Posted on 11/01/2006 10:48:21 AM PST by steve-b
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31, 2006 — If you're single and in your 20s, the federal government wants you to steer clear of sex.
That's the new guidance for states under the Department of Health and Human Services' $50 million Abstinence Education Program....
"Whatever happened to conservatives that were against big government," Wagoner asks. "If this isn't a waste of taxpayer dollars, what is?"
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Me too. I just move them along because you know there are a whole bunch of women secretly reading these to see what men say:)
If they want to know what men think, then they're wasting their time. They'd do better to watch Animal Planet.
That's fine when you are talking about private property. What's at stake here is public property...in the form of public schools and the taxes which fund these schools.
I don't mind a group of citizens getting together and starting a school, even if the school teaches things I don't agree with. I DO mind when I am legally forced to pay for this school, or forced to send my children there. I shouldn't have to move to a different community just to be left alone and to raise a family as I see fit.
By your reasoning, we should have just told the blacks living under Jim Crow to move north, so the white majorities of the towns of the South could preserve "local control."
Let's add up all the welfare payments going to unwed mothers and than tell me it is a waste of money.
If she's around 40 and nice, we can watch TV together before climbing around:)
Let's consider the probability that it's actually going to change their behavior and tell me it isn't a waste of money.
If 99% of people pulled their kids out of the local school & all of them put their kids into a school they formed together, abandoning the school building to the 1% in the process, what do you think would happen?
I shouldn't have to move to a different community just to be left alone and to raise a family as I see fit.
Gotcha. You feel it's the role of the government to force values on the governed. Freedom of movement is ceeded to the right to stay put.
By your reasoning, we should have just told the blacks living under Jim Crow to move north, so the white majorities of the towns of the South could preserve "local control."
You raise a good point. Now that Jim Crow has been eliminated, the biggest complaint is about white flight. Maybe we need some news laws to stop that from happening...
Sheesh! I did that without the government even telling me! I never could get a date! ;-)
Yea, passing out condoms and saying good luck, is a better way ...
Whenever the state gets involved in something, it always seems to become and issue.
If 99% of people pulled their kids out of the local school & all of them put their kids into a school they formed together, abandoning the school building to the 1% in the process, what do you think would happen?
In our current, public system? The 99% would end up paying twice over to educate their kids, first in taxes for the old school and then in whatever costs are associated with the new school. The remaining 1% would enjoy the same funding as before.
Gotcha. You feel it's the role of the government to force values on the governed. Freedom of movement is ceeded to the right to stay put.
Absolutely not. I'm advocating AGAINST state intervention in education, in part because I am opposed to government-enforced values. You're trying to turn an individual's right to free movement into some kind of grant of government power. It's akin to saying I'm against free speech if I oppose government sponsored muezzins...after all, I can always exercise my right to free speech if I don't like the imam's message, right?
You raise a good point. Now that Jim Crow has been eliminated, the biggest complaint is about white flight. Maybe we need some news laws to stop that from happening...
Why would we need to do that? Or am I just missing a sarcasm tag here?
This is where we separate the people who don't want the federal government in the social engineering business from the ones who just want an opportunity to monkey with the blueprints.
True. The more distant the government, the worse it is, which was my point.
In our current, public system? The 99% would end up paying twice over to educate their kids, first in taxes for the old school and then in whatever costs are associated with the new school.
I'm sure local school funding would drop. It would be hard to justify having more teachers than students & in turn, more administrators than teachers. No need to hire buses when all of the students would fit into a van. Fewer books would need to be purchased.
The remaining 1% would enjoy the same funding as before.
Not in my state, they wouldn't. The state funding formula includes student headcount. The 1% school would also get less in Federal funding, cuz that's also based on the headcount. Do you think the state would claim the 99% school was part of the local public school system at some point?
Absolutely not. I'm advocating AGAINST state intervention in education, in part because I am opposed to government-enforced values. You're trying to turn an individual's right to free movement into some kind of grant of government power. It's akin to saying I'm against free speech if I oppose government sponsored muezzins...after all, I can always exercise my right to free speech if I don't like the imam's message, right?
