplus"
yes, but he was running deficits until the Gingrich revolution forced him to become a pragmatic Democrat
he cut spending by eliminating most welfare and dangerously cut our military spending, emboldening al quaeda
he also, post-Gingrich, championed deregulation, which caused business activity and revenue to explode, and refused to expand benefits to gay partners, saving loads of money
any "Democrats" like that now?
"The fact is the CBO is abundantly clear that your growing fears about US debt are unfounded,"
things have improved a little, based on several rounds of cuts that Republicans have forced, including the sequester that Obama characterized as the end of civilization as we know it, but your statement is basically wrong
"Theresa, and your premise is wrong. The debt is not growing, but rather the U.S. on pace for lowest budget deficit in five years, CBO reports"
actually, your premise is wrong
any deficit grows the debt
and the deficit is only low compared to the astronomical deficits Obama has been running
it's still higher than 7 out of 8 Bush deficits, while you claim Bush was such a budget disaster
do you actually think about what you're saying?
"Steady economic growth, higher taxes, lower government spending and increased dividends from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have helped shrink the deficit."...
hate to break it to you but the dividends won't be repeated and Obama is trying everything he can think of to increase government spending again
"Here are some more facts reported by Jon Ward in October 2008,"
yes, Bush was a moderate Republican like Nixon, Ford and his father
in short, he believed in big government
which makes it amazing that liberals have so distorted his image
Romney was too and so is Christie
Republicans will win when they stop trying to meet Dems halfway
"we now know President Obama policies are working and the deficit is coming down"
only if the sequester was a secret policy of his
if so, he sure did fool us all
"Tell them their job is to pass laws to help more than just the top 1% of American earners for a change."
actually, the reason the lower 50% of Americans pay no income ta is because of tax cuts by Republicans
and the reason they could find plenty of jobs opportunities from 1980-2006, a quarter of a century, was the Reagan revolution
"As the facts make undeniable, the nation is running out of time. Federal fiscal spending in real dollars has increased to unsustainable levels. For fiscal operations alone, in 2002, the federal government spent a little over 2 trillion. By 2008, it spent 2.98 trillion. In 2009, federal spending increased to 3.5 trillion. For 2010 and 2011, federal spending was 3.45 and 3.6 trillion, respectively. In 2012, federal spending was 3.79 trillion.
As a percentage of GDP, federal spending for fiscal operations is historically sky-high. In 2002, federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 19.1 percent. By 2008, outlays in, increased to 20.8 percent. In 2009 they increased to 25.2 percent. For 2010 and 2011 spending as a percentage of GDP was 24.1 percent. In 2012, outlays accounted for 24.3 percent of GDP"
Mark Levin, the liberty amendments page 78 and he quotes CBO sources.
"Federal deficits for fiscal operations have increased astronomically. In 2002, the federal government incurred a budget deficit of 157 billion. In other words, spending on current govt operations for the year exceeded receipts by 157 billion. By 2008, the budget deficit increased to 458 billion. In 2009, it jumped to a staggeringly high 1.4 trillion. In 2010 and 2011, it reached 1.29 trillion each year (2.58T total). For 2012, the federal deficit was 1.32 trillion."
oops, also Mark Levin.
Bad anonymous said "actually, your premise is wrong any deficit grows the debt".
That's not necessarily true. While any deficit will increase the number of dollars in the debt the effects of inflation sometimes mean the dollar figure of the debt can grow but the real value of the debt (in inflation adjusted dollars) is lower.
Bad anonymous said "Mark Levin, the liberty amendments page 78 and he quotes CBO sources. "Federal deficits for fiscal operations have increased astronomically...For 2012, the federal deficit was 1.32 trillion.".
Of course bad anonymous conveniently leaves out the deficit for fiscal year 2013 (which ends Sept 30) which shows a total deficit so far of 607 billion and which is projected to be about half of the 2012 deficit for the whole year.
As it is with global warming, bad anonymous has to leave out key facts in order to mislead people. The truth is the deficit is shrinking and the U.S. government and economy are on the right track.
And certainly Republican tax cuts have contributed to the deficit so Republicans are not blameless when it comes to the recent levels of the deficit. If Republicans hadn't taken every step they could to put a halt to government business in order to maintain excessively low tax levels the deficit would be much smaller than it is now.
Many of the full and ongoing effects of the George Bush tax cuts and unfunded programs such as the wars and drug subsidies didn't take effect until after Obama took office as well, so one cannot directly compare deficits during Bush's terms and Obamas and say Obama is responsible for the total deficits that happened during his time in office. Most of the increase in deficits during Obama's time in office are due to Bush policies that hadn't yet taken effect during Bush's time in office.
The total cost of new policies for Bush (2002-2009) was 5.07 trillion while the total cost of new policies for Obama(2009-20017 including projections) is 1.44 trillion.
What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely (the obama tax increases didn't make up for the size of the Bush tax cuts) which means this chart is understating the true cost of the Bush tax cuts. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years.
The deficit didn't increase dramatically because of policies passed in the years of the Obama presidency, it increased to such dramatic levels due to the accumulated effects of the policies passed under George Bush.
And now that Obama has had sufficient time to turn it around the deficit for 2013 is half of what the 2012 deficit was. The deficit and the American economy are on the right track.
five consecutive posts of pure crap from lazy Priya
wonder if anyone read the seven within 90 minutes from last night....
Hey, did you all see what the CRC's hero, Don Dwyer, did last night?
"Anne Arundel County police early on Tuesday arrested for allegedly driving while under the influence of alcohol a Maryland lawmaker who vehemently opposes same-sex marriage.
A police report that WBAL in Baltimore obtained said officers stopped state Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) on Route 100 near Edwin Raynor Boulevard in Pasadena at 12:42 a.m. It said Dwyer told officers he had had two beers earlier in the night at a tavern in Baltimore City.
The police report said the officer who arrested Dwyer “immediately noticed a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath and person.” It also noted Dwyer’s speech was “very slow and slurred.”
Dwyer also failed three field sobriety tests.
Dwyer faces a charge of driving while impaired and other traffic offenses that include driving with an expired registration.
Dwyer, 55, said before state lawmakers approved a same-sex marriage bill in February 2012 the legalization of nuptials for gays and lesbians in Massachusetts in 2004 indoctrinated the commonwealth’s public students to homosexuality.
