I get wayyyy to worked up over politics, and tonight, just as I was fuming over certain things (like why teenage pregnancy is suddenly no big deal to certain political groups) I saw this great video by Steve Colbert.
I also found a supremely interesting article by the associated press, which can be read here, about truth and lies in politics today (as one of my favorite bloggers put it, “it’s a report from the AP, not some spooky liberal blog that wants to kill babies.”)
Anyway, I plan to go back to sticking my head in the sand and trying to avoid political events as they unfold. I did not watch either of the conventions, and I cling to what my dear friend Margo McNabb says: “Real politics are local.” I’m sorry to say I was ill and had 3 ill people to look after during local elections this year (September 2nd is such a strange date for elections) and so I missed them, but I do agree with her and hope NOT to miss them again. And it’s true; what the board of supervisors does in Tucson affects my life a lot more than distant Hill politics.
Ok. So, I am taking a deep, liberal bleeding-heart yogic breath in and trying to let go of the fury, but before I do, I have to include this article as well: Praise for Pregnant Teen Shows Double Standard, where the author considers what the rhetoric would be like if Bristol Palin were a pregnant black teen instead of a white one. Okay! I’m done!
Honestly, though, growing up in a split family — my dad got married at 17 as well, and divorced within 10 years, as half of shot-gun marriages do (more than twice the national average) — I have to say I feel very sorry for Bristol Palin. Maybe this was the only way she could get her mother, who is working two jobs, caring for a special needs child and now campaigning for a national race under the guise to family values, to actually pay attention to her.
Guess what Bristol — you got it.
Tags: family values, Palin, Politics, teen pregnancy, vice president
September 26th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I think if the Democrats really cared so much about Bristol Palin as a pregnant teen, they’d stop making such a big deal about it. No one else is. If you really do feel sorry for her, why make it an issue? Why talk about it all the time? (Speaking to you, and to the media as well.) She’s seventeen, for heaven’s sake, not 13 or 14. My perspective after seeing 17-year olds deliver every day at work is 1) they are not nearly as whiny as women in their 20’s, and, seriously, 2) they are proud, scared, and happy to be moms. Just like anyone else who has a baby at any age.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Really? Only Democrats are making a big deal about the pregnant teenage daughter of a woman who may be the next vice president, or possibly president, of the United States? Do I really think that, if Barak Obama had a teenage daughter who was pregnant, Republicans would just ignore it? That’s ridiculous. Of course it’s a big deal, along with her many scandals during her tenure as Governor, because someone who is attempting to hold the second highest office in the land should be held to certain standards. I can imagine the “morality” issue if Palin were a Democrat! But I digress.
Glad to hear you support teen pregnancy, though. I’ll keep that in mind when Maya is 17.
October 10th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
No, if Barack Obama had a teen daughter who was pregnant, the Republicans would be all over it, but that wouldn’t be appropriate either. It would be like asking Hillary (if she were running) if Chelsea was sexually active during her teen years at the White House. Just not appropriate, and possibly not relevant.
FYI, I suspect that many children of many prominent people all over the world are sexually active, so it’s not fair to only make a big deal of the ones who get pregnant. From a moral standpoint, the issue shouldn’t be the pregnancy; it should be the unmarried sex in general. But making a person’s kids immoral activity into a litmus test might exclude just about everyone from politics.
I think it’s interesting you think politicians (or at least the Pres. and VP) should be held to a higher standard. I’d agree if we were talking about a pastor. Food for thought (for me).
LOL… if Maya gets pregnant at 17 I’m sure we will all support her. Doesn’t mean we will encourage her to do so. Maya, if you ever read this, please don’t be offended.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
The issue really isn’t about whether or not Bris Palin is pregnant; it’s about her mother’s declaration that telling teenagers not to have sex, and then making sure teens do not have any access to birth control of any kind, should be enough. She set up her own glass house by limiting teen access to birth control, and the result — her own daughter becoming pregnant — is a perfect example of the folly of trying to control the actions of teenagers through guilt and humiliation rather than by offering them choices and letting them make their own decisions.
