Palin to step down as governor

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I'm not a Sarah Palin fan by any means...but do you not see a difference between what is taught in a school by teachers vs. what is taught at home by parents? And the ability for parents to determine their own discretionary education on social/morality issues?

I'd also submit that her logic and approach to parenting (in regards to sex ed) is likely less related to what she specifically tells her daughter about sex and more about how she has taught her daughter to formulate decisions in general, in her life.

I think this issue is a bit overblown in importance (like many conservative issues), and I really have no issues with "potential" preventionary methods of pregnancy and STDs, but it doesn't point specifically to a policy view disconnect IMHO...nor does it make sense to judge policy by "Palin daughter = pregnant= taught abstinence only = failure of policy".

It's also totally dishonest since no policy has ever been or can be 100% effective.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I think this issue is a bit overblown in importance (like many conservative issues), and I really have no issues with "potential" preventionary methods of pregnancy and STDs, but it doesn't point specifically to a policy view disconnect IMHO...nor does it make sense to judge policy by "Palin daughter = pregnant= taught abstinence only = failure of policy".

Can we just shorten this to say an experiment with a sample-size of one tells us nothing?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I think it's fair to say that a child is much more than just 'a relative' and becoming pregnant with a child is much more than just 'doing something against your belief'. Likewise, if you position yourself as a proponent of abstinence, and your teenage daughter gets pregnant, I think that is a good indicator that your words and your convictions are not entirely in balance.

First off I'm not actually a Palin supporter and find her somewhat banal and uninformed when I've seen her speak.

That being said I think its a silly thing to blame a parent for the actions of their child without knowledge of the situation involved. I know many parents who've brought their kids up to be good, moral, law abiding citizens - despite this their kids have had prangs with the law and suchlike, even in one case becoming pregnant under the age of consent.

Did this mean that the parents in question didn't try and stand by their beliefs - heck no, all it meant was that their kids were like any other kids and made their own decisions.

As a parent you do the best you can to bring up your kids and immerse them within your own ideals - however ultimately your children will make their own minds up and choose their own path. I know that my kids will and I sincerely hope all will go well for them when they do, I can't live their lives for them and imho it would restrict their growth and maturity if I did.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Can we just shorten this to say an experiment with a sample-size of one tells us nothing?

Do you mean anecdotal evidence does not equal data?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Can we just shorten this to say an experiment with a sample-size of one tells us nothing?

Yeah...I like that better.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Do you mean anecdotal evidence does not equal data?

It is crazy, but true.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Can we just shorten this to say an experiment with a sample-size of one tells us nothing?

Fortunately, we have more than just Bristol Palin out there, otherwise the public policy debate would not even exist.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

When the goal is preventing teenage pregnancy, it can tell you that "abstinence alone" could use a safety net behind it.

No, it really can't.

[Axxon]

This made me ponder the question of prostitution. It's pretty equivalent to premarital sex really. It's exactly the same except the woman gets paid. It's an amateur vs professional thing. Now, if I was to believe that this was a parental belief issue then I'd have to say that prostitutes parents honestly are for prostitution or at the very least shouldn't speak up against the issue.

I wonder if they've ever studied this? I know they've studied alot about prostitution but I don't know about this part. If so, then I'd wonder what those studies showed. I may be wrong and indeed, the best indicator about who would be a prostitute is to find out what their parents really think about prostition. Not about how they'd feel about their kid being one. I'm trying to be fair here, but about their acceptance of prostitution in general.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I'm saying there is no issue where the parent is totally responsible for their childs actions nor is there any way to judge a parents credibility in their beliefs because their child took an action contrary to the parent's belief. There is no way to judge what went through Bristols mind but I'm betting what mamma told her wasn't really up there at that point in time.

That is common sense my friend.

I think that is a fair argument, were we not also talking about a political figure. Note that you are arguing now that Sarah Palin's attitude on abstinence had little to no effect on Bristol, that you wouldn't expect that Sarah Palin's words to have much of an effect on her own daughter, and that her own daughter would even vocally reject the attitude, BUT you think it's totally unfair for the rest of the country to reject her attitude.

It's undeniably true that I don't really know what Sarah Palin's beliefs are. I don't think Bristol's pregnancy necessarily represents a failure in Palin's beliefs, but quite literally it does indeed represent a failure in governing those beliefs, and while I don't give a damn about Palin's child-rearing skills, I do think there is certainly some crossover in governing a home and a country/state, and you damn well shouldn't be telling me and my kids what to do, without telling me why it doesn't apply to you and yours.