The Anne Arundel County Republican in 2006 tried to remove Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdoch after she found Maryland’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. Dwyer also sought to impeach Attorney General Doug Gansler, who is expected to declare his candidacy to succeed Gov. Martin O’Malley in 2014, after he announced in 2010 the state would recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions.
Dwyer links alcohol abuse to marriage vote
Dwyer’s arrest comes nearly a year to the day after a boat he was operating crashed into another vessel on the Magothy River in Anne Arundel County. The incident left him, two other adults and four children injured.
Dwyer in May pleaded guilty to operating a boat while under the influence of alcohol. He was to have served probation under a plea bargain he reached with prosecutors, but an Anne Arundel County judge sentenced him to 30 days in jail and ordered him to pay a $1,000 fine.
Dwyer appealed the sentence, but entered a second guilty plea in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court early this month. A retired judge from Harford County who was brought in is scheduled to sentence Dwyer in October.
The Anne Arundel Republican told the Maryland Gazette in January that then-Del. Tiffany Alston of Prince George’s County and two Republican delegates who voted for the same-sex marriage bill contributed to his alcohol abuse.
“That betrayal really affected me,” Dwyer told the newspaper. “I was physically ill.”
Neither Dwyer nor his office immediately returned the Washington Blade’s request for comment."
He's ill all right!
Maybe you could get Dr. Ruth Jacobs to reach out to the man to help him overcome his sickness!
Or maybe not.
Cynthia said "Clinton left us with a budget surplus"
Bad anonymous said "yes, but he was running deficits until the Gingrich revolution forced him to become a pragmatic Democrat he cut spending by eliminating most welfare and dangerously cut our military spending, emboldening al quaeda.
LOL, Gingrich was a good guy for forcing Clinton to cut spending but Clinton was an a-hole for cutting spending. Typical Bad anonymous's "Heads I win, tails you lose.".
The U.S. spends more on its military than the next 16 highest spending nations combined. The U.S. military is grossly bloated and a drain on the U.S. economy and tax payers several times as large as what it costs to support people on welfare. The U.S. military industrial complex doesn't produce anything of value, it depletes resources that could be going to worthwhile endeavours and causes destruction to the environment in order to produce worthless goods and services. The U.S. military is essentially welfare writ large for wealthy people and defense corporations. The U.S. would actually be better off if it just gave all those employed by the military industrial complex their $50-$100,000 a year pay checks and had them sit at home and do nothing. At least they wouldn't be creating toxic waste.
The cuts to the military under clinton were trivial and in no way emboldened Al Quaida. Al Quaida has never considered a direct military assault on the U.S. because its military is more than ten times as large as necessary to discourage any direct attack. That's why they resorted to terrorism which can't be defended against by a traditional military.
It was Bush who ignored one warning after another from U.S. intelligence that Al Quaida was planning a terrorist attack inside the U.S. He got one specific intelligence document after another stating in plain English "Bin Laden planning terrorist attack inside the U.S. possibly using planes or other transportation infrastructure" and Bush tragically ignored the obvious until it was too late.
Bad anonymous said "he also, post-Gingrich, championed deregulation, which caused business activity and revenue to explode, and refused to expand benefits to gay partners, saving loads of money".
Expanding benefits to gay partners would be a miniscule increase in federal spending costs, one almost too small to be measured. Such B.S. may fit with your injustice agenda but it has no bearing on reality. Careless deregulation is what lead to the financial Bush collapse of 2008. Clinton was responsible for some of this but Bush took it to new levels.
Bad anonymous said "actually, the reason the lower 50% of Americans pay no income ta is because of tax cuts by Republicans".
That's a lie. The Bush tax cuts primarily benefited the wealthiest Americans. Most low income earners never paid any federal taxes prior to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Bad anonymous said "and the reason they could find plenty of jobs opportunities from 1980-2006, a quarter of a century, was the Reagan revolution."
Another lie. Regan tripled the federal deficit and after his much touted tax cut unemployment rose to 10.8% and it took several years for unemployment to get down to its previous level. In the meantime income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled.
"wonder if anyone read the seven within 90 minutes from last night...."
If you bothered to read the comments, you'd know that your partner in fear and confusion, Theresa, read Priya Lynn's comments and proceeded to post four comments of her own in response to them in 39 minute period this morning.
It's real clear who's too lazy to even read what other commenters have to say.
Bad anonymous said "wonder if anyone read the seven within 90 minutes from last night....".
Bad anonymous is afraid to read my posts because he correctly senses based on past experience that if he does read and consider them he won't be able to maintain his denial of reality, he'll be forced to admit in his own mind I'm right.
My logic is unassailable, my facts well documented. His arguments are specious and his assertions are fabrications based only on what he desperatly wishes were true but isn't.
Bad anonymous - intellectual coward extraordinaire.
Theresa said "and Priya, I don't have time to go get the book and quote it, but the numbers or something like the top 1% pays 45% of the taxes.... the bottom 50% pays 1% of the taxes.. again that is declared income, after expenses, etc. I have been into this multiple times.".
You act like I should care about rich people paying most of the taxes - I most certainly do not.
The peoople who've benefited in grotesque disproportion to the majority of the population damn well should pay almost all of the taxes. The people who have the least should pay the least or nothing at all.
If this was really a concern for you you'd be doing something to decrease income inequality which has exploded since Reagan instead of advocating for laws that oppress the poor and favour the rich and voting for the Republicans who pass the laws designed to keep the poor poor and make the rich even more filthy rich than they already are.
You live in a million dollar house and have a $200,000 a year income and you've got the nerve to whine about how unfair society is being to you?! You make me sick.
I live in a 600 square foot house that cost $70,000, our family income is $55,000 per year and as far as I'm concerned I want for NOTHING and live like a queen. You don't here me whining about how tough I have it, I have everything I've ever dreamed of having.
Shame Theresa, Shame.
Priya has an ample supply of cheese whiz, PBR and internet access
it doesn't get any better than that!!!
And you have a boss who doesn't monitor your wasted time on the Internet during business hours!
Yet.
What's PBR?
PBR=Pabst Blue Ribbon, the classic cheap beer.
Priya is correct in one thing she says, that it is immoral to teach people that being gay is wrong. It may satisfy some religions or prejudices, but I would argue that such teaching is immoral.
