…and this is a 
It's true — here in Minnesota, we're always talking about them dingbats next door in Wisconsin, and they are — we live in a place where all our children are above average, dontchaknow, and the only way that is statistically possible is if some place nearby is all below average. So we love to rag on them. Until they mention Michele Bachmann and then we have to hang our head in shame and slink away.
Anyway, the latest news from our neighbor to the east is that some cheesehead named Scott Southworth is trying to strongarm teachers into not following the sex education guidelines, threatening them with jail time if they say anything about condoms.
Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender. It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks.
OK, but mixed alcoholic drinks are legal, and lots of people consume them…and so will many of those kids, hopefully once they're of legal age but not before (although we know many of them will jump the gun — and think of all the awful pina coladas and over-strong rum & cokes they'll slosh down if not properly trained. Think of the children!) There's nothing wrong with urging responsible restraint in both alcohol consumption and sexual behavior, while also explaining what they actually, honestly are.
Unless, of course, you're a conservative kook who thinks the solution to every peril is to keep everyone in a state of maximal ignorance. Case in point: when this bill to teach medically accurate information about contraceptives in sex ed classes was introduced, every single Republican voted in lockstep against it.
This is more like telling kids who are too young to drive about using seatbelts. It's not telling them to get in an accident, it's telling them to take precautions in case something happens. And in the case of sex, we know a collision is pretty much inevitable at some point, so we should be offering information and sensible safety in those years when they are at greatest risk.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Aquaria
|
April 7, 2010 11:36 AM
Beware the BCP juju!
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
April 7, 2010 11:38 AM
Be that as it may, the seat-belt analogy isn't very good.
You don't wear them only when you drive, after all. Indeed, you're required to have your kids wear restraintsl, at least up to a certain age.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
April 7, 2010 11:39 AM
Yeah, but wasn't Jesse Ventura your governor for a while?
Posted by: James Sweet
|
April 7, 2010 11:44 AM
A better analogy in terms if the alcohol thing would be if underage kids taking a driver's ed class were presented with a chart showing gender, weight, and number of drinks consumed to tell them whether they are over the legal limit. Which is standard, at least in my state. But then again, this is New York -- we're all a bunch of islamahomocommie elitists. Even the rural parts that always vote Republican!
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
April 7, 2010 11:44 AM
Encouraging children to engage in sexual behavior... as victims ?
How can you encourage someone to be a victim ?
Another instance of the famous "she had it coming" theory of rape ?
Posted by: Blondin
|
April 7, 2010 11:44 AM
I still remember my first collision... I guess we all do.
Posted by: martha
|
April 7, 2010 11:46 AM
Gus, Jesse isn't all bad. After all, he did say in an interview:
Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you'd want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live.
Posted by: JoeBuddha
|
April 7, 2010 11:47 AM
I call it the Ostrich Solution:
If you don't teach about it, it never happens.
QED.
Been a Conservative response to unpleasant realities for a long time now.
Posted by: Paul W., OM
|
April 7, 2010 11:47 AM
I'd hit that.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
April 7, 2010 11:49 AM
This guy is a complete fucknut, and a good example of why it is a bad idea to have directly elected prosecutors. Just look at some of this blithering:
OH NOES!!!111!! Teachers might have to explain to children that gay and transgender people actually exist! *gasp* And that not everyone in the world adheres to evangelical beliefs about no-sex-before-marriage-ever-otherwise-God-kills-a-kitten!!!!111!!! *clutches pearls*
Won't somebody think of the children!
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnfgwSBZAfDF3dTYoglta2M1cVCfAt11XE
|
April 7, 2010 11:50 AM
I moved to West Bend about 2 years ago and I'm really regretting that decision. After the whole book banning/burning fiasco, I learned that some locals, possibly with pitchforks, tried to get a gay teacher fired and opposed the new anti-harassment policy because it included sexual orientation as a protected group. Yesterday "we" elected 2 creationists to our school board. One of the electees is married to a woman who was very vocal and active in both the book banning and the anti-gay activities. I'm sure that they'll give you loads to write about in the future.