The bottom line is sincerity. People will believe you and trust you if they think you're sincere, and many many people don't believe Sarah Palin has an ounce of sincerity in her body (compared to someone like Obama, who reeks sincerity, manufactured or not). I think the abstinence/Bristol came to represent the whole of Palin's questionable sincerity, unfortunately because it was something you could so easily piece together on your own....most questions of political sincerity devolve into discussions of back-room escapades, and asides muttered at Camp David, that the rank and file have to take third-hand, but here for once is something that was quite obviously off, that the public could put together on their own and without all that messy conspiracy stuff, and so it snow balled into something uglier and more personal than it should've been...but anybody experienced in politics should have been expecting just that.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by BrianD

No, it really can't.

Revised my comment to be more accurate. Sorry I bit on your bait, of course, because we all know the public debate existed before Bristol Palin got pregnant, and the scientific support for "abstinence only" evaporated a while back.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Revised my comment to be more accurate. Sorry I bit on your bait, of course, because we all know the public debate existed before Bristol Palin got pregnant, and the scientific support for "abstinence only" evaporated a while back.

I agree that abstinence only is probably a very bad policy. I just don't think that attacking Palin on the policy because her daughter got pregnant serves much of a purpose. Considering her and her guy claimed to use protection "most of the time", I'd say that they must have known about more than abstinence. Looks like nothing is foolproof.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I agree that abstinence only is probably a very bad policy. I just don't think that attacking Palin on the policy because her daughter got pregnant serves much of a purpose. Considering her and her guy claimed to use protection "most of the time", I'd say that they must have known about more than abstinence. Looks like nothing is foolproof.

Of course. I never attacked her for it. I just find it absurd that someone, already with a pregnant teenage daughter, would try to tell other people that they have the solution (and then present an already proven-to-be-flawed view on the issue). As I said earlier, this wasn't the only problem.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I wonder if they've ever studied this? I know they've studied alot about prostitution but I don't know about this part. If so, then I'd wonder what those studies showed. I may be wrong and indeed, the best indicator about who would be a prostitute is to find out what their parents really think about prostition. Not about how they'd feel about their kid being one. I'm trying to be fair here, but about their acceptance of prostitution in general.

Not surprisingly, in many studies, prostitution/promiscuity of the mother has been linked to teen prostitution, but the VAST majority of prostitutes (over 90%) were abused by their parents.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I think that is a fair argument, were we not also talking about a political figure. Note that you are arguing now that Sarah Palin's attitude on abstinence had little to no effect on Bristol, that you wouldn't expect that Sarah Palin's words to have much of an effect on her own daughter, and that her own daughter would even vocally reject the attitude, BUT you think it's totally unfair for the rest of the country to reject her attitude.

No, I don't. I reject her argument. I just don't call her belief in that argument a false one because her daughter got pregnant. That's been my entire point.

It's undeniably true that I don't really know what Sarah Palin's beliefs are. I don't think Bristol's pregnancy necessarily represents a failure in Palin's beliefs, but quite literally it does indeed represent a failure in governing those beliefs,

with you so far.

and while I don't give a damn about Palin's child-rearing skills, I do think there is certainly some crossover in governing a home and a country/state, and you damn well shouldn't be telling me and my kids what to do, without telling me why it doesn't apply to you and yours.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't recall her ever saying the rules didn't apply to her and hers. I remember her saying they'd live with the situation and cherish the child but where did she ever say it was ok for her child to have a child out of wedlock but not someone elses?

The bottom line is sincerity. People will believe you and trust you if they think you're sincere, and many many people don't believe Sarah Palin has an ounce of sincerity in her body (compared to someone like Obama, who reeks sincerity, manufactured or not). I think the abstinence/Bristol came to represent the whole of Palin's questionable sincerity, unfortunately because it was something you could so easily piece together on your own....most questions of political sincerity devolve into discussions of back-room escapades, and asides muttered at Camp David, that the rank and file have to take third-hand, but here for once is something that was quite obviously off, that the public could put together on their own and without all that messy conspiracy stuff, and so it snow balled into something uglier and more personal than it should've been...but anybody experienced in politics should have been expecting just that.