In the same way, I would say it is immoral to teach that Baptists are hellbound, that some races are inferior, etc. There are people who disagree with me on these other points also.
That said, it was the teaching of almost all of American society throughout most of our history.
Theresa raises the question of whether parents have the right to teach their children things that the majority of society, or the leaders, or the government, believe to be immoral. Our society says, yes, parents have a right to teach their children these things.
But, Theresa proposes that tax dollars, in the form of vouchers, go to subsidize the teaching of these things that society and the government find to be wrong-headed.
Three thoughts: should my tax dollars go to your teaching your children to dislike me?
Should government money go to parents who want to teach their children disagreement with government policy?
I look at the history of school choice in the south during the civil rights movement, particularly Virginia's "Massive Resistance" movement, in which government monies supported all-white "segregation academies." Does school choice divide our society and lead to a segregated, unequal society? Perhaps.
(as an aside, Boston's leading anti-gay group names itself after this segregationist movement in Virginia, and calls itself "Mass Resistance." Not good PR)
On the other hand, if we'd had vouchers all those years we had anti-gay schools, would some people have sent their kids to schools that didn't teach hating queer people? Choice in an affluent society leads to diversity in thought, I think.
Can we please stop picking on one another? It's unpleasant.
"PBR=Pabst Blue Ribbon, the classic cheap beer.".
Oh. I would have guessed Professional Bull Riding
I agree with Robert that its immoral to teach that anyone is going to hell. Human wrongdoings are finite, hell is infinite punishment. The punishment should match the crime. Infinite punishment for finite crimes is unjust. The foundational beliefs of christianity are unjust.
Robert, I'm never going to be polite to people who wish evil on innocent LGBT people. They started this by promoting harm without provocation, they are not deserving of any respect or politeness from me. If you want to grant them what they don't deserve I won't begrude you that so don't begrudge me treating them appropriately.
When they stop their war on those who've harmed no one then I'll be nice to them. They broke the social compact first, therefore its up to them to return to it first before they can expect me to.
Priya out.
Robert.
Tax dollars go to fund government education - public education - and even I will not take the position that government should back off on providing for the education of children of citizens... However, if I as a parent don't want my children to attend the public school - for whatever reason - I should be able to take that tax money allocated to my child for that public school to a different school. Yes, a religious school if that is my choice... or an atheist school or a Muslim school or whatever I might desire.
I will point out again that parents who have kids in failing public schools are trapped in those run down areas. While Obama sends his children to Sidwell Friends, he attempted to cut off the extremely successful DC vouchers program that allowed low income parents to get their children OUT of those schools.
And while public education might start discussing health education and sex at age 10, it is simply not discussed in the private schools hardly at all. I actually do not remember the topic even introduced to the kids in gradeschool - and I was watching for it having transferred the kids out of public school. I did this because I was so horrified at what they thought was appropriate to discuss at age 10. The discussion in highschool is about "here are all the diseases you can catch". Homosexuality was mentioned in Holy Cross's curriculum - and it was presented as "we don't know why some people are, whether it is nature or nuture" but the catholic church teaches that the behavior is sinful but all people are deserving of God's love. I don't see anything in there teaching people to dislike you Robert. and again, a lot of the concern is not just about the discussion of homosexuality, it is the hypersexualization of everything and wanting an environment that trys to preserve the innocent of kids a bit longer... so that those that are striving to let kids be kids aren't completely undermined by the schools they attend.
However, again, that wasn't even my point. can we just stick to fiscal issues for a bit ?
Priya. you can argue all you want about how much taxes any one person pays and who caused the annual deficit. The reality though is the spending is completely out of control. and the govt does not seem to taking any steps to fix it. Even if you confiscated all the income of everyone making over a million - ALL of it - you still don't make up for even the annual deficits we are running, much less tackling the larger debt problem.
the whole thing is going to come tumbling down like a house of cards shortly - or don't you believe that either ? there are plenty more statistics we can quote.
If we don't do address it everyone is going to suffer.
One amendment that was suggested was forcing the govt to pass a budget or automatically having the budget be 5% less than the year before. Can we get consensus on this ? That the govt SHOULD pass a budget ? Forget a balanced one for now, just lay out and pass a budget.... Good idea or bad idea ?
"Priya out."
Finally.
Who knew?
"PBR=Pabst Blue Ribbon, the classic cheap beer."
most of us hipsters think it's not bad if it's cold enough
and when you get down to it, isn't that true of all American beer
"Priya is correct in one thing she says, that it is immoral to teach people that being gay is wrong. It may satisfy some religions or prejudices, but I would argue that such teaching is immoral.
In the same way, I would say it is immoral to teach that Baptists are hellbound, that some races are inferior, etc. There are people who disagree with me on these other points also."
I'm one of the ones that disagree with you, Robert.
I agree with you on the racist stuff but we have to be able to discuss what behaviors are right and wrong. And if someone believes someone is going to hell, they may be immoral to not tell you how to avoid it. They may be wrong factually, or they may be right, but the morality depends on perspective.
"That said, it was the teaching of almost all of American society throughout most of our history."
And there are few proposing to start teaching that in public schools. Most are just saying it shouldn't be discussed. Leave to those who are free to discuss it in a moral context. Let sexual morality be taught outside public schools. There are plenty of mainstream Protestant churches that have no problem with homosexuality. Even those who do will generally teach kids that, while homosexuality is wrong, it's not their place to judge others.
"But, Theresa proposes that tax dollars, in the form of vouchers, go to subsidize the teaching of these things that society and the government find to be wrong-headed.
Three thoughts: should my tax dollars go to your teaching your children to dislike me?
Should government money go to parents who want to teach their children disagreement with government policy?"
but, that "government money" came from those parents
school choice is simply giving them back the money they paid the government to educate their children
and I realize that a large portion of the total education funds come from people with no kids, but, still, likely, none of your money would be allocated to this
"I look at the history of school choice in the south during the civil rights movement, particularly Virginia's "Massive Resistance" movement, in which government monies supported all-white "segregation academies." Does school choice divide our society and lead to a segregated, unequal society? Perhaps."
were there government vouchers in Virginia is the 60s?