Posted by: darth_borehd
|
April 7, 2010 11:50 AM
The Republicans are a sad shell of their former selves. They used to be the fiscally responsible, small government party. Then they were hijacked by religious fundamentalists and twisted into a mockery of their former selves. These are not conservatives. These are religious socialists.
Abstinence-only education really worked for Sarah Palin's daughter didn't it? If the goal was for her to have an underage pregnancy that it is.
Posted by: spaninquis
|
April 7, 2010 11:51 AM
Oh, for the days of "Just say No!" {sigh} If only Republicans would practice what they preach. In as little time as a generation, they'd be extinct.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
April 7, 2010 11:52 AM
I'm opposed to teaching kids how to use fire safety equipment for similar reasons.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
April 7, 2010 11:52 AM
Ding ding ding. We have a winnnah! You betcha.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
April 7, 2010 11:53 AM
Shorter Scott Southworth:
Every time you teach teenagers about condoms, God kills a kitten.
Posted by: Kausik Datta
|
April 7, 2010 11:53 AM
Methinks the seat-belt analogy is very good, because you are teaching the young kid about the benefits of taking precaution and wearing a seatbelt while in a moving vehicle, whether in the driver's seat or in the passenger's.
Sex education is just that: education about matters pertaining to sexual activity, care and precautions. Sex education is not a commandment to... Let's see... 'Go forth and multiply'. But of course, trust the rethuglican idiots to see only the 'sex' part and not the 'education' part. Ignorance on part of the common man works out well for them.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
April 7, 2010 11:53 AM
WTF? There shouldn't be victims or offenders in sexual behavior under any circumstance. If there are then it has fallen into criminal behavior.
And you can't "encourage" some one to become a victim anyway. It's not like it's a choice that victims make to be victimized.
"Oh well, today I was thinking it would be fun to be stabbed in the forearm while trying to keep some one from stealing my handbag. I dunno, Dave, whaddya' think? Maybe we should just go on through the parking lot to see a movie though and skip all that mess."
They're saying a lot with that statement, and none of it good.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
April 7, 2010 11:56 AM
Interesting if not revealing choice of words.
Would any victims here like some offending?? Leave me an email address !
Posted by: Semaphore
|
April 7, 2010 11:56 AM
So the attorney general is threatening to charge teachers for following a perfectly valid law and teaching their students how to use a legal product? It seems like a general symptom of localized crazy, since adultery is a felony in Wisconsin too...
Posted by: raven
|
April 7, 2010 11:56 AM
Absinence only sex ed. doesn't work. Ask Sarah Palin's daughter about that.
The fundies are just setting their children up to fail. No big deal to them. They will set your kids up to fail if you let them.
Fundies are evil.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
April 7, 2010 12:00 PM
I don't. I mean I remember the person but I don't remember the event.
I never thought about it before but I guess that's kind of sad :(
Posted by: NinjaEema
|
April 7, 2010 12:01 PM
I don't know what happened with my other comment ID (#11). Anyway...Here's a vid of the hand wringing that went on prior to the passing of this bill. It's from a local Xian talk show and features the ringleader of the book banning gang.
http://vimeo.com/9027085
My favorite quote from the vid
"You cannot have any bias against students who want to experiment in homosexuality, or or it just says sexual orientation so that could include very very bizarre behavior, bestiality and pedophilia. All of those are considered under sexual orientation and they could not speak against those things if this curriculum passes."
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
April 7, 2010 12:04 PM
Which actually is how they want to be treated, incidentally.
Posted by: legistech
|
April 7, 2010 12:05 PM
If you take a combination of Mississippi, Florida, Texas, and Idaho, you probably get a number so far below average that nearly every other place in the country could be considered "above average".
This DA's ideas about the law are outlandish. He figures he'll just substitute his own views for that of the legislature? Has he even begun to consider the implications of that kind of legal terrorism? Or that he's stating outright that he doesn't believe in the democratic process at all? I bet he complains about "liberal" judges legislating from the bench all the time, but yet he seems to think his actions are just fine.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
April 7, 2010 12:07 PM
Ol' Greg
Well, since we've opened up that pandora's box. Heh heh. I remember it fairly well, although I don't think of it unless it's brought up. I was young, she was a couple of years older. It was clumsy and awkward and... ummm... short-lived.