I'll admit to playing the devils advocate for a bit in regards to her specifically but if I may continue, isn't it wrong on one hand in this very thread to call her politically naive and out of her league then give her this much credit for her political subterfuge?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Not surprisingly, in many studies, prostitution/promiscuity of the mother has been linked to teen prostitution, but the VAST majority of prostitutes (over 90%) were abused by their parents.

I'm not doubting you but do you have a cite? This issue came up at work yesterday and I'm really curious. I really wonder how many prostitutes are really abuse victims vs those who simply claim it for sympathy from their johns and authority figures. I'd hate to be this cynical and if your numbers are true then I feel bad for wondering.

[Axxon]

Dola, I would be very surprised if parental abuse was more of a common factor in prostitution than drug abuse. I'd love to be proven wrong.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Axxon

No, I don't. I reject her argument. I just don't call her belief in that argument a false one because her daughter got pregnant. That's been my entire point.

Well, this is probably more of a basic disbelief of mine that is spilling over into this debate. As she is a politician, I assume her publicly espoused beliefs are false until proven differently, whereas you've given her the benefit of the doubt. So I see some, albeit shaky evidence on the 'false' side and nothing but hot political air on the 'true' side, which isn't enough to change my initial thought, whereas the shaky evidence alone certainly isn't enough to sway your initial thought. From the 'human' point of view, I can certainly see where your coming from, and were she not standing on a podium, shouting her beliefs through a megaphone, I'd probably agree with you.

Originally Posted by Axxon

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't recall her ever saying the rules didn't apply to her and hers. I remember her saying they'd live with the situation and cherish the child but where did she ever say it was ok for her child to have a child out of wedlock but not someone elses?

She did not specifically do anything to say that the rules didn't apply to her, she simply didn't act or speak with a convincing conviction, and basically left everybody else to fill in the blanks behind her. Again, it was a case of not so much what she did, but what she didn't do, and another instance of where she may not have contradicted herself, so much as not doing or saying a single thing of substance to support her belief beyond making a simple thin statement. And again, if she were not a politician, I wouldn't feel she had any duty to defend her beliefs, but as a politician she should be ready, willing, and eager to defend and explain her beliefs in depth.

I'll admit to playing the devils advocate for a bit in regards to her specifically but if I may continue, isn't it wrong on one hand in this very thread to call her politically naive and out of her league then give her this much credit for her political subterfuge?

Yes and no, as I imagine each person's definition of 'Sarah Palin' may be a little different. When I reference Sarah Palin, I'm thinking of one person, but undoubtedly the 'person' we saw and heard was an amalgamation of handlers, speech writers, and whomever else, depending on the situation.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Dola, I would be very surprised if parental abuse was more of a common factor in prostitution than drug abuse. I'd love to be proven wrong.

http://www.rapeis.org/activism/prost...tionfacts.html

"estimates of the prevalence of incest among prostitutes range from 65% to 90%. The Council for Prostitution Alternatives, Portland, Oregon Annual Report in 1991 stated that: 85% of prostitute/clients reported history of sexual abuse in childhood; 70% reported incest. The higher percentages (80%-90%) of reports of incest and childhood sexual assaults of prostitutes come from anecdotal reports and from clinicians working with prostitutes "

There are more cites, but most appear to be using this study. Don't look up any more facts on prostitutes, they are not enjoyable.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Well, this is probably more of a basic disbelief of mine that is spilling over into this debate. As she is a politician, I assume her publicly espoused beliefs are false until proven differently, whereas you've given her the benefit of the doubt. So I see some, albeit shaky evidence on the 'false' side and nothing but hot political air on the 'true' side, which isn't enough to change my initial thought, whereas the shaky evidence alone certainly isn't enough to sway your initial thought. From the 'human' point of view, I can certainly see where your coming from, and were she not standing on a podium, shouting her beliefs through a megaphone, I'd probably agree with you.



She did not specifically do anything to say that the rules didn't apply to her, she simply didn't act or speak with a convincing conviction, and basically left everybody else to fill in the blanks behind her. Again, it was a case of not so much what she did, but what she didn't do, and another instance of where she may not have contradicted herself, so much as not doing or saying a single thing of substance to support her belief beyond making a simple thin statement. And again, if she were not a politician, I wouldn't feel she had any duty to defend her beliefs, but as a politician she should be ready, willing, and eager to defend and explain her beliefs in depth.



