Hi, Barney Frank here on behalf of my good friends at Capital Investments.
You know, in these troubled economic times, it is reassuring to know that there is one company that continues to grow and that really knows how to watch over your money.
Capital Investments.
With 3.4 trillion dollars in assets and backed by the experts at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you can rest comfortably knowing that your money is the hands of the biggest, most solid establishment in the world.
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Our team consists of hundreds of thousands of financial experts who make sure that your money is safely and soundly put to use in such diversified investments as education, health care, our youth, ACORN, bridges in Alaska, fish farms in Mississippi, sex education, bailouts, condoms, Nancy Pelosi's private jet, services for "undocumented workers", fact-finding trips for our political leaders, research into the mating habits of the tse-tse flies in Africa, but the list is way too long to mention.
So put your money into the only company that is guaranteed to grow-Capital Investments. Pick up the phone and call now. Congressional staffers are standing by for your call. Or better yet, just wait for April 15th when automatic payroll deductions will make it quick and easy.
Capital Investments. Tell 'em Barney sent you.
Capital Investments
(202) 3825-968 (Hey, kids! Crack the secret code and win a prize!)
* No, we don't have an 800 number. Nothing's free, you know.
28 comments:
I would not trust them with a rabid dog, let alone my money!
Yeah...paying for sex education is stupid. It's much better when people are ignorant about that. Trust me Gary, you're going to pay for it one way or the other. What do you think will cost more? Education or the results of millions of unwanted children?
Oh, and I know that you conservatives like to mock all things science (like volcano activity monitoring) but realize that something that might seem trivial (like tsetse fly mating studies) is often a first step towards practical applications like preventing and curing diseases.
Of course, you will probably defend your mocking of these things as being a spoof - but you're not spoofing those who mock those things - you're just mocking those things.
Lance,
All this sex education we have in schools is really working isn't it? What is our illegitamate birth rate these days, 40%?
And as for those tse-tse fly studies ($250,00 about 20 years ago), are we going to pay for everything we can think of just because it might do some good? At what point do we run out of money? Hell, here in calif, we did that already and we still keep spending.
Hey, wait a minute! maybe with those tse-tse flies, we can discover a cure for malaria.
Gary, you can thank the revival of "abstinence only" education for the current rise in teen pregnancies. However, this was just a recent spike, as it had been going down for quite some time - thanks mainly to sex education. I know though; don't confuse the issue with things like facts.
As for the tsetse fly thing, you're actually confusing it with the study on fruit flies (which Sarah Palin mocked). That particular study has led to advances in the understanding of autism. Do you know any people with autism, Gary? I do. Doesn't seem like such a waste of money to me.
Tell you what, next time you're sick and the doctor offers you (or your loved ones, for that matter) some kind of medicine or treatment, first ask if these treatments were the result of any kind of studies that involved various lower species of animals that were funded by the government. If the answer is yes, then be sure to refuse it, okay?
Gary, why don't you do yourself a favor - at least one day a week, instead of watching or listening to some moron pundit spout his ignorance, try reading an article or two from Scientific American. They have stuff online, ya know.
The thing is, this is my biggest complaint with the "conservative" movement in this country - their complete and total ignorance and disregard for the scientific process. They think that just because they don't know what the purpose of a particular study, there therefore must not be one. If you "conservatives" had your way, this country would go right back into the Dark Ages. Is it any wonder that we're so behind the rest of the world when it comes to science?
Abstinance only for the rise in reen pregancies? I don't know about that one. How about the mocking of traditional valuesd over the past generation or so?
The tse-tse fly thing I was referring to goes farther back than whatecer you are referring to.
Who said I had anything against science? I just pointed out one scientific venture. Isn't there anything that we can decide not to spend tax-payer money on?
I wouldn't credit the drop in teen pregnancies on Sex Education, but in the availability of effective birth control.
I have heard horror stories from young men and women on what their teacher would teach in sex eduction. About 1/2 the time the information would be false. If this is what we want our teens to learn, then we have a serious problem.
And why is it that when I was in High School (I know, during the Stone Age), and they taught us sex education, they never explained the different positions that were available. Do you know that my hubby and I had to experiment for days to discover how many exciting positions we could do? Is that nice for them to ignore a fundamental right of a couple? Should not the Kama Sutra be taught?
To be fair, I have never been an advocate for abstinence only. Not only does it not work (ask Bristol Palin) but it treats a teenage like a child and not like the budding adult he or she will become.
I want my children to be taught truth, even if it hurts. And the truth is that pregnancies can be prevented by more than just saying no. There are many different effective methods of birth control, and our young adults need to know about them all.
Then the Kama Sutra. It makes a great wedding gift!
Abstinance only for the rise in reen pregancies? I don't know about that one.
Of course you don't. You're too mired in right-wing punditry. Try reading the paper - that's where I learned about it.
How about the mocking of traditional valuesd over the past generation or so?
If "traditional values" encourage ignorance, then they deserve to be mocked.