I'm much better at it now.
Posted by: SteveM
|
April 7, 2010 12:08 PM
re #3
Did you ever hear Jesse Ventura talk outside of his pro-wrestler persona? He always seemed pretty reasonable and intelligent to me, far and away better than Bachmann (who is just a looney). Not that I agree with everything he says, but he is not just some kind of cartoon character.
Posted by: formosus
|
April 7, 2010 12:10 PM
Glad to see this getting the (negative)attention it deserves.
The great bit about this story is that I'm sure the DA loves to rant about the "Goddamn libbuhrul activist judges", without a shred of irony.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
April 7, 2010 12:10 PM
Can I read into this deeper?
This whole anti-contraception crusade has a great deal of connection to the "secret garden" post from yesterday: If two people are having sex with contraceptive, they are doing it for enjoyment. From the fundies' standpoint that is unacceptable. Sex, to them, should always be about controlling the woman, and impregnating her.
Posted by: Maslab
|
April 7, 2010 12:11 PM
Wikipedia to the rescue:
Juvenile delinquency refers to children who act against the law.
Sex is illegal now? Well, we're screwed.
Posted by: raven
|
April 7, 2010 12:12 PM
How did the book burning go? Fundies are so cute when they try to think. I hope someone caught it on videotape.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
April 7, 2010 12:13 PM
That's not something to be ashamed of. He was the best governor we've had in the 22 years I've lived here. Of course, this was before he became a 9/11 truther kook.
Posted by: derelicthat
|
April 7, 2010 12:15 PM
Hey hey hey now PZ. We northern Midwest states should stick together. And as long as Madison is our capitol, we should be able to ignore these wackos (seriously, Madison is so full of we liberal crazies and demonic atheists).
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
April 7, 2010 12:15 PM
No... we're not... as you pointed out, that would be illegal.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
April 7, 2010 12:16 PM
Exactly. When I was in high school (one not nearly so prestigious as a certain New York City public high school that shall remain nameless), we were given no training whatsoever in mixology, and as a direct result we drank shit like lime-vodka-and Sprite, Boone's Farm Strawberry Hill, and Jack Daniel's out of the bottle! I hope those administrators can live with that knowledge.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
April 7, 2010 12:16 PM
Sure !
I aint got time to bleed !
Posted by: Maslab
|
April 7, 2010 12:18 PM
Huh, I guess you're right.Take that, you guys!
(Note: I'll let you know who "you guys" are tomorrow)
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
April 7, 2010 12:19 PM
I was in a long relationship with that person. The relationship sucked about as much as a relationship can suck and not leave any corpses. I guess it didn't seem important so much, and then it happened often after that, so nothing stood out? I dunno. I'm good at forgetting things though.
Posted by: SteveM
|
April 7, 2010 12:19 PM
re 29:
Exactly (every sperm is sacred...). But also, for all their talk of "pro-life" all it is really about is to make pregnancy a deterrent to having sex, and a punishment for "indulging". To them it is not really a baby, a new life to be cherished, but a punishment to be endured.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
April 7, 2010 12:20 PM
I would dispute that they were ever really a small government party. They claimed to be, but in reality they just had different priorities for spending tax money. Eisenhower spent a lot on defense and the space program (but at least had the decenty to have some misgivings about defense spending). Nixon said the war on drugs was so important it was OK to spend as much money on it as was needed. Reagan took the same approach to "defense" and to intervening in other countries' affairs.
Posted by: Harry Tuttle
|
April 7, 2010 12:24 PM
...engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender.
This twisted freak obviously has an entirely unhealthy view of sexuality, that one must either be a victim or an offender. That's sick.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
April 7, 2010 12:25 PM
Yes, and I'll add it is also always about causing the woman pain. Which is why you will find them also opposing basically any prenatal care, anything that might relieve pain during childbirth, and C-sections.
That's why the woman is, in essence, always a victim to them when sex happens, as evidenced by the language.