If Chelsea Clinton were pregnant at 17 — well, I would be surprised. Astonished, actually, since I would imagine her parents would provide her birth control and direction in her life. In that way, her life would not be limited by having a baby without a husband or anyone (other than her parents) to support her. Yes, leaders all over the world have sexually active children! And they are smart enough to spend 50 cents on a condom and show their child how to use it.
As for Maya — while I hope she’s not sexually active until she’s 40, I would never want her to be in the place Bristol Palin is in — or any other pregnant teen, no matter how cheerful — so it goes without saying that I would always want to know what’s going on in her life, and I would provide her birth control or help her find it on her own.
This business of keeping useful vaccinations from our teenaged girls, or telling them not to have sex, making sure they can’t get to any birth control and thinking that’s the end of it, is ridiculous at best and barbaric at worst. To have someone who thinks that this method is a good, Christian idea, even as her own child proves her wrong by getting pregnant without benefit of husband or home — to have this person as the vice president of this country makes me want to throw up. So there’s some food for thought.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:57 am
So… what is wrong with teaching abstinence? It is the only sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy and the spreading of STD’s after all. I don’t see how one political figure’s circumstance changes this fact.
I wasn’t aware that if you aren’t handing out condoms and encouraging sexual activity, then you are limiting teen access to birth control.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Nothing wrong with teaching abstinence AND making sure birth control is available. Most of my friends whose parents provided birth control to them chose not to have pre-marital sex until far into their 20s, and some chose not to have it at all (while my Christian friends often “rebelled” early and some also had babies early, cutting their education short). Handing out condoms does not equal encouraging sexual activity; that is a slippery-slope argument and is not logical. Take that logic to guns, for example, and you get giving someone a gun = making someone a killer, or giving someone a gun encourages them to shoot somebody, which is not a logical argument either. Or should we limit teen access to guns, because seeing a gun might encourage them to shoot each other with it?
The whole idea of birth control encouraging sexual relations is simply a fallacy. People don’t have sex because they have birth control; people have sex because they are human, and sex is a human need. A condom in the hand does not eradicate closely-held religious or moral beliefs; it’s just a piece of rubber. What we don’t know is what is in the minds of others, nor can we control young adults (as is obvious in this case), so I do not see the unkindness in providing options. After all, birth control is far better than abortion, so shouldn’t we make sure it’s available?
October 14th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Birth control is widely available. Nearly every convenience store/gas station/grocery store in the country has it. Parents can pursue other avenues of birth control for their children if they so desire.
I did not mean to infer that birth control = encouraging sexual activity. However, you cannot prove that your friends that were provided birth control decided to not to have pre-marital sex because they were given birth control nor that your Christian friends chose to have sex because they were not given birth control. If the situation was reversed, the results probably would have been the same.
I may be misunderstanding what you are against. I am against sex education programs at schools that teach that there is nothing wrong with pre-marital sex, you should do whatever feels good, AND hand out condoms. Not to mention all the other homosexual, bisexual, and transexual things they teach that I would prefer not to show my children. I am not against birth control. Is Sarah Palin?
October 14th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Off topic… because you mentioned “keeping useful vaccinations from our teenaged girls”…
Are you aware that when Gov. Perry signed in the executive order for mandatory Gardasil, it had only been FDA approved for 8 months? Who makes brand new drugs /mandatory/ for children?? USA Today brought up several related cautions: http://www.usatoday.com/news/o.....view_x.htm
The mandatory issue in Texas was opposed not only by religious groups who thought that it would encourage teen sexual activity, but also by the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatricians.
Texas did not make Gardasil mandatory for schoolgirls (and I think only D.C. has so far), but to my knowledge no politician has prevented any parent who wanted it from getting it for their daughter. Pediatricians and OB’s are happy to provide it, given a discussion of risks/benefits with the parents, who should be allowed to choose whether or not their children receive new drugs (from the company that gave us Vioxx).