Yes and no, as I imagine each person's definition of 'Sarah Palin' may be a little different. When I reference Sarah Palin, I'm thinking of one person, but undoubtedly the 'person' we saw and heard was an amalgamation of handlers, speech writers, and whomever else, depending on the situation.

Yeah, I am trying to see the human being inside the politician in my position. Considering the fact that she's not a particularly good politician it made me wonder. I can understand the cynical side as well but would rather reserve it to those whose prowess I more respect.

I'll admit I feel a bit sorry for her because she's way out of her league. I'm happy that she is but at the same time watching the kid with glassess sucking on an inhaler getting his butt kicked by a bully is a tad bit uncomfortable to me even if he told the bully to kiss his ass.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

http://www.rapeis.org/activism/prost...tionfacts.html

"estimates of the prevalence of incest among prostitutes range from 65% to 90%. The Council for Prostitution Alternatives, Portland, Oregon Annual Report in 1991 stated that: 85% of prostitute/clients reported history of sexual abuse in childhood; 70% reported incest. The higher percentages (80%-90%) of reports of incest and childhood sexual assaults of prostitutes come from anecdotal reports and from clinicians working with prostitutes "

There are more cites, but most appear to be using this study. Don't look up any more facts on prostitutes, they are not enjoyable.

Is that they reported the child abuse/incest as children or that they reported that as children they had been abused? If it's the former, it says alot about society too. Either way, there's a problem. I'd still like to know the percentage who are on drugs since maybe that's not what drove them to prostitution but it's keeping a lot of them there.

[Drake]

I have been forced to conclude from this thread that speed limits are bad public policy.

Despite the fact that I've told my oldest son over and over to drive the speed limit (speed limit only) because he might get a ticket, he's gotten speeding tickets (twice!!) in the year since he's had his license.

If my own kid won't drive the speed limit despite knowing how I feel about it, the policy is flawed.

Brilliant.

(And before anyone asks: I think Sarah Palin is a douche. I think Abstinence Only education is stupid. I voted for Obama early and often. And I sincerely hope that whatever reason Palin is withdrawing from public life that her family is safe, happy, and loved and continues to be so in the future.)

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Drake

I have been forced to conclude from this thread that speed limits are bad public policy.

Despite the fact that I've told my oldest son over and over to drive the speed limit (speed limit only) because he might get a ticket, he's gotten speeding tickets (twice!!) in the year since he's had his license.

If my own kid won't drive the speed limit despite knowing how I feel about it, the policy is flawed.

Brilliant.

No, no, the policy isn't necessarily bad policy. Exclusive adherence to the speed limit as the only solution is flawed. As a choice of many solutions implemented at the same time it's perfectly fine.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Is that they reported the child abuse/incest as children or that they reported that as children they had been abused? If it's the former, it says alot about society too. Either way, there's a problem. I'd still like to know the percentage who are on drugs since maybe that's not what drove them to prostitution but it's keeping a lot of them there.

It's probably safe to say nearly all hookers are on drugs. I certainly would be.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Axxon

No, no, the policy isn't necessarily bad policy. Exclusive adherence to the speed limit as the only solution is flawed. As a choice of many solutions implemented at the same time it's perfectly fine.

Just wait. If our policy standard is "Left to themselves, kids will struggle with it despite what their parents think is a good idea", I'm going after math instruction in HS next.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Drake

I have been forced to conclude from this thread that speed limits are bad public policy.

Despite the fact that I've told my oldest son over and over to drive the speed limit (speed limit only) because he might get a ticket, he's gotten speeding tickets (twice!!) in the year since he's had his license.

Not an apples to apples comparison, is it?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Not an apples to apples comparison, is it?

That's right. We've demonstrated that abstinence is the only policy in the world in it's specific category. At least, you have resisited every example given so far.

[larrymcg421]

Once again, you say abstinence, which isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about abstinence only.

A more apt comparison would be if you tell your children not to speed, but don't tell them about wearing a seatbelt, because that will just encourage them to speed. Then they get into an accident.

[thesloppy]

This thread (and my actions within) highlights my biggest problem with what American politics has become (or reallly has always been). The vast majority of voters on both sides are leveraging their votes and their political voice against the politics/people they don't like, rather than for the politics/people they like. As a result, we end up with lame watered-down policies and politicians, all manicured and manufactured to piss off the least amount of people possible, rather than actaully attracting voters with positive and pro-active thought/actions. American politics has come completely RE-active, moving and changing only in reaction to problem and catastrophe, rather than reaching towards new solutions and ideas, and political discourse has devolved inot various versions of point-the-finger, and "no, YOU guys suck!". Politics of the lowest common denominator, it's FAAAAANtastic!

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Once again, you say abstinence, which isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about abstinence only.

A more apt comparison would be if you tell your children not to speed, but don't tell them about wearing a seatbelt, because that will just encourage them to speed. Then they get into an accident.

Ok, now telling kids to abstain will just encourage them to not abstain. I don't think ever that any parent can win if that's the actual issue. Telling me not to speed but telling me what to do to be safe when I do speed would convince me to speed than educating me on the dangers of speeding.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Axxon

That's right. We've demonstrated that abstinence is the only policy in the world in it's specific category. At least, you have resisited every example given so far.

Explain to me what makes it an apples-to-apples comparison then, because it doesn't seem the same. Are speed limits really only a method to avoid speeding tickets? There surely must be another reason they were established, another reason they were created.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

This thread (and my actions within) highlights my biggest problem with what American politics has become (or reallly has always been). The vast majority of voters on both sides are leveraging their votes and their political voice against the politics/people they don't like, rather than for the politics/people they like. As a result, we end up with lame watered-down policies and politicians, all manicured and manufactured to piss off the least amount of people possible, rather than actaully attracting voters with positive and pro-active thought/actions. American politics has come completely RE-active, moving and changing only in reaction to problem and catastrophe, rather than reaching towards new solutions and ideas, and political discourse has devolved inot various versions of point-the-finger, and "no, YOU guys suck!". Politics of the lowest common denominator, it's FAAAAANtastic!

Agreed I think. That's why it was pretty refreshing defending someone who I don't agree with or like. Reminded me she was human and that condition actually drove my symapthy just like the fact that her family is human can jsut as easily be used as an argument against her position.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Explain to me what makes it an apples-to-apples comparison then, because it doesn't seem the same. Are speed limits really only a method to avoid speeding tickets? There surely must be another reason they were established, another reason they were created.

Honestly it might be easier to give me an example of apples to apples. It's whats missing here. I'm not getting what you're not seeing. If I could see what you're seeing I might be able to.

Speed limits were set for safety. They do a good job. Sometimes people speed anyway. It doesn't make speed limits a bad idea. The government doesn't have any alternative laws to the speed limit laws. A private citizen can't legally speed.

Abstinence was set up for safety ( or whatever since I'm not really arguing the need for this actually ). It may or may not do a good job. Sometimes kids will fuck anyway. It doesn't make abstinence a bad idea. The government doesn't necessarily have to create several alternatives to abstinence as a policy if they feel as a safety net it does the job reasonably. As far as I know, the government has neither illegalized teaching contraception or alternative crash survival techniques. They just don't necessarily see that this education is needed as a part of public policy that they're going to spend cash on. I know that seat belts are treated this way on a state by state basis but I'm talking the feds.

[larrymcg421]

Speed limits were set for safety. They do a good job. Sometimes people speed anyway.

Which is why people should be taught to wear seatbelts and take other precautionary measures as well.

Abstinence was set up for safety ( or whatever since I'm not really arguing the need for this actually ). It may or may not do a good job. Sometimes kids will fuck anyway. It doesn't make abstinence a bad idea.

No, it doesn't make abstinence a bad idea. It makes abstinence only a bad idea.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Which is why people should be taught to wear seatbelts and take other precautionary measures as well.



No, it doesn't make abstinence a bad idea. It makes abstinence only a bad idea.

Had no comment on the fact that the government doesn't push seat belts as an alternative to safety? They don't or at least I've never seen them do that or else they wouldn't bother enforcing the seat belt law if you weren't speeding. Both not speeding save lives and wearing a seatb elt saves lives regardless of whether you speed or not.

So is the value of a condom of course and taught as a disease preventative it is perfectly acceptable I'd imagine but as an alternative to the more effective policy doesn't seem like a good decision for an authority figure like the government to be endorsing. Again, that's what I'd imagine a decent counter argument to be. We're straying into debating the issue rather than discussing the sincerity of Palin holding the argument and it's really not my argument.

[Axxon]

dola, to be clear, it sounds like you're saying we should tell kids "don't fuck but if you're going to wear a condom." I don't recall it ever being said by an authority figure "don't speed but if you do, wear a seat belt." It's kinda inconsistent in that way you know?