It should also be added that "victim" in this case means she shares equally in the guilt of the "offender" by the way.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
April 7, 2010 12:25 PM
Have I mentioned how much I like the now-older more loosened-up moderate Walton?
Posted by: PenguinFactory
|
April 7, 2010 12:26 PM
How do you encourage someone to become a victim of something? Will teaching them how to use condoms increase the chances of them being raped or something?
Posted by: somewhereingreece
|
April 7, 2010 12:27 PM
I signed in to comment, but honestly, words fail me.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
April 7, 2010 12:28 PM
Every time they say pro-life loves baby, I say that they love to bash their heads against the wall as the Good Book tells us.
And as pointed by NinjaEema @ 23, They don't care for consent. They believe consent is irrelevant, which is how they're able to claim that homosexuality will lead to bestiality and pedophilia. They don't care that animals and children are incapable of consenting. After all, Mary didn't consent. And when a man is punished for rape, it isn't because he violated a woman's consent: It’s because he damaged her father’s property.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
April 7, 2010 12:28 PM
Except, of course, those of us who never even got in the car in the first place. :-(
Posted by: Rorschach
|
April 7, 2010 12:29 PM
Shouldn't someone be studying ??
Posted by: notVerneant
|
April 7, 2010 12:30 PM
I have to agree with the general consensus that his choice of "victim and offendor" to describe people engaging in sexual activity implies that it's never consensual or that there's something wrong with sex; more religious insanity.
Posted by: notVerneant
|
April 7, 2010 12:34 PM
I have to agree with the general consensus that his choice of "victim and offendor" to describe people engaging in sexual activity implies that it's never consensual or that there's something wrong with sex; more religious insanity.
Posted by: dingdong
|
April 7, 2010 12:36 PM
To paraphrase Lewis Black
"I remember my first time...
I was terrific."
Posted by: jidashdee
|
April 7, 2010 12:39 PM
As my friend is very fond of pointing out when recounting adventures in moral turpitude:
"You're always the victim, Big Guy. You're always the victim."
It's a handy mantra.
Posted by: RodM
|
April 7, 2010 12:48 PM
WHAT?????????
Posted by: eNeMeE
|
April 7, 2010 1:05 PM
You crazies and your elected prosecutors.
Who's brilliant idea was that, anyway?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
April 7, 2010 1:11 PM
Can I infer from this that if people did not talk about sex, teenagers would not desire to have sex? That the sex drive is driven by the knowledge that sex exists?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
April 7, 2010 1:12 PM
kwo*ktacularPosted by: truthspeaker
|
April 7, 2010 1:21 PM
It happens all the time. Many girls in our society are still taught that it's not ladylike to start a confrontation or to speak up when being mistreated. Some of Jesus's turn the other cheek bullshit, at least as interpreted by some Christians, encourages people to return to abusive situations. Adult children of verbally abusive parents are often discouraged from cutting all contact with their abusers - their your PARENTS, doncha know.
Lots of people are taught to be victims, but I don't think that's what Southworth was talking abuot.
Posted by: sigaligasig
|
April 7, 2010 1:21 PM
Aw, nuts. I hoped I was getting away from this kind of nonsense when I moved to Wisconsin from Arkansas.
On the plus side, this reminds me that I need to register to vote here.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/LV4Fjqwbn8ERsA21xBGmMmh0kEw-#9ca54
|
April 7, 2010 1:22 PM
A Bit of Fry and Laurie - Sex Ed in Class
"Sexual activity can bring about pregnancy in the adult female."
Mr Smear (Hugh Laurie): "Gutter Language! How dare you teach things like that!"
That's what always comes to my mind when I hear such nonsense. And my reaction is the same as depicted by Stephen Fry.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
April 7, 2010 1:24 PM
^they're
Posted by: Anodyne
|
April 7, 2010 1:26 PM
I'm almost speechless. Almost.
Since children may use firearms at a certain age, why don't we just give them the fully-loaded gun and not tell them that there is a safety on it or that it needs to be cleaned? Sure, a lot of kids and adults will get shot in the face, etc., but it's their own fault for trying to use it. I mean, if we went ahead and taught them proper safety lessons like those evil liberal homosexual goat-raping atheists want us to, the kids would think it was okay to go murdering people all willy-nilly!