I hadn't heard about it
it really doesn't matter though
coercion is not the way to fight racism anyway
"On the other hand, if we'd had vouchers all those years we had anti-gay schools, would some people have sent their kids to schools that didn't teach hating queer people? Choice in an affluent society leads to diversity in thought, I think."
I think you're right
"Can we please stop picking on one another? It's unpleasant."
thanks for making a plea for civility, Robert
"medical professionals are perfectly aware that homosexual preferences are a health risk but it's become legally hazardous to state the truth"
I take it you’re in jail now for having said that?
"the gay agenda is not about tolerance and rights, it's about normalization and coercing its affirmation"
You don’t sound very affirming, so our gay coercion agenda doesn’t seem to be working that well. Perhaps you should fill out one of our suggestion forms and let us know what we’re not doing wrong enough.
--
Re: your children:
"what you do in the privacy of you own home I could care less... as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. … do you understand where I am coming from ?"
A common misunderstanding. Gay isn’t something you "do."
"btw, are we having the first August ever without a ninety degree day because too many people drive cars?"
Let’s run with that logic and cut down all CO2 absorbing rain forests on Earth, wait a hundred years for nothing bad to happen, and finally prove to liberal dufi that climate change has nothing to do with human activity.
Unless it does, in which case we can pin it on Obama and continue bitching about how we’re unfairly castigated as racist bigots.
-
Global Warming is a hoax bumper sticker:
*picture of Earth*
+
"We can always buy a new one"
---
"you have an unorthodox view … that morality only involves abstaining from harming others directly … there are actually moral obligations"
Please, enlighten us as to how those “obligations” are 100% independent of the Golden Rule.
"our society has allowed you [homosexuals] tolerance but you demand affirmation … eventually this will lead to you having neither"
YOUR society?
"a lot of folks that are completely up in arms about having kindergarteners read "King and King" when they have expressed their wishes that their children not be exposed simply back off. I believe my children are my responsibility to educate and launch in society, not the states. Period."
How about the book "Black King and White Queen"?
"It keeps me up at night and sometimes wonder if it will ever get easier... and I worry about them graduating and their grades and getting into a good school and paying off their loans and everything else related to their happiness and eventual success in life... and it is the ONLY reason I keep working. To make sure that they can graduate without loans and I can pay for weddings and hopefully get them launched and off the payroll."
Theresa, I’m not even in your life-position and what you’ve just said makes me ache for you and all mothers who love their children as much.
If you want respect for your views, you need to articulate them more openly. Clearly you think same-sex attraction is something that can be “learned,” despite knowing persons who witness to the contrary.
If you truly think that I am wrong about my perception of myself in this regard, then you must think that I am confused or deluded in some way. So be it, but you’re going to have to learn how to say so without coming across antagonistically.
I realize what I’m asking and can guarantee that you will lose both ways -- by hiding your true beliefs about same-sex attraction, and by being open about them, but you will lose less by being open and honest. Because there are people like me who will understand how difficult it is and how courageous you are to actually tell me to my face that homosexuality is no more than a perversion of heterosexuality.
The implication is that I and all LGBTQ persons are too stupid to realize this, but personally, I’ll take the insult over obfuscation any day.
Also, you’ve got to start signing your posts, if for no other reason than to prevent me from addressing you as “Sociopathanon.” As much as I love to spar, there is a gem of reason within you and I’d rather communicate on that level.
And yes, I resent … anyone … not pulling their fair share … don't take it personally … I have the same exact sentiments towards my own brother....
Why are you more concerned about individuals, as opposed to corporations, receiving welfare that aren’t "pulling their fair share?"
"the reason the lower 50% of Americans pay no income ta is because of tax cuts by Republicans"
half of the households that do not pay federal income tax do not pay it because they are simply too poor. … The other half … taking advantage of tax credits and other provisions … Put bluntly, these are not households shirking their tax liabilities.
--
School vouchers sound good on paper, but private schools, by design, carefully select their student bodies and are answerable to no one when it comes to being fair in their admissions practices. And if it’s government money, then why shouldn’t an openly atheist student be allowed to attend any religious school that accepts vouchers?
Isn’t that the whole point of vouchers, to attend ANY school of one’s choosing?
And what’s that other thing… oh yeah:
"and I realize that a large portion of the total education funds come from people with no kids"
I’m not saying the concept is flawed. In fact, the way you put it, it almost sounds appealing, at least as an option, but as it stands, vouchers would seem to result in little more than professional home-schooling.
"However, again, that wasn't even my point. can we just stick to fiscal issues for a bit ?"
Actually, the whole paragraph in regard to that was refreshingly genuine (those are the kind of tangents I like to encourage ;).
Fun fact, we were taught “sex-ed” in fifth grade (about 10yo), in Catholic School.
That was in the 70’s … one sweet sweet summer of hopeless devotion.
However (to borrow a phrase), that wasn't even my point. can we just stick to Sexual Orientation Data, the Good and the Bad for a bit ?
"Why are you more concerned about individuals, as opposed to corporations, receiving welfare that aren’t "pulling their fair share?""
Patrick, Patrick, get a grip
the multiple consecutive postings
are creepily Priyaesque
now, why should corporations be taxed at all?
"corporation" is simply the name for a group of individuals
if those individuals make any money from their participation, they will be taxed
why should be people who participate in corporations be taxed twice?
that would be more than their fair share
and it would discourage participating in corporations, which benefits everyone
what's wrong with you, man?
are you biased against the elderly?
"Coombs' sentencing pitch to Lind for lenience was filled with references to Manning's difficult upbringing and his struggles within the Army as someone considering transitioning genders."
Bradley Manning was sentenced today.
Whatever you think of the sentence, it's remarkable that his lawyer thought he could get leniency from a military court by claiming Manning was thinking about becoming a transgender.
A new all-purpose excuse.
You can discuss fiscal issues if you'd like, it's not why I read this blog.
As to parents "just using the money they gave in taxes to make their own choices": people who don't have kids can make the argument that they shouldn't pay taxes for other people's children to be educated. Your argument is one for not having public schools.
Now, about teaching affirmation of lgbt students: yes, all schools should teach such. From my own experience, the "teaching" I received in Baptist and Presbyterian youth groups about gay people was incredibly destructive to my development. Why do you think I joined the ex-gay movement. I'm asking you to reconsider, not whether you have a right to teach your kids what you want, but whether it is good for kids at all to learn that lgbt people are sinners and defective in some way. Please, look into your heart, think about whether some people are really gay, and consider whether it is good for them to hear that God doesn't love them as much as he loves straight people.