You define state to include local, community level government, while I don't.
Why would we need to do that?
What do you think school busing was about? How about the Chapter 220 program? Some within the black community have considered creating schools for black boys, in the hope that the students could be offered an education by strong role models. Do you think that would be a good idea or a bad idea? Many northern inner city schools are becoming more & more segregated as time goes on. If segregation itself is the evil, doesn't look to me like elimination of Jim Crow was the full cure. Jim Crow was bad & wrong on so many levels, don't get me wrong, but I think places in the country that never had legal segregation are more segregated than a lot of places that had it.
IMO, changing hearts is the thing that actually works. To me that's sort of a one person at a time making a difference, multiplied by as many people as possible & for as long as it is necessary.
It's not mandatory .
Paying for it is.
I resent paying for condoms, so what?
Worked for me when I was single!
Nothing in the article mentioned a "mandate", or some kinbd of "sanction": or "punishment". Just a common sense recommendation in today's world of rampant STD's, including AIDS, which can kill. Feeling guilty?
You let your spouse eat wedding cake. It's a well-known and permanant killer of libido. Sorry about your luck.
Generally, I agree.
I'm sure local school funding would drop...The 1% school would also get less in Federal funding, cuz that's also based on the headcount.
You are probably correct here. I hadn't factored in Federal funding, and even in a system where local funding came from property and sales taxes, over the long run political pressure would drive funding down.
Honestly, that scenario sounds rather good to me. I like the idea of parents choosing where to send their children to school, and the school's funding being closely matched to the parents' decision. It sounds a lot like....the market. In a free(r) market for education, a school's success would be most directly and most immediately tied to parent's choices.
You define state to include local, community level government, while I don't.
If they have a legal monopoly on force, then they qualify as "state" to me. But, since that term gets confusing, let me change it to "government." And I believe that governments should be limited, regardless of how local they may be.
Some within the black community have considered creating schools for black boys, in the hope that the students could be offered an education by strong role models. Do you think that would be a good idea or a bad idea?...
I think the idea could have merit. I don't want the state creating a school like that, since I believe the state should be race-nuetral. But I have no problem with families in the black community setting up a school like that on their own.
IMO, changing hearts is the thing that actually works. To me that's sort of a one person at a time making a difference, multiplied by as many people as possible & for as long as it is necessary.
I agree. That is why I favor persuasion and individual action over coercion and collective action by governments.
My state does "revenue sharing", where school districts are subsidized from the state's coffers. Beside student headcount, the formula seeks to subsidize the "poorer" districts, while the "wealthier" districts receive no state funding. Do you think the schools that get no state funding escape state regulation?
Honestly, that scenario sounds rather good to me. I like the idea of parents choosing where to send their children to school, and the school's funding being closely matched to the parents' decision. It sounds a lot like....the market. In a free(r) market for education, a school's success would be most directly and most immediately tied to parent's choices.
Right, but again, how long do you think it would take before the state claims the 99% school is part of the community's public school system? Most of the state's public schools were originally formed in the manner I laid out for this 99% school.
If they have a legal monopoly on force, then they qualify as "state" to me. But, since that term gets confusing, let me change it to "government." And I believe that governments should be limited, regardless of how local they may be.
The very idea of a public school is a form of government force. Let's go back to that 1% school again. The community at large chooses to fund it at a much lower amount per student than is paid per student in the 99% school. Now we have separate & unequal. Think the state is gonna stay out of it?
I think the idea could have merit. I don't want the state creating a school like that, since I believe the state should be race-nuetral. But I have no problem with families in the black community setting up a school like that on their own.
What if it had been proposed by a bunch of white people? Would it make any difference if it was private?
"I totally disagree: see above statements on medical expenses."
It is so nice to see the solution for socialist created problems is fascist dictation of morality. Especially on a conservative discussion board.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.