[thesloppy]

I think there's a pretty fair apples-to-apples comparison in the 'Just Say No' campaign from the '80s. A half-assed government campaign offering an over-simplified unworkable 'answer' to a convoluted, complicated problem, resulting in absolutely nothing other than putting Nancy Reagan on an episode of Diff'rent Strokes.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I think there's a pretty fair apples-to-apples comparison in the 'Just Say No' campaign from the '80s. A half-assed government campaign offering an over-simplified unworkable 'answer' to a convoluted, complicated problem, resulting in absolutely nothing other than putting Nancy Reagan on an episode of Diff'rent Strokes.

Probably the most ironic show for her to have appeared on.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I think there's a pretty fair apples-to-apples comparison in the 'Just Say No' campaign from the '80s. A half-assed government campaign offering an over-simplified unworkable 'answer' to a convoluted, complicated problem, resulting in absolutely nothing other than putting Nancy Reagan on an episode of Diff'rent Strokes.

That is a pretty fair comparison. Would you say then that a Reagan child either doing or not doing drugs would have been an indictment on Nancy's beliefs about drug use or simply that she believed in a flawed campaign?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Axxon

That is a pretty fair comparison. Would you say then that a Reagan child either doing or not doing drugs would have been an indictment on Nancy's beliefs about drug use or simply that she believed in a flawed campaign?

Well, personally, I took her husband's administration's shipping of tons of cocaine into the country and putting it on the streets of L.A. in order to fund Nicaraguan freedom fighters as an indictment of her beliefs about drug use, family, politics, and humanity in general. I may not believe that she had a hand in, or knowledge of, any of that stuff...but I also don't believe she put anything more than a half-baked thought into the 'just say no' campaign, and was operating it as an exercise in ego first, and anything else was secondary. In fact, the whole 'just say no' iran/contra thing is pretty much the driving force behind my political cynicism, and in this case in particular, because of Palin's similar 'just say no, it's-so-simple' stance on abstinence.

[thesloppy]

This is also where I think there's some disconnect on both sides of the argument.

I don't have a problem when Palin's beliefs simply exist as thoughts in her head, or words on her lips, it's when those beliefs threaten to start sucking up government time and money that they become a problem. If Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No' was something she just said when given the opportunity, in an interviews or such, it wouldn't have been as entirely laughable as it was, given that we had funneled billions of dollars, man-hours, and uncountable resources into shoving that hollow message down EVERYBODY'S throats.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Well, personally, I took her husband's administration's shipping of tons of cocaine into the country and putting it on the streets of L.A. in order to fund Nicaraguan freedom fighters as an indictment of her beliefs about drug use, family, politics, and humanity in general. I may not believe that she had a hand in, or knowledge of, any of that stuff...but I also don't believe she put anything more than a half-baked thought into the 'just say no' campaign, and was operating it as an exercise in ego first, and anything else was secondary. In fact, the whole 'just say no' iran/contra thing is pretty much the driving force behind my political cynicism, and in this case in particular, because of Palin's similar 'just say no, it's-so-simple' stance on abstinence.

Again, you indict her beliefs for something you even admit that she may have any knowledge of. Brutal.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

This is also where I think there's some disconnect on both sides of the argument.
... into shoving that hollow message down EVERYBODY'S throats.

True, IMHO there aren't enough prostitutes in the world.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Not surprisingly, in many studies, prostitution/promiscuity of the mother has been linked to teen prostitution, but the VAST majority of prostitutes (over 90%) were abused by their parents.

Could you post links to these studies please - I've always been interested in Sociology and in the studies I've read about in the UK & Europe the causes have been much more heavily biased by an inabilit to support themesleves through normal means (inability to gain sufficient income from normal sources). This is often at least caused by addiction problems (both drink and drugs) in the prostitute his/herself (either by making them too unreliable to hold down a normal job or requiring excessive income to manage the lifestyle wanted comparative to their earning skills).

A quote from "GORDON MARSHALL. "prostitution, sociological studies of":

Sociological studies of prostitutes show that their motivation is mainly economic and it seems likely that the number of prostitutes increases when there are fewer other job opportunities for women. International movements of prostitutes are nearly always from poor countries to richer ones. There are few studies of clients, though a Norwegian study found that while most of them are ‘Mr Average’, there are a number of single men who have difficulties relating to women who go to prostitutes quite frequently.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Again, you indict her beliefs for something you even admit that she may have any knowledge of. Brutal.