Think of the children!
Posted by: Joffan
|
April 7, 2010 1:38 PM
As noted at least once already, not only is the idea that one can "engage in sexual behavior.. as a victim" utterly bizarre, the only alternative of "offender" is almost as shocking.
Posted by: Joffan
|
April 7, 2010 1:43 PM
Perhaps, on reflection, the "victim or offender" phrase is this nutjob's way of saying "female or male". Or possibly the other way around - I can't force myself to think fundie for long enough to work it out.
Posted by: o-p-e
|
April 7, 2010 1:55 PM
If victim and offender are the only two roles this guys thinks there are in a sexual encounter, he is doing it wrong, very wrong.
Posted by: bbgunn071679
|
April 7, 2010 1:58 PM
Looks like Papa Southworth, father of Wisconsin Attorney General Scott Southworth, wasted some sperm in his youth.
Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach
|
April 7, 2010 2:04 PM
Best stop teaching mathematics then. After all, a bit of maths leads to physics. Physics leads to engineering. And engineering leads to nook-u-larr bombs.
Posted by: abu.iksander
|
April 7, 2010 2:10 PM
"This is more like telling kids who are too young to drive about using seatbelts"
We should also not tell kids anything about the dangers of smoking. Afterall, they are also too young to smoke. Come to think of it, we should never tell anyone anthing about narcotics or illegal drugs. Because they are illegal, after all, no one will use them.
What a turd.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
April 7, 2010 2:20 PM
Don't tell your kids why they should stay out of the street until they are old enough to cross the street alone.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
April 7, 2010 2:21 PM
This isn't teaching them to be a victim. It is teaching them not to complain about being victimized. It's important to distinguish because the latter thought leads to victim blaming.
"If the dumb helpless girl had just spoken up sooner maybe he wouldn't have killed her. See how it's really her fault for not leaving earlier?"
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
April 7, 2010 2:21 PM
So, Southworth believes "victim or offender" are the only two possibilities when it comes to sex? I'd say he's in need of sex education himself.
Posted by: stuartvo
|
April 7, 2010 2:25 PM
I don't! When you've had as many as I have, the memories all blur together.
In fact, if I had a ding on my bumper for every one I've had, err, wait, I do...
Posted by: ldcornett
|
April 7, 2010 2:27 PM
How, exactly, can a person be encouraged to engage in any behavior as a victim?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
April 7, 2010 2:42 PM
when was that? when Teddy Roosevelt was president?seriously, the Republicans have been the party of reactionary hateful assholes at least since Hoover
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
April 7, 2010 2:45 PM
not particularly well. I was DUI-ing.Posted by: Katharine
|
April 7, 2010 2:49 PM
'victim or offender'?!
Has Scott Southworth ever actually had sex?
Someone needs to hire him a prostitute, stat.
Posted by: tsg
|
April 7, 2010 2:50 PM
I would think keeping them ignorant of how not to be one would be a good start.
Posted by: Maslab
|
April 7, 2010 2:52 PM
Dear Dog no.I don't want that man multiplying.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
April 7, 2010 3:02 PM
I suspect that in Southworth's world victim=innocent boy/man preyed upon and taken advantage of by offender=slutty girl that tempts boys and men into lust and sin.
Posted by: chazlarson
|
April 7, 2010 3:11 PM
It seems to me that people like this are indirectly indicting their entire worldview.
They apparently feel that their own teachings and/or doctrine are so fragile that a few mentions of some opposing viewpoint are enough to bring the entire edifice crashing down.
A year or two ago in my little MN town, we had a few parents raise a stink about a 4th-grade event with a Harry Potter theme. I would think that people like that would relish the opportunity to demonstrate just how impenetrable their beliefs are, "Look, my kid's faith is so strong that he can be exposed to your witchcraft without succumbing!" Instead, it becomes an admission of total powerlessness in the face of two hours of games while surrounded by the thinnest of "Harry Potter" veneer.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
April 7, 2010 3:13 PM
Mass (and I don't mean the unit of measurement of matter)
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
April 7, 2010 3:16 PM
"It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks."
Well sure, why not? I'm sure there's plenty of wisdom to be imparted with regards to alcohol consumption. Not recipes, per se, but maybe the "beer before liquor" rhyme? Nobody teaches kids how to drink, that's why you have such dysfunctional attitudes towards binge drinking, and it turns people like me off to alcohol.
"
Organizedreligion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."Fixed that for Jesse. People love to criticize "organized" religion, and for good reasons, but the unorganized stuff is the same mushy thinking and doesn't have anything going for it aside from that lingering unearned priveleged status in society. And you gotta figure some of the biggest kooks out there are plenty unorganized in their sect.
"Shorter Scott Southworth:
Every time you teach teenagers about condoms, God kills a kitten."
He doesn't really strike me as a cat person.
"Sex is illegal now?"
Statutory rape?
Posted by: Maslab
|
April 7, 2010 3:19 PM
"Candy is dandy
But Liquor is quicker
And sex don't rot your teeth."
I love my family sometimes.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
April 7, 2010 3:23 PM
victim = any woman who has sex outside a christian marriage.because we all know girls don't actually like sex, they just get tricked into it by boys with empty promises.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
April 7, 2010 3:27 PM
Not really. Under FDR, the "New Deal" Democratic coalition was supported not just by Northern liberals, but also by the segregationist Southern Democrats. The most racist parts of the Deep South remained solidly Democratic until the 1960s and the civil rights movement. The leading Southern racist politicians of the era, such as George Wallace, were Democrats. In the 1940s and 50s, it was the Republicans who supported moves towards civil rights for black people, while Southern Democrats in Congress supported segregation and Jim Crow laws.
I imagine you're inclined to like FDR because of his introduction of social measures and extensive federal intervention in the economy. But this doesn't change the fact that he relied on Southern racism in order to stay in office; and that the Democrats, until the 1960s, were unquestionably the pro-segregation party.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
April 7, 2010 3:29 PM
Yeah, Minnesota is surrounded by siblings. We're too much alike to admit that we get along. Wisconsin is slightly older, Iowa is the pesky little brother. The Dakotas are the twins who came along quite late (and stick to Minnesota as closely as they can).
Unfortunately, Wisconsin does have the worst single person to have an impact on national life -- Tail Gunner Joe. Fortunately, even total flakes like Michele Bachmann don't really harm the country the way he did.
Southworth just picked a quiet week to make an ass of himself.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
April 7, 2010 3:40 PM
yes, really. I didn't, and can't, make the claim that they were the only reactionary assholes, but they've consistently been the party of reactionary asshole. Just not always the same reactionary crap. But at least from McCarthyism onwards, it's always been the Republican stand that they're gods gift to mankind, and everyone else is scum to be destroyed. And Hoover was to my knowledge also the first one to implement the "Southern Strategy", that's why I used him as an example.Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
April 7, 2010 3:44 PM
Actually it was during the 60s that the Democratic party became associated with civil rights. Until then it contained the southern democrats,
a state's rights party that was very much a bastion of reactionary hateful assholes. Republicans won those people from the democrats... and they can keep them.
Posted by: raven
|
April 7, 2010 3:50 PM
Doesn't look like the West Bend book burners got very far. The city council fired 4 members of the library board. The library still didn't do anything to the books.
Those fundies are complete idiots. It's not like kids don't know sex exists. And they don't need a library card to figure it out. These days everyone is on the internet and the fundies can't censor that.
Although they tried. In my community, the library has a large bank of internet computers. A bunch of fundie morons wanted them to put in censoring software which doesn't work anyway. The library put up a sign saying parents are responsible for monitoring their kids internet useage. They seem to have scurried back under their rocks.
Posted by: raven
|
April 7, 2010 3:57 PM
I suspect when someone wants to find Southworth they just check a few restrooms around town.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
April 7, 2010 4:05 PM
It is akin to war on drugs. This battle goes being going on for so long and no signs of the gov'ment winning.