I’m interested in this as a study in how medical issues affect vulnerable/ethnic populations (as only parents who are fluent in English and literate would be able to opt out, even many people who are literate don’t understand that HPV causes cervical cancer, and because in Texas the rate of Hispanic and African American women who get Pap smears is low and their rate of cervical cancer is high.) So, is mandating a brand new vaccine the answer for these vulnerable populations? Wouldn’t that be similar to doing testing on prisoners or people of color?
October 15th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
You know, this started as an entertaining post on political humor.
Matt: “…handing out condoms and encouraging sexual activity” sounds exactly like you equate handing out condoms with encouraging sexual activity. Nobody can ever prove why anyone does or does not have sex, which is why a full sex education program, with information on birth control as well as abstinence, is good policy — and one that Palin absolutely does not and did not support for her state.
In fact, that is exactly my point: you can’t control what other people do, or know what they plan, so it’s best to cover all the basics. As for a “there is nothing wrong with pre-marital sex, you should do whatever feels good, AND hand out condoms” sex ed program, I have never, ever seen — other than in right-wing propaganda — a sex ed program like you describe. Is that what they had in your school?
Also, you can say I can’t “prove” one method by observing my friends; in this same vein, you can’t “prove” that abstinence-only sex education encourages kids not to have sex, either. There are too many variables to this equation. Again, a good reason to provide information on everything.
Elisa: It is surprising how you insist that minorities are not discriminated against…but then you insist that they are. I will be happy to get the data for you on minority loan issues after this (full-time graduate) semester is over. As for vaccines, they are an issue that covers the board, but my comment was directed to those who claimed, in complete absence of medical reason, that their girls did not need to be vaccinated because they would NEVER engage in pre-marital sex, and that to vaccinate them would be to encourage them to do so. I still think that is completely ridiculous.
As for the issue of vaccine safety, that is a tiresome topic that I am continually discussing with people — doctors, friends, neighbors, random people I meet — and there aren’t any answers. I tend to think people over-demonize it; my pediatrician points out that many people who worry about vaccines don’t worry about other serious health hazards, like how constant x-rays and security systems can affect the health of their child, or what exactly is in a can of Chef Boyardee (scary!).
There is also a difference between vaccines that are given to a 3 kg baby and a vaccine given to a 40 kg 12-year-old, in that the body is closer to that of an adult and can take a greater amount of risk/medicine. I was under the impression that the vaccines were for junior high aged girls of 13 and 14 rather than 5 year olds for precisely this reason, but I’m not well researched in the issue. But, just as I don’t assume morality is related to ethnic background, nor do I think that giving vaccines to pubescent girls is the same as testing prisoners — and I’m not sure how that computes in the first place. Was the idea to pull ethnicity forms and only give the vaccine to the Mexican kids? Or the Chinese kids? Because if that is the case, then of course it is ridiculous and unreasonable.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
They /were/ thinking of mandating it for immigrants (I’m not sure who… the State Dept? Whoever can make that sort of rule). That got the same sort of outcry but from totally different groups (a la “racial profiling” and “discriminating against poor immigrants in favor of well-to-do immigrants”).
The vaccine is approved for girls as young as 9 and up to age 26; here, they were thinking 6th grade (11-12 year olds). It is only recommended for girls who are not yet sexually active.
It was studied for 5 years, so they know it is effective for at least that long, but no long term studies yet, either of efficacy or side-effects. In 11-12 year olds, it was only tested in about 200-300 girls. IMO, that is too few to be mandating it in a state that has large non-English speaking and/or illiterate populations. The idea that people could opt out would benefit English-speaking/literate people more so than Spanish-only speakers. The good news is, that this didn’t happen, and probably won’t until some better numbers are in place.
I’m a big proponent of vaccines, and have received multiple doses of just about every one available in the US except anthrax and typhoid. Ethan has gotten them all so far on schedule, and I would probably go ahead and get this one for my daughter if I had one, but by then, it would be well tested (on someone else’s kids). I think people should be allowed to make their own informed decision about this rather than being /required/ to make their daughters guinea pigs.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Another thought: neither one of is trying to antagonize you. You are one of the smartest, most articulate people I know, so I am really trying to figure out what lies behind the viewpoints you express, as they’re typical of many Obama-supporters/Palin-bashers.