Well, here's our disconnect again. I didn't believe those were her beliefs in the first place, or at least not what I would consider 'driving' beliefs. I thought they were words she used to drive her government program. I don't consider 'Just Say No' to even constitute a belief, anymore than 'Now You're Eating America's Favorite Pizza!', it's a slogan. What belief of Nancy's does that represent, that children shouldn't do drugs? I certainly don't question her belief in that, I do question whether it was the primary influence behind the 'Just Say No' campaign, which I cynically imagine was simply an answer to 'doing something politically' as had proper first-ladies before her, and just about any 'cause' would have done.

I don't question that Nancy doesn't want kids to do drugs any more than you or I don't want kids to do drugs, but on the other hand, I think that's a pretty easy belief to stand behind, and even if you might not feel comfortable judging her beliefs, we CAN now judge the results of those beliefs, and they were horrible. Not only horrible at preventing the spread of drug abuse among anyone, adult or teen, but horrible at even presenting what the solution was beyond 'Just Saying No'. I also believe that might be as far as Nancy's beliefs extended. Those beliefs may not have been 'wrong' technically, but so woefully incomplete and uninformed, as to be useless and worthless, as they are essentially beliefs about a reality that does not exist, and I don't think an incomplete belief hoisted on the whole of America is defensible, regardless of the veracity of those beliefs.

Also, for the record, I have NEVER had a problem judging people.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Could you post links to these studies please - I've always been interested in Sociology and in the studies I've read about in the UK & Europe the causes have been much more heavily biased by an inabilit to support themesleves through normal means (inability to gain sufficient income from normal sources). This is often at least caused by addiction problems (both drink and drugs) in the prostitute his/herself (either by making them too unreliable to hold down a normal job or requiring excessive income to manage the lifestyle wanted comparative to their earning skills).

Admittedly, most of the claims I found are anecdotal, or referring second-hand to other studies. The most concrete I found was a study I linked to earlier, that many publications point to, apparently from The Council for Prostitution Alternatives, Portland, Oregon Annual Report in 1991 (if it's annual, how come I'm only finding this one?).

http://www.rapeis.org/activism/prost...tionfacts.html

FTR, I'm not trying to be the hooker expert in this thread! I certainly wouldn't think that abuse is the ONLY problem that contributes towards that lifestyle. As far as sociological triggers go, drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, and lots of the ghetto-trades share a lot of the same stuff, absense of local legit businesses, habitual generational drug abuse, illegal work pays leagues better than the local legal jobs, absent parents, can't afford to relocate, etc.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

NBC may be legitimate media, but SNL is a comedy show. If your claim that the media is after her family is based on comedians, you've got a very weak point.

catching up, but this was my reaction as well.

show me where the NY Times or the Washington Post or George Stephanopolous ripped on her handicapped kid and then you have a case

[RainMaker]

For all this "media attacking her family" crap, I just don't see it. Where are the reputable media sources trashing her family? Many reported on her daughter being pregnant, but I didn't see anything that would be constituted as an attack. Maybe a pundit or two took a swipe, but it's still not the norm.

I saw some shitty stuff on blogs, but that's just blogs. You can find that stuff for just about every politician. The whining about the media just comes across to me as someone who has thin skin and is clearly not strong enough to handle higher office.

[Drake]

You want apples to apples?

How about this? They were teaching us about condoms in my high school 25 years ago.

Girls still managed to get pregnant.

Here's my point: if you're going to make policy decisions based solely on whether or not teenagers can fuck up even the best intentions, then all of your policies are going to fail. Given the opportunity, teenagers will fuck up. The policy isn't flawed *because* teenagers fuck up. Teenagers are just doing what teenagers have always done.

The really stupid part is that I agree with you completely about Abstinence Only being a fraud. Hell, I agreed with you in high school.

It just seems to me that your logic for justifying the position is flawed.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Which reveals why Sarah Palin's view, trying to tell the rest of us that abstinence is the only solution for the rest of society, is a failure. It didn't even stick with her own daughter, who presumably she would have the most influence upon.

Actually, I don't think it means anything about the effectiveness of her view; just the effectiveness of her teaching it. The fact that Sarah Palin couldn't get her daughter to listen to her doesn't make abstinence any more or less the answer.