The tse-tse fly thing I was referring to goes farther back than whatecer you are referring to.
Okay, well the "mating habits" thing was the one that Palin talked about, and that was with the fruit fly. Still, do you know what came of those studies? Did you bother to find out before you mocked it?
Who said I had anything against science? I just pointed out one scientific venture.
And again, how much research did you actually conduct here, or would you rather just dismiss it entirely as being useless? You say that your not anti-science, but your words betray you.
What you don't seem to understand is that every study contributes to the body of knowledge, and all life shares the same building blocks (also known as DNA). Who knows - that study may have had a direct impact on your life.
Isn't there anything that we can decide not to spend tax-payer money on?
How about wars based on faulty intellgince? I bet that costs more than a tsetse fly study. Zing!
Lance,
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you have a very stereo-typed image of conservatives. You seem to think that we are all a bunch of back woods rubes that cling to our traditional values, guns and...
No, wrong quote.
Traditional values...and are anti-education, anti-science, anti-sex, anti-progress etc. You probably also think that we want to starve babies and throw little old ladies out on the sidewalk just a save a few pennies of our tax dollars.
If you really believe that, you are guilty of the same limited thinking that you accuse us of.
Hey Gary, I didn't start with that conclusion. It's the stuff you're saying that's leading me to believe that you conservatives fit that description. (But to be fair, I don't think it's nearly as extreme as the description you wrote.)
The thing is, so long as "conservatives" hitch their wagon to backwards thinking like abstinence-only education and intelligent design, and mock things like volcano monitoring and biological research, then exactly what am I supposed to conclude here?
And honestly, your accusation is is a gigantic dodge of the issues that I'm bringing up.
Lance,
Which issues? Sex education? You know, some parents prefer to teach their kids about sex according to their own values-not the values of the state.
The science thing was about spending-sending teams of people to Africa to study the mating habits of the tse tse fly-not the fruit fly, which I don't know about. At some point, we have to stop saying as a reflex, "Hey, that's a good idea-there should be a program." We simply can't pay for every idea under the sun.
But I think you missed my whole central point-thesis, if you will. Where are we going to get all this money they are talking about? (From us, the tax-payer) And if you think massive government intervention and spending is going to fix this economy-how about a historical precedent?
And if you have all the answers, how come you haven't cracked the secret code yet- hmmm?
Which issues? Sex education? You know, some parents prefer to teach their kids about sex according to their own values-not the values of the state.
Which is exactly why parents can already opt out of sex ed for their kids if they wish to keep it in the home. So you still don't have a counter-argument.
Gary, I'm aware of your overall point, and I don't even completely disagree with it. However, my points, in easy-to-comprehend bullet-pointed format remain:
*Abstinence-only education is a proven failure. Parents want to teach their kids themselves? Fantastic - they have every right to take them out of class on those days, and many parents excercise this right. However, as for what will be taught in the public schools, we should rely entirely on FACTS (something that you just went on about in a previous post). And in this case, comprehensive sex education has been proven to be more effective in preventing teen pregnancies and STDs.
*Conservatives, by and large, are anti-science. You can hem and haw all you want about not being so, but when you mock scientific studies out of hand without researching what they were all about, then you are contributing to this stereotype. And once again, you're all going to send us back to the Dark Ages.
To sum it up, and to bring it to your point, if we don't fund sex education and scientific research, then we are going to pay in a way that's far greater than the initial costs. (You know, unwanted children and diseases that should have been cured.) How much do you think all of that is going to cost the taxpayer?
Oh, and...
And if you think massive government intervention and spending is going to fix this economy-how about a historical precedent?
Why do you always argue points that I'm not even making?
And if you have all the answers, how come you haven't cracked the secret code yet- hmmm?
Same comment.
Lance/Bryan,
In terms of op-out, which school district(s) are you referring to-every one in the US?
I fully recognize your point of view, but I think that ideally, sex ed is a family matter. I know a lot of families don't address it with bad results, but is it really a school issue?
And if a parent objects (and can't op-out), it raises the fundmental question-to whom do the children belong-their parents-or the state?
Your argument that conservatives are against science is based on what? the Stem cell debate? Creation vs religion? My quip about tse-tse flies? Yes, there are conflicts in those areas, but to argue that conservatives are anti-science is pretty silly. Conservatives are just as educated as liberals-and, you know what? If you go onto most universities, you will find that the proportion of conservatives to liberals is much higher in the science departments than in the humanities.
In terms of op-out, which school district(s) are you referring to-every one in the US?
I don't know enough to say that, but I know that it's true in California at least. I'd be surprised if it wasn't true everywhere else.
I know a lot of families don't address it with bad results, but is it really a school issue?
Considering that the consequences have a direct impact on all of society, then yes, I would say that it's a school issue. We can't let our Victorian view of sexuality be used as a pretense of "values".
you will find that the proportion of conservatives to liberals is much higher in the science departments than in the humanities
That wouldn't be surprising, but it still doesn't change the fact that the conservative movement is frequently on the wrong side when it comes to matters of science.