I don’t want to get into an online argument with the people who get on blogs and call people names, and can’t spell, and never put forth a valid argument (so, picked you instead). Hope you’re not feeling attacked. We’re loving the opportunity to examine another viewpoint, but if you want to call it quits, I’m fine with that. Just let me know. Feel free to offer a rebuttal. (And go ahead and send me the housing discrimination info at at the end of the semester, as I read a critique of some original studies/articles/reporting, so I’m interested). I hope your semester is going well. Mine is going better now that I’m out of the first trimester and actually have some energy. Maybe I’ll even study some soon.
October 16th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Elisa told me to stop harassing you. So, I wrote a blog post about it instead at http://conservativeeconomics.blogspot.com/
October 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Elisa, I actually am somewhat a compulsive debater; it is one of the difficulties of being married to your brother, in that neither of us likes to “lose” an argument, regardless of the cost…
I still believe the risk vs. reward view of preventing teen sex is a fallacy (I read your extensively documented post, Matt) but like all opinions, this is not just an objective observation but also based on my own experience. I knew people (plural) who had sex (and one who got pregnant) because they were unaware of basic science, like that sperm can survive for 24 hours outside the body in a moist environment. Another was unaware of basic anatomy and what defined sex, so this person didn’t know s/he was actually having sex, and still claimed virginity.
I also come from a place that did not have any sex education — it was literally outlawed, and one speaker who talked about human reproductive science at a school assembly was banished from the town, his books were seized and burned (including my copy that I had bought with my own money), and all the schools on his “circuit” were called and warned. Add to this the fact that about 20% of my female peers got pregnant in high school. By the time I graduated high school, I was among the minority — only about 15% of my class were still virgins (about 7 of the 57 students). Considering the fact that Idaho is one of the most conservative states out there (it has only voted Democratic in presidential elections once, before the 1950s, I believe) and that the majority of the students at my school were religious, it is my experience that “abstinence-only” education does not work.
Marti has been telling me I should watch this video by Jonathan Haidt on why conservatives are conservatives and why liberals are liberals; ironically, it is presented from a liberal perspective (many religions are discussed, rather than a focus on Christianity, for example). Nevertheless I think it is interesting — and as a liberal, I always enjoy “interesting,” even if I don’t always agree — because I have walked the razor edge between conservatism (my entire family votes Republican except for 3 of my 18 aunts) and liberalism.
None of your or Matt’s arguments — or fervor — is unknown to me, but I also find it difficult to explain my own perspectives, because they are strongly related to my own experience. Once I saw things from a certain perspective, there was really no going back; even living in uber-conservative, rural Japan, where I was expected to bow and be subservient to all men (including male teens), I could not escape that objective viewpoint. I bowed, knowing in my heart that this was just something cultural and not truth; it did not define who I was, or who I am. In the same way, in issues like teen sex, I find it interesting that the risk of societal cost (every child born to a poor and uneducated teen results in millions of lost revenue to society, for example, in care, feeding, insurance, etc.) is worth the very small sliver of people who might choose not to have sex because there is no birth control.
Clearly, virginity is “truth” to you, but to me it’s just a part of childhood; I would want a child to wait to have sex because of the psychological and emotional cost, as well as the significant risks, and not because virginity is a good in and of itself. I do not believe that pre-marital sex is “sinful;” to me, it is just a bad idea. Therein lies the difference. I know that many would jump to the argument, “Well, then, your child will _(insert terrible thing here)_ because of your moral ambiguity,” but I know that isn’t true, either; as I mentioned previously, that particular result has not been in the realm of my experience, and in fact I find the opposite.
Anyway, here is the video, and I will be happy to publish any other comments or rebuttals, but I may force myself not to respond.
I do need to do my homework, and in this way I freely give both of you the opportunity for the last word.
October 18th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Thanks for your response Missy. True, you have had personal experience that has led you to your beliefs about sex education. There is probably equally opposite experiences with others. Our experiences are fairly limited in scope of course. I myself had no definite experience either way. Weird things happen and it would be impossible to form some kind of a conclusion from my experiences.
We can probably just end up agreeing to disagree