He does favor sex education for kindergartners...

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

to protect them against advances of sexual predators. It's all how you twist the words. Remember, too much twisting and you cut off the blood supply and wither away. watch out mcc.

I have heard so much about our education system and I'm sure some of it is true. However, I would like to relay a recent experience I had......

Living in a small community that is loaded with history, I and a couple of other "older" ladies hosted the local 4th and 5th grades on a field trip regarding the history of a couple of landmarks.......anyone interested can visit my website http://www.ozarkmountainmemories.com and read about them.

I was to do the historical presentation on the Cane Hill College Building. My good friend was to do the presentation on the Old Mill. Before I knew that there were 212 students plus teachers and parents, I opened my big mouth and said I would make cookies and Kool-Aid for the kid's field trip. I ended up having a lot of help there!!!

Both my friend and I were very apprehensive about this field trip. Well, I want to tell you that those were the best behaved kids I have seen in a long time. This field trip was to prepare them to write an essay for the Arkansas Historical Society. They were attentive and, asked very pertinent and intelligent questions.

One of the teachers called me yesterday and said that she was going to bring me some of the essays the kids had written. She read one to me and it started out with "You may think the Cane Hill College is just a 2-story brick building...." and the student proceeded to write what I would consider a very excellent essay. I will post some of these on my website when I have them in hand.

I might also say that there were a good many parents present for the field trip. I came away from that field trip with a whole different perspective on the local school, which is reputed to be one of the worst school districts in the state with the highest teen pregnancy rate. I think if these 4th and 5th graders continue through high school with teachers such as I met and parents who are involved in their education, each and every one of them will be just A-okay.

I personally think that all candidates should be subjected to a polygraph. This way we won't have to dig through all the BS all the politicians give us and we know whether they are lying or not. LOL! Kind of like our own political BS detector.

I personally think that we should just let the banks fail and not save their greedy banker butts. It seems like that's the way a lot of other people feel too. I haven't heard one person say let's save their greedy banker butts. However, I'm pretty sure that congress will bail them out. If I could vote on this, I would definitely say no, no matter what consequence to myself (drop in stock, retirement and possibly the value of my home, no loan for college next semester).

I wonder when the ACLU will get involved....Isn't teaching waiting until marriage to have sex a religious viewpoint and what's it doing in public schools?

Video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvCvw...erallyi-CLOWNS

As clownish as Dye�s words may sound to you, they are unfortunately not rare ones for young people to hear in classrooms all over the country. Thanks to George W. Bush and a complicit Congress, we currently spend $1.5 billion a year to fund abstinence-only until marriage sex education in our public schools. And yes, that money goes to people like Derek Dye, as he is employed by the Elizabeth New Life Center that received a $800,000 CBAE grant in 2007 to promote abstinence until marriage. His qualifications? A �Bachelor of Fun Arts� from Barnum Bailey Clown College, and an abstinence educator certification that can be purchased for $50.

So� what�s wrong with abstinence-only until marriage sex education? Abstinence-only programs censor information about contraception and condoms; make moral judgments students may not share; stigmatize and shame students who have already had sex; and discriminate against GLBTQ students who can�t legally marry. These programs often encourage stereotypical gender roles, use scare tactics, blur religion and science, and contain factual errors, like saying that HIV can be spread through sweat and tears.

And using condoms is like juggling machetes�

What�s more, abstinence-only programs don�t work � independent study after study has shown that students who receive them don�t have lower pregnancy, HIV, or STI rates. And worse, students who receive abstinence-only programs are less likely to use contraception and condoms when they do have sex.

Then again, as one colleague told me today, nothing wants to make her have sex less than a clown� so maybe they�re on to something.

So� what can we do to make sure that abstinence-only programs like this one are not funded with our tax dollars? First of all, contact the Obama transition team to make sure that they ZERO OUT these programs in their first budget. Also, ending abstinence-only funding is currently 3rd place on Change.gov's user rankings, so you can go there and vote for it, too.

Secondly, we must contact all of our representatives to let them know that we do not want this waste of money being snuck back into the budget through the appropriations process. Send them that message here.

