Do abstinence-based educators lie to students?

Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) is at it again, asserting that students are being presented with inaccurate information in some federally funded abstinence-only sex ed programs. Only problem is, are the things Waxman is complaining about actually more accurate than not? Waxman and his teach 'em everything brethren miss the forest for the trees.

For example, Waxman cite the following "misconceptions": A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person." Ok, granting that this is poorly stated from a semantic standpoint, isn't the point that this is the timeframe in which base cognitive functioning comes "on-line" so to speak?

HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears. There is still a debate about whether or not this is possible; while the viral load in such fluids is extremely low, the virus is still present in such bodily secretions, and thus the possibility, however slim, must still be said to exist. A scare tactic? Perhaps to an extent, but we are talking about something here for which there is no cure.


• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse. Again, huge debate here over the actual failure rate. But even if the correct failure rate is 3 percent as is claimed by the government researchers that Rep. Waxman cites, isn't the true point that in an estimated 3 (or 31!!!) out of every 100 instances when condoms are used in an instance when one hetereosexual partner has HIV that there is a protection failure! How many such acts of intercourse take place even on a daily basis? The odds, no matter what they are, are not good here. Condoms are not a good solution. Besides, this is assuming perfect usage anyway. Do you want to assume "perfect usage" when it's your son's or daughter's life on the line? Not to mention the amazing discrepancies between the "HIV failure rate" and the "pregancy failure rate" for condoms--we are really supposed to believe that condoms are better at preventing HIV infection than they are at preventing pregancy, when a sperm is way bigger than a virus? Nor does this mention the differences in potential for infection between men and women--when that condom fails, it is the woman partner, by virtue of her biological makeup, who is much more at risk for infection.


One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said. Ok, first question. Which textbook, and what, exactly, does it say? My textbooks say many things, and not all of those things are factually accurate. The writers of an obstetrics textbook may not have an agenda in how they frame or report things? Get real. The evidence on the psychological and physical effects of selective abortion is out there, and it shows that abortion is profoudly damaging.

Maybe we need further debate on who exactly is "lying to our kids"?

One great resource to check out is Dr. Meg Meeker's excellent book Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids

A Brief note on Iraqi elections

President Bush is entirely right to stick to his guns when it comes to the January 30th date for Iraqi elections. The show must go on; we must do what we said we were going to do, when we said we were going to do it. When are people goign to learn that this President is a man who does what he says he is going to do?

History has shown us repeatedly that you hold elections anyway, even when a situation is not ideal. Were elections during the U.S. Civil War illegitimate because not everyone participated in them? Of course not.

Have the vote, claim a victory, and work out the remaining kinks afterward.

Alan Greenspan for Sec. of Treasury?

George Will, in an article yesterday, argues persuasively that Greenspan is the right man for the job, because Social Security reform is the top pressing issue and Greenspan, whom Will calls " a black hole of charisma", would inject an air of sobriety into any discussion over reforming Social Security. Will argues that the job of Sec. of Treasury is to advocate for the President's economic policies, and that Greenspan would be persuasive on numerous fronts because he is respected.

Some might question whether removing Greenspan from his present post at the Fed is wise, though this is really not much of an issue, since the potential successors to Greenspan at the Fed are very much in his mold and would follow the same path that Greenspan has so productively followed. Greenspan has had a great run at the Fed, and will have left a great legacy there; he can accomplish even more good for this country's economic future by helping to guide us through the treachorous waters of reform toward social security and tax systems that make the most economic sense and will lead to the most economic vitality for all people.

Great article on federalism today

Jonah Goldberg's column today begins with this great line:
"Federalism! It's not just for conservatives anymore!"Goldberg's point is that federalism is the way around this
"I'm packing my bags and moving to Canada" attitude that some liberals
now have after the election. He writes, "As conservatives have known for decades, federalism is the defense against an offensive federal government".

Check out Goldberg's Dorm Example, which is one of the best explanations of the true benefits of republican federalism I have ever read or heard. It is just simply great.

Goldberg also makes a compelling argument that "Federalism is...morally superior because it requires the consent of the governed at the most basic level".

One of the best lines Goldberg has in the piece is the following:
"But now, all of a sudden, because they can't have their way at the federal level anymore, the incandescently brilliant logic of federalism has become apparent: Liberals in blue states can live--like liberals! Wahoo!"

Goldberg is also correct to point out that we conservatives are now doing things that run counter to this solution, such as the Bush administration arguing against California's medical marijuana law, moving ahead toward a constitutional prohibition on gay marriage, and increasing federal control over education. For this to truly work, what is good for the goose must be good for the gander. We conservatives need to decide whether we really want federalism or not, recognizing that if we don't argue for it now, it won't be an option for us when the tables are turned. We need to hear Goldberg's conclusion loud and clear: "It's not that the White House doesn't have good arguments for its policies. But it is impossible to restore
federalism unless you start by allowing states to make decisions you dislike. Otherwise, it's not federalism, it's opportunism [The emphasis is mine]".