Lance,
So are you suggesting that it is the role of schools to change our "victorian era" view of sexulality?
I'm saying that it's the job of the schools to educate children. Sex is a part of life, and they need to have all the facts if they are to make intelligent decisions about it. A lack of education has an impact on all of society, and as I stated before, if you don't want to pay for sex ed, then how do you like the idea of all these unwanted kids living on welfare? That will be the consequence of such ignorance.
And I find it funny that conservatives who are so quick to mock political correctness (and I often agree with them on these points) all of a sudden get all sensitive about not offending people when it comes to something like that.
So, to answer your question - yes, it is. We can not afford to pretend that people don't have a basic biological desire to reproduce - one that often overrides everything else. This Victorian view is a dangerous one, as it doesn't want to acknowledge reality.
Weren't you the one going off about how schools need to teach the facts? Should they not teach them if somebody might get offended?
Do you really believe that all these unwanted kids living on welfare are a result of lack of sex education? Don't you think there are much deeper reasons?
It's not the only reason, but it's definitely A reason.
Lance,
As a reason, it's way down the list.
And you base that on what, exactly?
Lance,
I would start with a government welfare mentality that has done nothing but lead to single-parent families because welfare had a disincentive to have a 2 parent household, the whole dumbing down of our culture, drugs, the mocking of any value that was considered traditional, the sexual revolution etc. I'll stop there. I'm beginning to sound like a puritan (which I am decidedly not.)
But Gary, you're not paying attention to the facts. Why did things like teen pregnancy go down during the nineties then and only start an uptick around the time of "abstinence only" education?
Geez, it's like debating Stephen Colbert. The facts don't matter so much as what you feel is right. Truthiness triumphs.
Lance,
"But Gary, you're not paying attention to the facts. Why did things like teen pregnancy go down during the nineties then and only start an uptick around"
Are you saying that one single factor (abstinence only education) caused teen pregnancy rates to go down then up?
Talk about being simplistic-which you always say I am guilty of.
No, Gary, that's not what I'm saying. Again, reread what I actually wrote. I'm saying that it's A factor. (In fact, I used those exact words.) You're saying that it's low down on the list; I'm saying that the facts don't support what you're saying. Geez, I thought you said that conservatism was a philosophy of reason - since when is it reasonable to ignore facts that don't support your worldview?
You have absolutely no counterargument as to why teen birth rates (and I should also add, abortions) have gone down for nearly a generation but then only started to creep up a little with the advent of "abstinence only" education. Instead, you keep dodging the point or trying to get me to defend a strawman.
How do you explain the lower rates during the nineties (and late eighties and early 00s) with all of this "government welfare mentality that has done nothing but lead to single-parent families because welfare had a disincentive to have a 2 parent household, the whole dumbing down of our culture, drugs, the mocking of any value that was considered traditional, the sexual revolution"? Are you saying that these things just started within the last few years? I'm pretty sure that most of these are even before I was born!
Honestly, I'd like an answer to that question. How do you account for teen pregnancies and abortions going down for more than two decades?
Lance,
To be honest, I don't know, but here are a couple of ideas for your consideration.
Maybe it has something to do with the rise of evangelical Christian teens.
Or maybe, it's the same reason crime has gone down-We are getting older. It could be due to demographics. How's that for a scientific answer?
Evangelical teenagers? Pardon me for this brief indulgence before I retort: BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!! Hooo hoo! Haw haw haw! (Knee slap!)
Who do you think are the kids who are getting pregnant?
A quick search shows that Mississippi has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. I could be wrong, but I think that they have an evangelical or two there.
A bit more searching (all on my first results page) shows that evangelical teens generally start sex before mainline Protestant teens, and college campuses with high "abstinence pledges" have high STD rates!
Regarding demographics, that's irrelevant, as we're talking RATES, not overall numbers.
Man, Gary, seriously. I like you, and I'm telling you as a friend, you REALLY need to get your head out of conservative punditry. You said on that radio interview that you only read the sports page - it's showing.
I like you too, Lance.
Hey! Don't go running for the stat book just because I throw out an idea or two. Actually, I didn't even know there had been a decline and subsequent rise. Irregardless, there have to be a lot of reasons. Putting so much emphasis on abstinence only education doesn't seem so scientific to me.
"A bit more searching (all on my first results page) shows that evangelical teens generally start sex before mainline Protestant teens, and college campuses with high "abstinence pledges" have high STD rates!"
So that's it, eh? And who had that info-Mr Jeeves?
Lance, you should use your time in more productive manners-like trying to crack the secret code.
BTW, what does any of this have to do with Barney Frank?
(Reminds me of the Clarence Thomas hearings. On the last day, a befuddled old Strom Thurmond scratched his head and said, "I still don't know what Long John Silver's got to do with any of this." )
Post a Comment