For those of you living in Ohio, call or email your Ohio State Senator today and urge them to co-sponsor the Act For Our Children�s Future, a bill to establish standards for comprehensive sexual health education in Ohio�s public schools.

LET�S SEND OUT THE CLOWNS!!!

there were no exemptions whatsoever. If, say you earned a dollar, you owed a dime. No exceptions regarding where the money comes from. Tax welfare benefits too. Social Security is already taxed for some recipients. Those of us who receive Social Security and have enough income to pay taxes on 85% (maximum) of it ALL had the opportunity for a better life. Some took advantage of that and some didn't. Young people today have little hope of receiving Social Security and they also have little hope of being able to live while saving for their future.

Report Accuses EPA of Slanting Analysis
Hill
Researchers Say Agency Fixed Pollution Study to Favor Bush's 'Clear
Skies'

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday,
December 3, 2005; A08

The Bush administration skewed its analysis of pending legislation on air
pollution to favor its bill over two competing proposals, according to a new
report by the Congressional Research Service.

The Environmental Protection Agency's Oct. 27 analysis of its plan -- along
with those of Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) --
exaggerated the costs and underestimated the benefits of imposing more stringent
pollution curbs, the independent, nonpartisan congressional researchers wrote in
a Nov. 23 report. The EPA issued its analysis -- which Carper had demanded this
spring, threatening to hold up the nomination of EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson -- in part to revive its proposal, which is stalled in the Senate.

The administration's Clear Skies legislation aims to achieve a 70 percent cut
in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide after 2018, while Carper's and
Jeffords's bills demand steeper and faster cuts and would also reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, which are linked to global warming. The Bush plan would also
cut emissions of neurotoxic mercury by 70 percent, while Jeffords's bill reduces
them by 90 percent.

Although it represents a step toward understanding the impacts of legislative
options, EPA's analysis is not as useful as one could hope, the Research Service
report said. The result is an analysis that some will argue is no longer
sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantially to congressional debate.

The congressional report, which was not commissioned by a lawmaker as is
customary, said the EPA analysis boosted its own proposal by overestimating the
cost of controlling mercury and playing down the economic benefits of reducing
premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.

EPA estimated the administration's plan would cost coal-fired power plants as
much as $6 billion annually, compared with up to $10 billion in Carper's measure
and as much as $51 billion for Jeffords's. It calculated that Bush's proposal
would produce $143 billion a year in health benefits while Carper's would
generate $161 billion and Jeffords would yield $211 billion. Carper's measure
would achieve most of its reductions by 2013, while Jeffords's bill would enact
even more ambitious pollution cuts by 2010.

EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency based its cost estimates on
mercury controls by gathering comments from boilermaker workers, power companies
and emission control companies, whereas the Research Service used a single study
to reach its conclusions on mercury.

Clear Skies delivers dramatic health benefits across the nation without
raising energy costs and does it with certainty and simplicity, instead of
regulation and litigation, Witcher said. Because of our commitment to see this
become a reality, EPA went above and beyond to provide the most comprehensive
legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency, so it does a real
disservice to this discussion to have a report that largely ignores and
misinterprets our analysis.

But aides to Carper and Jeffords said they felt vindicated by the
congressional study.

The CRS report backs up a lot of what we initially said about EPA's latest
analysis, that it overstated the costs of controlling mercury and understated
the overall health benefits of Senator Carper's legislation, said Carper
spokesman Bill Ghent. The report clearly states that there's no reason to settle
for the president's Clear Skies plan because the legislation doesn't clean the
air much better than current law.

� 2005 The Washington Post
Company

On January 5, 2006, Congressman Murtha held a town hall meeting with Cong. Jim Moran (D-VA 08).

The soldier who asked the first question served in Afghanistan and said that morale among troops is high and that he would gladly serve in Iraq today. His comment was the only one replayed by Fox News the next day.

But the majority of soldiers in attendance spoke out against the current policy. Fox News did not broadcast their remarks.

Garin Reppenhagen, served as a sniper in Iraq for a year in the First Infantry Division: