Dubya’s Sneaky Agenda
Bush’s sneaky agenda has driven Maine to turn down government sex education funds:
AUGUSTA — Maine has stopped accepting federal funds for an abstinence-based sex-education program, in part because federal guidelines do not allow any of the money to be used to teach so-called “safe sex” practices. The decision by Gov. John Baldacci’s administration makes Maine only the third state in the country to turn down the federal money. It comes amid a national debate over whether the government should promote only abstinence or should provide young people with information on birth control and other aspects of sexual activity.
I’m glad that someone is realizing the problem before it’s too late. Don’t get me wrong, abstinence is a worthy investment, but it should definitely be taught in conjunction with safe-sex. Statistics have already shown that abstinence education is not fool proof and that those who make a pledge of abstinence are more likely to have unprotected sex.
If Bush really cared about the safety of children and wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancies (that could lead to abortion), he should invest in safe-sex education as well as abstinence education. < sarcasm> Oh, I’m sorry… I forgot that AIDS was a disease created by God to kill gays and blacks < /sarcasm >. Perhaps that’s why Bush recently decided to kill the funding of condoms in HIV/AIDS-ridden countries.
When I was in school, I learnt about safe sex… but I also learnt that the “most effective form of birth control is abstinence”. The best religion class I ever had was when my grade 11 (1994-1995) Catholic religion teacher, Mr. Miller, informed us that there is a pleasurable alternative to intercourse… oral sex. He said that it may sound dirty, but he promised us that genitalia are some of the cleanest parts of the human body!
In addition to Mr. Miller’s teachings, teachers in the UK are now teaching oral sex as an alternative to intercourse. How very progressive of them. Why, then, can’t teachers in the US just teach safe sex along with abstinence to high school students? Why does it have to be one of the other?
I’ll tell you why. For a third post in a row, the reason has to do with Bush’s personal Theo-con agenda. So, until the end of his reign in 2008, concerned parents and doctors will have to teach their own kids/patients about safe-sex. It’s time for parents to step up and take responsibility for their children’s actions.
September 20th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
… and per all the hard-core conservatives recent comments re: Katrina, I thought the Feds “couldn’t tell the states what to do.”
The whole stance on sex and sex ed is tilted so var in the direction of the Holy Rollers that the Bush Bandwagon rolls on that I wonder what this country is going to look like if they manage to hold together as a group and continue to inflence public policy past the Bush administration’s inevitable eclipse.
Consider… who’s up for 2008? Wonder what their plank will be nailed to.
September 20th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Leb- You want to know what the US would look like if these fundies get their way? Check out the graphic novel Channel Zero…
I feel bad for the next Democrat President, whoever he/she is. He/she will have A LOT of cleaning up to do after all the damage that Bush has done already. What took a hundred years to build, Bush has been able to destroy in only five.
September 20th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Per your comment, it’s kind of interesting to reflect on the fact that in two presidential cycles we’re rolling back or significantly cutting much of LBJ’s “great society,” and FDR’s “new deal.” And, simultaneously, we’re granting huge financial benefits to the richest corporate and private elements of our society. If it follows true to form, the net effect could be dramatic, in terms of creating a highly stratified monetized vs. unmonied “class” system in this country. Sort of like Mexico.
Yay. I always wanted to live in a third-world country.
September 20th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Main Entry: bush
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: shrubs
Synonyms: backcountry, backwoods, bramble, briar, brush, chaparral, creeper, forest, hedge, hinterland, jungle, plant, scrub, scrubland, shrubbery, thicket, vine, wild, woodland
Never saw the symomyms you listed…. Yes safe sex should be tought in conjuntion with abstinence. Unfortunately in most sex ed classes abstinence is just a side note, a thing of the past. As for Bush cutting funding for condoms in other countries.. Why is it the responsibility of the US to supply condoms to other countries??
September 20th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
Kitka- You should really feel sorry for the people of the US, if a democratic president is elected next term. HE will turn our country into a ball-less country, that is so busy sucking off other countries that ours will turn to crap. But heck all the welfare recipients and tree hugers will do fine.
September 20th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Em- The key here about Bush’s spending cuts for condoms is the fact that he has not actually cut the funding, but has added a new condition to the spending of the funds. Just as he has added a new condition that the same government funds that were once used for safe-sex education together with abstinence education must now be used ONLY for abstinence education, the spending to HIV/AIDS programs in Africa now has the added condition that the funds cannot be used to purchase condoms.
It sounds to me like he doesn’t care whether people live or die. With the frightening rape rates in South Africa, he is not helping rid the world of AIDS.
September 20th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Em- If anything, I feel sorry for the people of the US right now… they have no idea how badly the current Republican president is already sucking off other countries and driving his own country further into debt. Clinton worked hard to reduce the US debt… and Bush is completely destroying that honourable legacy.
September 20th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Per South African rape, check this out:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5606452.html
September 20th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
LEB- I got it covered:
http://www.mskitka.com/2005/09/02/french-ticklers-and-south-african-hook-ers/
Btw, I added you to my links list… you deserve it.
September 20th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
Yes our debt has grown, well with all the programs and such Clinton put into effect. Oh and how about the attack on our country and now a hurricane that took out more than a few cities. Now you think it is bad to cut funding for condoms in Africa… Makes sense.. Why again is the US responsible for ridding the world of Aids? I thought the no gay marriage thing was doing his part there.. (Sarcasm) By the way using honourable legacy and Clinton in the same sentence, may possibly only happen on an erog site.
September 20th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Sorry Em, you are WAY wrong on that count. The deficit was actually ELIMINATED under Clinton’s watch, meaning no new debt was being generated. In fact, when Clinton left office, he left behind a budget surplus. The Bush Administration is solely to blame for the growing deficit and debt. Research it
September 20th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Per Em’s question re: what is the responsibility for the US Government to spend money to supply other countries (Africans) with condoms?
The money is for AIDS prevention; the Bush money requires that it be used to promote abstinence, which, obviously, has not worked to date. So putting this sort of moralistic string on the money is illogical and naive. And it’s using the money as a vehicle for pandering to and exporting a minority American Christian Conservative agenda which seems fundamentally inappropriate to me. Not to mention completely ignoring how “reality” exists in these countries; the part of the Post article that references Brazil’s response is a good contrast.
But, Em, your question suggests the more basic question “responsibility to whom?”
Insofar as the government’s “responsibility” per se is concerned, compassion aside, what goes around comes around… and we are “accountable,” if you will, to the rest of the world, in the sense that if we don’t project a sense of realism and consistency in international relations, then neither will they… and we will drift closer to the chaos that plagued international relations in the earlier part of this century.
Turning the question around and contrasting it, I’m not sure I see a “responsibility” for the US spending billions of dollars on aide to Israel to build fortress-communities on the West Bank, but we did, and if we can do that with no strings attached, then I guess in fairness we shoud be able to throw a few million for condoms and AIDS drugs at the Africans.
September 20th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
And 9/11 should have no effect on a budget? Also, there is a difference between a budget and a deficit as you know, Clinton didn’t leave things in the black
September 20th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Em, per Kitka’s response re: the budget surplus, she’s absolutely right. And I’m surprised you’re not well aware of that, being the staunch Republican that you are, because it was heavily discussed and debated well before 9/11 helped tank the economy.
Bush in effect gave away the budget surplus when he enacted the tax cuts to the rich, and the pittance bribe he paid out to the rest of us (did you get your $200 “tax dividend?”). His point, as he put it, was that he was giving the surplus back to the people, that “they knew better than the government what to do with their money.”
I thought Clinton’s response to deficit spending during the recession was interesting: he said he would have spent even more, but he would have targeted the spending and the tax cuts on the middle class, where the would have made the most difference to the most people, to drive demand. Call it “trickle up economics.” A deficit during a recession is unavoidable; you simply don’t have tax revnue on a nonexistent economic base. But after recovery, you don’t keep spending… as Bush and the Republicans have pushed, almost unbelievably, far from their stated “conservative” beliefs.
Read this article, please; I’d really appreciate hearing your take on it. It speaks directly to what we, as the younger-than-the-baby-boomers will inherit as part of the Bush legacy.
http://www.harpers.org/TheIcebergCometh.html
September 20th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Kitka, thank you for the link, and the compliment… and likewise, on both counts.
September 20th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Per looking forward to 2008… here’s a worst case scenario for you… Cheney decides he really wants to run.
More likely, right after the 2006 elections Cheney will resign for personal or health reasons and Bush and the Republican leadership will select someone that’s has a chance at keeping “the base” together through the 2008 election. That’s the only thing that makes sense if they value the incumbent advantage. Otherwise it’s a horse race with an even start, and why would they risk that when they can tilt the playing field ever so slightly in their direction? They risk civil war within their own ranks if they don’t choose a contender for the ticket in a back-room selection beforehand.
I wonder who it might be?
As for the Dems, I don’t think they’re a shoe-in unless “the base” falls apart. With Dean in the chair at the DNC, I don’t have much hope that they’ll field a contender. They’ll have to offer a plank that’s better than “we’re not Bush.” Hillary would be far too risky a choice, and would probably drive moderate-conservative votes that still have a bad taste of Clinton in their mouths (so to speak) toward any Republican candidate. She might have a shot for a VP slot, but even then, she’s far too big a lightning rod (cough) for conservatives.
Whatever happens, it’ll be interesting.
September 20th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Per Bush’s tax cuts, Em, consider this, for an alternative view on how Bush “helped” the US economy with his tax cuts; you might want to run this past an economist friend, and see what they think.
During the Clinton 2nd term, the budget surplus was paying down the national debt. That means that all those foreigners that hold US Treasury bonds - funding our debt - started getting cold hard dollars - cash, which they had to do something with… they *had* to reinvest it, and the most logical place is in the US, in stocks, and bonds. Or onshore businesses or whatever. So the net effect was to (probably) drive investment of stagnant dollars (parked in Treasuries) back into the economy. It also freed up those dollars to pursue other (commercial) paper debt, funding American corporations. It freed up a *tremendous* amount of credit which always amps up the economy. That money has to do something.
When Bush killed off the surplus with the tax cuts, he stopped the reinvestment cycle, and by increasing the national debt, he started pulling those dollars back into US Treasuries at a very fast pace… and, with a recession on, the safest place to park dollars is in US Treasury bonds - given the choice between the market and bonds, in a recession, the money heads for the bonds.
Finally, by enacting tax cuts, he made it (in effect) more expensive for investors to incur “tax losses,” i.e. investments in risky ventures were using their dollars, not the government’s, because they couldn’t write off the losses. Tax cuts tend to drive investment toward lower-risk investment - bonds, safe-haven “blue chip” investments, and the like. In effect, parking the money. Higher taxes tend to promote a “use it or lose it” mentality, which amps up riskier investment, like in Internet or technology stocks. Some of the investements I remember my dad considering in the 70s, facing 50% tax rates, were truly bizarre. The effect is marginal, but it’s there.
So it seems to me that (a) the “Clinton effect” pushed dollars back into the US (and out of bonds) (taxation was very, very close to the H. W. Bush’s levels; taxes did not increase substantially under Clinton at all) and inspired a less risk-averse investment climate; (b) the “Bush effect” pulled the dollars back out of the economy and parked them back in bonds, and promoted a risk-averse investment strategy.
Which, in the end, may have been the “tipping point” for the recession to go truly badly for everyone. Think about it.
September 21st, 2005 at 11:20 am
All I will say is when the next term starts if a dem is elected into an office we will all be here at Kitkas place and I will be saying I told you so. A dem is sure to further run us into the ground, if nothing else by funding a bunch of useless social programs that continue to make people rely on the government instead of being self sufficient. Pardon the run-on sentence.
September 21st, 2005 at 11:26 am
Em- We shall see what happens. See you in 2008!
September 21st, 2005 at 11:27 am
Yeah! What LEB said!
;-)
A deficit means that you budget shows you are borrowing money more then you are taking it in. Clinton left us with a surplus, meaning that more money was coming into the government. That money was being used to pay down the debt. Yes, the debt still existed when Clinton left, but like Leb said, they were using the surplus to pay that down. Good stuff.
Bush changed all that for the worst. His budgets are losing RECORD amounts of money, WORSENING the debt.
Now, like all good republicans, you are whipping out the 9/11. Yes, 9/11 of course hurt the economy. BUT given that the country was going into war, always an expensice proposition, Bush had a choice of either cutting programs or forgetting about tax cuts.
He instead chose to do neither, which is why I don’t like his administration so much. Instead he decresed taxes, AND increased social spending. MORE THEN CLINTON.
And don’t start on how “crazy liberals” in Congress and Sentae are preventing him from cutting programs. That is not true, simply because the repubs have a majority in both legislative branches.
NEXT!!!
September 21st, 2005 at 12:23 pm
[…] About | Blog | Downloads | Links « Dubya’s Sneaky Agenda […]
September 21st, 2005 at 12:54 pm
There’s an old joke that circulated around Moscow for decades… it goes something like this:
A new premier, freshly selected, went into his office on the first day of his reign. He found two envelopes on the desk. One read “in case of major national emergency, open first.” The other read “in case of second major national emergency, open next.”
Predictably, a major catastrophy came upon Mother Russia, and everyone wanted the premier’s head. So he broke open the first letter. It said “Blame everything on me, your predecessor.” He did, and everything eventually settled down.
Just as predictably, another major catastrophy came upon the motherland, so the premier, at his wit’s end, broke open the 2nd letter. It said “find two white envelopes…”
Best of luck to everyone in 2008. Whatever happens, it’ll be interesting; and, despite Em’s dire predictions, I think we all know better; whomever wins, Republican or Democrat, they’ll inherit the usual raft of nasty reality problems vs. theology or idealogy, and have to dap dance their way through them.
September 21st, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Em, one final thought (really):
Consider this: the AARP as a group tends to vote as a block, and to vote - very strongly - to protect their interests. You can bet yer shiny Republican ass that as the baby boomers retire, this age group and political body is going to hold very, very tightly to their “promised” social security and medicare benefits. The size of the current Republican “base” pales by comparison to this group; go check the demographics yourself, don’t take my word for it.
Bush upped the costs for Medicare, and his “reforms” will merely divert existing social security tax income away from paying through; the so-called “personal accounts” won’t help the baby boom generation’s costs, they’ll help the next, mabye a little. But he’s accelerated the day when social security goes “bust.” Roughly 2015 last time I checked.
So I’d guess that, Repub or Dem, whomever is elected into office around about that time will do so by promoting robust retirement benefits for the AARP - and funding that will be a major headache. They’re gonna be the new base - roughly 30% of the US population. Either we print bales of money and have inflation, or we tax the hell out of everybody; money’s gotta come from somewhere. Japan, France, and others face even worse demographic problems of roughly the same time-frame; they won’t be there to fund us as they are today.
The Harper’s article I referenced above - I truly hope you read it - has an excellent quote from the Japanese Minister of Finance on this very problem. “Very big problem,” he says. Indeed.
Adopting the rhetorical stand that “no matter dems will run the country into the ground” is just pure infantile ignorance - it’s the Chicken Little philosophy. I strongly urge you to research this, and understand the real dynamics and economics, don’t take my word for it - learn yourself what you need to know, quit repeating rhetoric that’s been handed to you, cut from whole red cloth.
Good luck to you, and godspeed.
September 21st, 2005 at 1:29 pm
I apologise for the ferocity of that last remark, Em. It’s just that I’ve come to expect a little more rigor out of your thoughts than partisan rhetoric.