Remember, even Regina had a gay son. Even my deeply religious family has gay members.
Personally, I think the whole ex-gay thing is in large part an effort to justify prejudice against lgbt people.
The "I'm talking about behavior, not people, God loves everyone" is old. I wouldn't use it.
That said, I hope I'm not insulting anyone's religion, I'm expressing different religious beliefs. In America, we have a 4-century-old tradition of tolerating other people's differences in religion, to the extent that it doesn't harm people.
My strong feeling, however, is that anti-gay religious teaching, like race-based religious teaching, harms people. It can in fact harm the people you love most.
Robert, religions have all kinds of rules and standards, but only the ones that say homosexuality is wrong are the only ones you deem harmful.
For example, if Muslims say eating pork is wrong, or if Jehovah Witnesses say the Pledge of Allegiance is idolatry, or if the Amish say electricity is evil, or if Quakers say serving in the military is abominable, et al, you don't object but the homosexuality thing is singled out by you as immoral to prohibit.
And not just because you are gay.
You probably eat hot dogs and use an electric blender.
But the real reason you think it is wrong to say homosexuality is wrong is because you know well that most non-religious people concur with this assessment of homosexuality.
And that's why it would be OK to not endorse homosexuality in governmental arenas: the objections to it aren't fundamentally religious.
Just a few examples of why parents who would like to use their tax dollars to send their kids to private schools should be allowed to....
http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/page/public-schools-matching-grant
Just give them the dollars back that would have been spent at the public school to educate their kid.
So, did anyone notice that the President who cut off White House tours used a state of the art Osprey to fly his DOG to Martha's vineyard separately, while putting Seal Team Six (the Osama Bin Laden team) in a Vietnam era helicopter which was shot down and all of the Seals died.
How you keep defending this guy I really don't get.
Theresa
I think, Theresa, that you are suggesting that people who do not use public schools get their money back.
I think you are suggesting that we defund public schools.
The reality of that is that if there were no public schools, most of the population would be illiterate.
Personally, I don't think that is a wise choice for our society. An educated work force is a more productive work force, and an educated electorate makes better political decisions.
I think I will spend some time today (the penultimate day of summer vacation) researching the beginnings of the movement for public education in this country. My question is, how much of the enourmous growth this country has made is based on universal education. My other question is how much of the enourmous growth we have made in equality is based on universal education.
"I did this because I was so horrified at what they thought was appropriate to discuss at age 10."
Yes, I remember. Here's what you said:
"Theresa said...
...I would agree with Steina's assesment of the the fixth grade sex ed program. I was concerned enough about it to pull my daughter out of NCC mid-year in the spring and put her back in a Catholic School before the unit started. It did talk about sex as a need and urge, it made no mentioning of waiting until you were married (don't want to offend those who can't get married)....
...does anyone have a link to the "Just Around the Corner" film shown to the kids in the fifth grade health class .... put it up here, let's let folks judge for themselves. I tell you what it does not say... It does NOT say wait until your married. It does show a video of a boy coming out of his bedroom in the morning clutching his sheets that he has dirtied with a wet dream... remember, this is shown to 10 year olds.
October 29, 2006 9:23 PM "
Theresa's fear was that MCPS was going to tell her 10 year old son about wet dreams, which often happen long before males marry.
"all mothers who love their children as much."
Theresa the mother, wasn't showing love of her children by removing them from MCPS or by wanting to end funding for public schools because she disagrees with what they teach.
She did, fortunately do the right thing for people who are so fearful of public school curricula -- she paid for her children to attend a school she could believe in.
She has never, however, been able to express a single harm her son's fifth grade health class caused him by being informed of what might happen to him long before marriage is even an option for him. It was HER fear, HER hang up, that prevented HER son from learning that if he had a wet dream, it was a normal thing for boys as they mature.
Don't fall for her crocodile tears, Patrick. Next thing you know, she'll be telling you your fifth grade Catholic school sex education turned you gay.
Instead of buying Theresa's sob story about loving her kids, read about a mother who truly loves her children because she supports them rather than expecting them to kowtow to her beliefs.
Mother exiled from her church because she openly supported her gay daughter
"his lawyer thought he could get leniency from a military court by claiming Manning was thinking about becoming a transgender.
A new all-purpose excuse."
Oh yeah, it worked like a charm -- only thirty-five years in prison ahead.
Such leniency!
Manning told Military supervisors in 2010 about being a trans woman. And now Manning has released this statement:
"Subject: The Next Stage of My Life
I want to thank everybody who has supported me over the last three years. Throughout this long ordeal, your letters of support and encouragement have helped keep me strong. I am forever indebted to those who wrote to me, made a donation to my defense fund, or came to watch a portion of the trial. I would especially like to thank Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network for their tireless efforts in raising awareness for my case and providing for my legal representation.
As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility). I look forward to receiving letters from supporters and having the opportunity to write back.
Thank you,
Chelsea E. Manning"
"I think, Theresa, that you are suggesting that people who do not use public schools get their money back.
I think you are suggesting that we defund public schools."
Robert, if someone pulls their kid out of public school and gets a voucher of the size typically seen, the public schools should have net gain. Costs per pupil greatly exceed any voucher program currently in existence.
"The reality of that is that if there were no public schools, most of the population would be illiterate."
no one is suggesting that education be optional
and there will have to be public schools to fill that mandatory education because there are many parents who don't give a crap about their kids
"Personally, I don't think that is a wise choice for our society."
it's not a choice anyone is suggesting
"An educated work force is a more productive work force,"
both private schooled and home schooled kids score higher than public schooled children on standardized tests
Ivy league and other top-notch universities are filled with both
further, from Bill Gates to Justin Bieber, most of the leaders in every field of our society are not products of public schools
"and an educated electorate makes better political decisions."
the fact that the NEA serves as a political advocacy group for far-left Democrats is part of the problem
"I think I will spend some time today (the penultimate day of summer vacation) researching the beginnings of the movement for public education in this country."
get a life, dude
the first tax-supported school was in a town in Massachusetts in the 1830s
Maryland was a pioneer on the state level
remember, religion and prayer was allowed as part of the public schools until the early 1960s
public schools have been declining since prayer was taken out
just a coincidence, right?
"My question is, how much of the enourmous growth this country has made is based on universal education."
and how much is based on us being the most religious Judeo-Christian nation on Earth?
"My other question is how much of the enourmous growth we have made in equality is based on universal education."
when equality becomes the government's mission, what you wind up with is the Reign of Terror
now, go hiking or tubing or some healthy outdoor activity
"Oh yeah, it worked like a charm -- only thirty-five years in prison ahead.
Such leniency!"
actually, the prosecutors wanted 155 years
HE'll be eligible for parole in less than eight
and he's planning to use a chunk of that gender surfing
"Manning told Military supervisors in 2010 about being a trans woman"
wasn't that still grounds for dismissal from military service at that point?
I think the guys in lock-up are going to have a lot of fun with Chelsea
I think the guys in lock-up are going to have a lot of fun with Chelsea
How often do you have such thoughts?
Does the idea of raping trans women in prison sound attractive to you?
What about another criminal soldier in the news this week? Do you think Staff Sgt. Robert Bales should get raped in military prison too?
"JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Wash. — A brother of the U.S. soldier who slaughtered 16 Afghan civilians last year began making the case Wednesday for why he should one day be eligible for parole, portraying him as a patriotic American and indulgent father who let his son put ranch dressing on chocolate chip pancakes.
"There's no better father that I've seen," William Bales said of his younger brother, Staff Sgt. Robert Bales. "If you brought the kids in here today, they'd run right to him."
Sgt. Bales, 39, pleaded guilty in June in a deal to avoid the death penalty, acknowledging that he killed 16 people, mostly women and children, during unsanctioned, solo, pre-dawn raids on two villages March 11, 2012. A jury is deciding whether he should be sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, or without it.
The picture painted by the first defense witness, William Bales, 55, severely contradicted that portrayed by the soldier's admissions as well as by the testimony of nine Afghan villagers, including victims and their relatives, about the horror Bales wrought.
Defense attorneys hope the contrast will convince jurors that Bales simply snapped after four combat deployments and deserves leniency."
Or is your prison rape thought limited to trans women soldiers?
Darling, your rudeness detracts from what you try to get across. You are so busy scoring points that you obfuscate others' meaning, and, in effect, your own.
My understanding, Theresa, is that you feel people who give money for public education and don't use it should get their money back.
I paid my county taxes today, and am not sending any children to APS schools. Should I get my money back?
I'm not sure if I'm opposed to vouchers for poor parents in failing school systems. Vouchers for people who make $200,000 and don't want their kids to hear about queer people though...? They are different issues.
The No Child Left Behind Act was a school choice act, and it was a massive failure.
I would contest the assertion that students not educated in public schools perform better than students who are, when other factors are controlled.
The best predictor of school success is zip code of residence.
I would argue that the best school reform, besides early intervention, would be the elimination of poverty.
Virginia in the '60s provided taxpayer subsidies and property to "segregation academies".
Of tubing I am not a great fan, but I do enjoy hiking; wanna go sometime?
Sociopathanon "Patrick, Patrick … the multiple consecutive postings are creepily Priyaesque"
Now now, that’s not fair to Priya.
Me: "Why are you more concerned about individuals, as opposed to corporations, receiving welfare that aren’t "pulling their fair share?"
Sociopathanon: "now, why should corporations be taxed at all?
I didn’t say “taxed,” I said “welfare,” and did so within your conceptual construct of it being directed toward those who don’t pull their fair share. Many profitable corporations pay no taxes -- by design or default -- yet still receive additional government funding despite not having put a dime into the public coffer (if not having outright taken from it).
The question stands.
---
Robert: "Personally, I think the whole ex-gay thing is in large part an effort to justify prejudice against lgbt people."
The politicization of it definitely is. It started off as a rogue and dispersed movement of sorts, who sought the support of mainstream churches. They were turned away until the gods of all things anti-gay (like James Dobson) took note and decided to exploit it as a means to convince the public that gays can choose to be straight. The underlying implication being that (human) sexual orientation was somehow changeable.
I think this was around the mid eighties when public opinion really began to shift, they needed to relinquish their ‘homosexuals be damned!’ shtick. Their softened and more “loving” rhetoric not only now offered a “cure,” but was couched in the insidiousness of terms like “People aren’t born gay, but they can choose not to be.”
[Read, Wayne Besen’s, of Truth Wins Out, “Anything But Straight.” And yes, he backs up what he says with footnotes.]
They now had a “cure” to offer. Not only that, they twisted and cherry picked from medical data on gays to build and spread the meme that same-gender attraction was because of inopportune parenting, molestation (opposite sex OR same sex), and manicured laws in gentrified neighborhoods if known to have been the result of gay couples, AKA the “I don’t want my kids to think that’s ok” argument.
"Ex-gay" therapy was their biggest and last anti-gay weapon in the culture war. Just as SCOTUS has essentially punted on same-sex marriage (in our favor), CA and NJ have banned the child abuse of “ex-gay” therapy. More importantly, perhaps, these bans are bringing the issue to the forefront of this conversation.
At least two friends of mine on FB have contacted me about some ex-gay article I’ve posted and were mortified that such a practice even exists.
Same-sex marriage was their biggest threat and the “ex-gay cure” was their biggest weapon to sway public opinion in opposition. Their worst fear has now been realized and their weapons against it are going down in flames.
In addition, we’ve got leaker Manning coming out as transgendered the day AFTER he was sentenced, and Glen Greenwald, who leaked Snowden’s NSA documents, being outed via his partner’s unwarranted airport arrest.
Manning and Greenwald aren’t even the stories, but the stories they’ve broken are so big they’ve become a part of them.
By holding back Manning’s decision to transition until after the sentencing -- intentional or not -- makes it more credible. As well with the holding of Greenwald’s boyfriend, it just keeps validating the issue of LGBTQ equality.
For the time being, and for whatever reason, the pro-gay gods and stars are aligned and on our side.
Theresa: "How you keep defending this guy I really don't get."
Way too many of us don’t defend him, we’re just not condemning him because of his skin color. I think you’re misreading the situation.
"Just a few examples of why parents who would like to use their tax dollars to send their kids to private schools should be allowed to... http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/page/public-schools-matching-grant"
(Seriously? Why not just ask us to staple our eyelids to the wall to find out where you’re coming from?)
The Alliance Defending Freedom law group, formerly known as the “Alliance Defense Fund,” was formed by people like super duper anti-gay theocrats like James Dobson and the late James Kennedy, and is currently headed by Alan Sears, co-author of the book “The Homosexual Agenda,” -- one malicious lie after another. The blood on that mans hands is still warm.
Long story short, you’re going to need to use your own words, or at the very least, link to non-HATE groups to tell your story.
Intentional or not, at the very best, you dodged the question, in that comment and in all the rest regarding the matter of vouchers.
I’m willing to suspend judgment but you’re going to have to stop dancing around the subject and address the merit worthy questions that have been raised.
---
"Don't fall for her crocodile tears, Patrick. Next thing you know, she'll be telling you your fifth grade Catholic school sex education turned you gay."
Mother Theresa, care to comment?
--
"For example, if Muslims say eating pork is wrong, or if Jehovah Witnesses say the Pledge of Allegiance is idolatry, or if the Amish say electricity is evil, or if Quakers say serving in the military is abominable, et al, you don't object but the homosexuality thing is singled out by you as immoral to prohibit."
Or:
If a religion says food, delusion, superstition or homicidal behavior is wrong, you don't object but the homosexuality thing is singled out by you as immoral to prohibit.
Good point, ‘makes you think about the difference between things and human beings (who are homosexually oriented).
Or:
If a religion says divorce and remarriage is (eternal hell) wrong, you don't object but the homosexuality thing is singled out by you as immoral.
Out of the hundreds I’ve argued with in regard to the above hypocrisy -- going on ten years now, I can recall exactly one who took Jesus’ word about divorce and remarriage seriously enough to know that she could never remarry whilst retaining her salvation (from eternal hell).
The Bible, AKA God’s Word, approves of incest, polygamy and defines, via Jesus, remarriage as unrepentant adultery.
It’s not hard to take your religious beliefs seriously, it’s logically impossible.
--
"public schools have been declining since prayer was taken out"
You mean group mandated prayer.
"just a coincidence, right?"
How could you possibly even know? Which begs the question, what makes you think you’re even in a position to ask the question?
--
"when equality becomes the government's mission, what you wind up with is the Reign of Terror"
Mark 10:17-31: As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” … “Teacher,” the man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.”
Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Tell me where in the Bible it says it’s ok to turn it into Scriptural Scrabble? Or do you think the preceding passage is supposed to be some sort of metaphor?
082213 "One day after a New Mexico county became the first one to actively issue same-sex licenses since 2004, gay rights earned another victory in court.
The Associated Press reports that New Mexico's state Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision, ruling that Elane Photography's decision to refuse photographing a 2006 commitment ceremony violated the state's Human Rights Act. Owner Elaine Hugenin cited religious beliefs as the cause behind her choice, according to the wire service.
A segment of the state Supreme Court's decision, via Metro Weekly:
"The purpose of the NMHRA is to ensure that businesses offering services to the general public do not discriminate against protected classes of people, and the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the First Amendment permits such regulation by state. Businesses that choose to be public accommodations must comply with the NMHRA, although such businesses retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious or political beliefs. They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable anti-discrimination laws."
Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union, applauded the decision.
"Today's opinion recognizes the sincerity of those beliefs, but makes clear that no one's religious beliefs make it okay to break the law by discriminating against others," Melling wrote."
You know what, I would be perfectly fine with only issuing vouchers to people in public school districts where the local public school was under a certain performance standard... as long as the judgment about that public school was not administered by the NEA but perhaps by the association of private schools.... or some other body not beholden to or in any way associated with the NEA.
That is a good suggestion...I would even increase the size of the voucher so that parents who have the motivation to get their kids out of those neighborhoods can be supported in doing so.
And I will agree with Patrick that the corporate tax code is outrageously unfair... and that deferred payment plans for CEO's are outrageous as well.
and I will maintain my position that everyone earning income, should have to pay something in taxes and that welfare should be limited in time frame and scope. You now make more money staying on welfare than you do working in 35 states. Anyone think that is a good idea ?
you know this is how Rome collapsed, first they gave away free grain, than oil and salt, and the society imploded. Less people pulling the cart than in the cart. Big problem.
and yes I pulled my kids out before the 5th grade sex ed curriculum stated. I didn't think it was appropriate to be showing movies of kids holding dirty sheets because of a wet dream to a mixed class of ten year old kids. So I pulled my daughter out before it started. I felt like the discussion of sex was being presented with no moral implications to children. I had forgotten about that awful movie..
you don't need to destroy the innocence of all the kids because you have a few in the bunch who have started having sex.... this is how you proceed to sex in the bathrooms at Westland at ages 11-13, by allowing the school to corrupt all of the children and reduce the discussion. And I don't regret that decision one bit.
Don't tell me you can't keep your child innocent for a while if you make a concerted effort to do so and limit the influences they are exposed to... I did it. They don't need to discuss this at age 7,8, or 9. You can destroy your children's innocence at age 5 if you would like. Leave mine alone.
theresa
1 Timothy 6:6-10
New International Version (NIV)
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
too funny. you clearly don't know me very well.
My brother constantly complains about the fact that I don't redo my kitchen and don't spend more on help for the yard, etc. And I buy my clothes at Costco or TJ Max...and how I watch every penny.
Try putting kids through college without the benefit of govt loans (the govt will not loan people in my income bracket any money for college - the EFC for my bracket is like 60K a year).
you are darn right I want to keep the money I worked for... I am trying to put kids through college.
And here is a couple for you :
Proverbs 19:15 ESV / 38 helpful votes
Slothfulness casts into a deep sleep, and an idle person will suffer hunger.
2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 ESV / 25 helpful votes
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. ...
1 Timothy 5:13 ESV / 19 helpful votes
Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.
Helpful Not Helpful
1 Thessalonians 5:14 ESV / 15 helpful votes
And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all.
Proverbs 31:27 ESV / 6 helpful votes
She looks well to the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.
