Democrats Cave on Abstinence Only

Only one of the two things that the Democrats have done (that I agreed with) since Obama's election was to cut federal funding for abstinence only education. We know it doesn't work and we know it's expensive, and I was glad that someone actually used some evidence in the government. In fact, not only does it not work, but it (in some studies) correlates to HIGHER pregnancy rates. That must be true, because our Life FACS teachers here in Glendale only teach abstinence and the school is full of pregnant teens.

So, a tiny tiny, eensy weensy little clause in the healthcare bill has brought abstinence only funding back. To the tune of 50 MILLION A YEAR. Are you kidding me? The dumbass government is spending 50 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR on a program that has, in every study, failed to do what it was supposed to? You're telling me that my tax money gets to be spent on this? No, this is absolutely RETARDED!

I don't like the healthcare bill. It places too many restrictions on a system which is failing because of restriction, and now this; this is just the metaphorical cherry on top of the metaphorical sunday. But, even though I don't agree, the bill was passed anyways. So, why couldn't that 50 million a year go to something that works like, say, sex education? We know that works, we can prove it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=4027265&page=1

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20071220/sex-education-works-study-shows

That money should have gone to sex ed programs. It should have gone to programs that would have given kids and teens the knowledge and tools to be safe in their choices. When they have those things, they will be safer. This bullshit about sex being "immoral", and that it needs to be delayed until marriage is absolutely ridiculous. All we are going to get is higher pregnancy rates, and higher STD rates. This is because of a very simple principle that people just don't seem to get:

Kids are going to have sex. Period.

Restaurant Menu Reform: The Real Issue of the Day!

Somewhere buried in that 2,000 page healthcare bill is a new restriction on restaurants. Congress is now mandating that restaurants place a calorie count on menus, somehow trying to make us healthier. Now, this does not apply to all restaurants, but rather only chains with more than 20 locations. It also applies to vending machines apparently . . .

There are going to be two problems with this mandate.

1. Those companies will have to reprint millions of menus, costing them huge amounts of money. This could mean that those extra costs are going to be covered by us, the consumer.
2. How on earth is this going to make America healthier? What is the evidence behind making this decision? You can't expect people to change habits and lifestyles just because you tell them how much weight the will gain by eating the angus burger. It just isn't possible.

To elaborate on the second position, I have to quote someone from a newspaper interview in Idaho who said that, "If revealing the consequences of a decision like that had any effect, then putting the stickers of the miles per gallon on a Hummer would mean nobody would buy a Hummer, it's not going to work". My sentiments exactly.

People are looking for two things when they eat out: price, and quality (taste, etc). You can't make people healthier if you can't make the healthy things cheaper and better tasting. Since the matter of quality has only to do with the restaurant, you have to make it more economically desirable to eat healthy. One way this is going to happen? Get the government out of the agriculture business. Stop subsidizing farmers and mandating what they grow. Let the market decide that, and allow competition to lower prices. To go further, lets stop subsidizing food altogether; we might actually see some change then, but until then . . .

Ahh, the government. You think the problems are bad? Wait until you see the solutions.