Posted by: SteveM
|
April 7, 2010 4:07 PM
I think what he is trying to say is that children engaging in sex are legally either a victim or an offender, by definition. Not that all sex is a victim/offender situation.
Not that I am trying to defend him, just trying to parse the statement.
Posted by: Tulse
|
April 7, 2010 4:12 PM
Not if they are engaging in it with other children. My guess is that most underage sex is between two underage teens -- we used to call that "high school".
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
April 7, 2010 4:49 PM
Sounds to me like you need to take a little more time pulling into the garage, tiger.
Sneaky little boyses. Wicked, tricksy, false! They stole our preciousss!
Great, Tulse. Now I gotta inform my employer I never technically attended high school.
Posted by: tsg
|
April 7, 2010 4:49 PM
He'll be the one with the "wide stance".
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
April 7, 2010 5:02 PM
Don't worry. By Tulse's definition, not only did I never attend high school, I haven't had any more education whatsoever since then. :-(
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlZ5SUf0_EmBhfJBKb8y48djZ8Xyyzo3_Y
|
April 7, 2010 5:06 PM
Teen pregnancy rates behave proportionally to omissive sexual education. That's all that needs to be said.
People who think reducing sex ed will reduce sexual behavior are reality deniers.
But it's a simple, short step from accepting mythology as history to accepting wishes as reality. I dream of a time when people who flatly deny the world around them get to have no say in how rational people guide society. But then again, I'm not one of the former group, so I guess my dream will not affect what will keep going in wrong directions.
Posted by: raven
|
April 7, 2010 5:14 PM
There are so many things wrong with Southwarth that it is hard to know where to start.
For one thing, high school students already have sex and have for decades at least. Half of high school graduates are nonvirgins and a lot of the rest made it to third base at least.
And some wacko religious kook like Southworth telling them not to have sex is going to have no effect whatsoever.
Starting with the facts in the real world, it is far better to be knowledgeable about contraceptives than to be a pregnant teen ager or consort of such. And in fact, where contraceptive use is taught and stressed, teen age pregnancy rates are much, much lower.
If the parents in West Bend really gave a damn about their kids, Southworth would be on the next train out of town with an angry mob after him. But they don't.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
April 7, 2010 5:27 PM
Don't feel bad, Walton. In my experience once you set foot in that classroom you'll want to do a bachelor's, and then an after degree, and a master's, and a PhD, and maybe a few community college courses, and a technical degree, and some online courses, and some study abroad, and...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
April 7, 2010 5:32 PM
This guy reminds me of the famous Butch Hancock quote:
Posted by: MadScientist
|
April 7, 2010 5:50 PM
Stupid stupid Scott - the kids should be neutered; that way they'll never engage in the icky reproduction thing and the boys will never get those girl cooties.
The few folks I do know from Wisconsin are far more likely to walk up to Scott and punch him in the head though (well, more like tell him he's an idiot - but at any rate I'd bet that they don't even use teabagger tactics and that the guns in the back of their pickup trucks stay there).
Posted by: mannelijkkind
|
April 8, 2010 5:10 AM
Actually, I think it's like teaching children who are too young to drive where the break is. So that if they do not obey the rule of not driving, at least they will be able to disobey somewhat safely.
Posted by: shonny
|
April 8, 2010 7:36 AM
In large parts of today's US that would be a documentary, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Notkieran
|
April 8, 2010 9:45 AM
JoeBuddha @#8
>I call it the Ostrich Solution...
One hundred replies and nobody noticed that it's remarkably appropriate? Their solution entails everyone putting their heads in a sack and then waving the other end in the air.
And then... bohica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOHICA
Posted by: skylyre
|
April 8, 2010 11:53 AM
I wonder at what magical, responsible age Southworth decided to play victim?
Yeah don't feel bad, it's not like you dropped out :) Which would be much, much worse as you'd be yearning for some learning.
Posted by: john3141592@msn.com
|
April 8, 2010 10:27 PM
Well, PZ, my sister lives in Colorado, but she once had a boyfriend from Nebraska who said, "When I moved here I increased the IQ of two states."
I leave it to you to apply this to Wisconsin.