LOL.
fourth grade or age 9/10
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/23/some-wis-schools-to-teach-masturbation-to-fourth-graders/?test=latestnews
and you really think parents who don't want their babies exposed to this crap shouldn't get vouchers ?
continue corrupting the public schools and you will succeed in pushing masturbation lessons into kindergarten, sex into the fourth grade and destroy ever child's innocence.
hope you are proud of yourself guys.
Theresa, Even though everybody knows Study finds Fox News viewers more misinformed than non-news watchers, I see you are referring to a FOX article and paraphrasing it as if it was the truth.
Why? Because the FOX lie confirms your fears, fears that are just as bogus as this FOX News story.
In fact one Wisconsin school district has written a pamphlet for parents, not for classroom use or for the eyes of students.
-- "The Oak Creek School district developed a booklet for parents of elementary students to help them "understand how staff and outside resource people will handle these sensitive topics.”
...The booklet is a complement to the Human Growth and Development curriculum that takes various forms throughout public school districts across the state.
It’s unclear how prevalent the Human Growth and Development curriculum is throughout the state. However, a 2012 law changed several requirements of school districts that do offer Human Growth and Development.
Those changes include:
-Abstinence as the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and AIDS.
-Medically accurate information about HIV and AIDS.
-Pregnancy, prenatal development, and childbirth.
-The socio-economic benefits of marriage for adults and their children.
Other topics, such as masturbation, are open to the school board’s discretion.
In Oak Creek, parents can pick up the booklet at school during registration, according to Sara Burmeister, the school district superintendent. Parents also are sent letters before specific topics are taught and can opt their children out of the curriculum, though Burmeister says that rarely happens.
School boards, too, can opt not to offer Human Growth and Development."
Why? Because each district controls its own curricula, including Human Growth and Development — that's local control by the people who live in each district, with the final say to grant permission to learn about the sex education offered by each district in each parent's own hands.
So Theresa, nobody is "pushing masturbation lessons" to fourth graders or kindergarteners throughout Wisconsin schools. The pamphlets are for parents of students in a single school district, and they are NOT for use in any classrooms with students of any age.
Get a grip and get the facts before you go off believing FOX lying spin and making a fool of yourself.
Luke 6:20-21 Then he looked up at his disciples and said: "blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
"Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh."
Luke 4:16-19 When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Matthew 25:34-36 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."
Mark 10:21022 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
Mark 12:41-44 He sat down opposite the treasure, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then he called his disciples and said to them, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."
Luke 13:12-14 He said also to the one who had invited him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invited the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
Luke 16;19-25 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.
In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in these flames.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in a like manner evil things, but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony."
Luke 11:39-42 Then the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you. "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God."
Luke 12:16-21 Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample good laid up for many years; relax, eat drink be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, who's will they be?' So it is with those who storer up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God."
there is a difference between poor and working hard and poor, envious of others, and not willing to lift a finger to change your situation.
And how do you see Lazarus, was he "poor...envious of other....and not willing to lift a finger to change your situation" or was he "working hard and poor?"
No matter what you THINK, that judgment is not yours to make.
On behalf of historical accuracy about the ancient world, it's worth noting that Rome began subsidizing grain for citizens in 121 B.C., but survived in the West until 476 A.D., or 597 years. There are many valid arguments that the fall of the Roman Empire was essentially economic in nature, but but the subside of consumables isn't one of them.
I agree with Theresa's stance that college education should be free, and college admissions based on merit, rather than ability to pay.
Louisiana voucher students score almost 30 points below average on LEAP tests
"LEAP scores for third- through eighth-graders show only 40 percent of voucher students scored at or above grade level this past spring. The state average for all students was 69 percent."
Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report
"There is no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement."
Proficiency plummets at voucher schools, Milwaukee Public Schools with new test scoring
"Tony Tagliavia, spokesman for MPS, said students in MPS as a whole outperformed students in voucher schools in the recalibration of the scores - outpacing them by about 4 percentage points in reading and an even larger margin in math."
Data show voucher students often opt for schools no better than public ones
"INDIANAPOLIS — Students using Indiana’s voucher program to attend private schools are not necessarily attending better-quality schools when they leave public schools.
Based on the state’s accountability system, an analysis of Indiana Department of Education records shows that it’s not unusual for students using vouchers to chose schools rated no higher than the ones they left.
Department of Education records show:
About one in five students who received a voucher this year is using it at a school rated C, D or F on the state’s accountability standards.
About 300 of the state’s 9,324 voucher students chose an F-rated school.
About 21 percent of students who received vouchers left A- or B-rated school corporations to attend private schools."
I say again: early intervention, and fight poverty.
Robert, I don't remember saying that college should be free.
actually the US is way behind lots of countries in education, and we spend more.
The other countries spend more earlier.
college admissions should be based on merit. But some sanity needs to be brought to the amount of college loans. One of my daughters roommates graduated with 140K in debt and an undergrad teaching degree - 30K salary.
Plus it is just like the housing bubble, the availability of easy access loans drives the price of education up and up and up.
which makes college less and less affordable.
140,000 in student debt is too much.
2003 Maryland
"They're all part of the university system where tuition was raised last year by about 20 percent and last week was hit by additional jumps ranging from Coppin State's 6 percent to College Park's 11 percent - hikes that merely hint at additional increases proposed by Richard Hug, formerly Ehrlich's chief political fund-raiser and now his man on the Board of Regents.
Hug has called for doubling tuition levels. Ehrlich has kept his verbal distance from such pronouncements, trying to duck all incoming flak and hoping no one notices that Hug sits on the governor's lap.
Most states have chosen not to pass these burdens so heavily onto the backs of their young people - and for MD Gov. Ehrlich, a high-profile son of working-class people whose college education came from scholarships, it seems an odd psychological split from people with whom he should identify. Instead, he finds himself portrayed as a version of Bush Lite, protecting the wealthy on taxes while the middle class takes another hit."
Dad Gets 'Born This Way' Tattoo
I thought it was a joke because i have really spend a lot of money on it.all i get is just a few days control of it, so i concluded that i was going to live with properly forever until l i met with Dr Alaska with his 15 years of research method and experience cured my 8 years weak erection and premature ejaculation. i thought it was just an imagination until l i was confirm that am now okay.I just want t use this medium to thank him and his team members for their support and care.here are his contacts if you are suffering from any weak erection problem both from man and woman. just contact him dralaskajohn@gmail.com or call +2348169591194
Post a Comment
<< Home