Faith-based faith.

Well, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that federally funded abstinence programs frequently teach nonsense — touching a person’s genitals “can result in pregnancy” — but we can’t say we didn’t ask for it.

Posted at 4:00 am in Uncategorized |
 

23 responses to “Faith-based faith.”

  1. Danny said on December 2, 2004 at 10:10 am

    Nance, I know you are a pro at copyedit, but I found an extra word in the first sentence.

    WAS: “federally funded abstinence programs frequently teach nonsense”

    SHOULD BE: “federally funded programs frequently teach nonsense”

  2. brian stouder said on December 2, 2004 at 10:28 am

    >>”touching a person’s genitals “can result in pregnancy” — but we can’t say we didn’t ask for it.”

    hahahahahahahahaha!!!

    Well Nance, let’s look at this the way President Clinton would……

    ..errr, let me rephrase!

    Depending on WHAT one uses to touch another’s genitals, pregnancy may indeed ensue!! (depending also on the meaning of the word touch – as in “well, I’ll just touch” – or – “touch touch touch touch touch touch TOUCH TOUCH TOUCH TOUCH” etc)

    And as for “We can’t say we didn’t ask for it”(!!) –

    depends on the meaning of the words “we” and “it”!

  3. Danny said on December 3, 2004 at 9:50 am

    Holy-Smokes, Brian. We sure do know how to kill a thread. Nary a bite on our comments.

  4. brian stouder said on December 3, 2004 at 9:55 am

    well, staying on the abstinence thread,

    the others must ‘have a headache'(!!!)

  5. Danny said on December 3, 2004 at 10:08 am

    Or maybe this is just a “pregnant pause.”

  6. On Way said on December 3, 2004 at 1:46 pm

    Cheese. Bags. Cheesebags.

  7. brian stouder said on December 3, 2004 at 2:57 pm

    screw.

    ewe.

    screwewe!

  8. danno said on December 3, 2004 at 4:35 pm

    Is it possible that those of us who don’t think the article was funny choose not to respond to your childlike comments? Such a waste of taxpayer money. I work with taxpayer money everyday and I am not amused by mismanaged public funds.

  9. brian stouder said on December 3, 2004 at 4:52 pm

    >>Is it possible that those of us who don’t think the article was funny choose not to respond to your childlike comments? Such a waste of taxpayer money. I work with taxpayer money everyday and I am not amused by mismanaged public funds.

    Is it possible?

    Sure!!

    Your angst at (allegedly) “mismanaged public funds” is still funny, though, considering all the other vast mountains of (allegedly) “mismanaged public funds” on any number of other things that one could (utterly subjectively) point to.

    A pacifist would say we mismanage hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars every single year, on the Defense Department, for example – because he doesn’t believe such a thing makes any sensea at all.

    but whatever

    And by the way, I always reserve the right to make “child like” comments, here on Nance’s otherwise serious-as-a-heart-attack blog!

  10. deb said on December 3, 2004 at 5:11 pm

    serious as a heart attack? goodness, brian, are you new to these parts or what?

  11. danno said on December 3, 2004 at 5:47 pm

    Brian, it seems as if you always have something flipant to say about the subject matter on here, but nothing in the least bit palpable that can enlighten. Has your corncob been so far up it has always been neglect of light in your world?

  12. Linda said on December 3, 2004 at 7:48 pm

    I know I am leaving myself wide open to the flame, and yes, I know: free speech/it’s-not-my-blog-and-I-can-leave-if-I-don’t-like-it/I don’t have to read, etc., but geezy cow! When did this become a war zone? It used to be pleasant conversation/debate here, now it seems like there are a few who only want to fling barbs about.

  13. Mary said on December 3, 2004 at 8:18 pm

    I don’t think there was anything at all funny about the article. Bush’s bullies are trying to deny science, and that is a dangerous thing. In this case it’s birth control, but it’s also global warming, air pollution, toxics in our food and water.

    Kids have sex. Why not tell them how to stay safe and not make unplanned babies? Abstinence education is like the Just Say No program. It assumes people are morons. Whenever I would hear of Nancy Reagan’s Just Say No stuff, I would visualize some sick junkie smacking himself in the forehead and saying, “No? You mean I could have said no to this? Jeez, if only I had known.”

    We have an administration that thrives on denial and paints a picture of the US that doesn’t make us feel bad. Know what? About some things we should feel bad. We should worry.

  14. brian stouder said on December 3, 2004 at 8:59 pm

    “When did this become a war zone?”

    Linda, I was just fooling around a bit with the WP story that Nance linked. It was indeed an interesting article, and – between you and me and the fence post – I agree with the (easy) criticism implied by the article (did you note that the reporter [or editor] ended the piece with the most ridiculous little kicker of a tidbit? They were simply shooting fish in a barrel).

    And Mary, although I disagree with you about whether the article was funny or not, I agree with everything else you said.

    That said, if my flipant, unenlightened, and generally benighted (I suppose benighted unenlightenment is a redundancy!) corn-cobb-impeded posts have bogged Nance’s blog, then certainly I shall recede back into the misty fog of the all-encompassing blogosphere (I like that term better than the faux-modern term “cyberspace”), “on the horse I rode in on”!

    You have only to say the word

  15. ashley said on December 4, 2004 at 3:03 am

    Brian, buddy, face it. You are a troll. You don’t really add anything to any discussion; you just quote Fox News.

    If I can’t really add much to the discussion, I try to stay out of it. I read this blog every day, but I don’t necessarily eat up bandwidth for the fun of it. You’re just into that whole provoking theme. Settle down, Beavis.

    By the way, Brian, nice line about the “Pregnant Pause”.

  16. brian stouder said on December 4, 2004 at 8:49 am

    Ash –

    a)I’m an msnbc man

    b) the “preganant pause” line wasn’t mine

    c) as far as worthy expenditures of bandwidth, I would tend not to blindly trust the judgement of a person who expends 4000+ characters & spaces each week on the characters and plotlines of a tv series…. but nonetheless

    d) I will take the hint

  17. first-time caller said on December 4, 2004 at 1:47 pm

    Brian’s a troll? You must not venture under the bridges of very many web sites, Ashley. Internet “trolls” are vicious, they stalk the real lives of their perceived online enemies, they stir the pot just for the hell of it and they rarely respond point-for-point to those with whom they disagree.

    While Brian “stalked” me to the point of seeing whether I used my real name on this board, and entered into a multi-post disagreement with me, he is hardly the kind of menace I’ve seen take down other web sites.

    If I hadn’t seen the real harm “trolls” can do, I wouldn’t “waste bandwidth” defending someone I don’t know. But I wish you’d consider the difference between someone entering into debate in good faith and someone who is out to wreak havoc.

  18. Mary said on December 4, 2004 at 2:52 pm

    Here’s a piece about the Bush adminstration and it’s approach to science.

    http://www.stanford.edu/~kaichan/articles/science_and_bush_SFChronicle.htm

    Mary

  19. Mary said on December 4, 2004 at 2:53 pm

    Make that “its,” not it’s. Sheesh. Must be the mercury in my water.

    Marybeth

  20. brian stouder said on December 4, 2004 at 4:40 pm

    Mary – interesting article.

    I thought the guy was all wet when he said that using scientic findings as political fodder is (in any way) new, or for that matter bad.

    Ideally, that is just as it should be, no?

  21. beth said on December 5, 2004 at 2:41 am

    Oh, just let the “boys” have their fun! Yes, their comments are a little off base/immature. They really are funny! But, I think that a lot of readers (definitely not you, Nancy) need to realize that life isn’t always so serious. Not to sound like my grandmother, but if I had a dime for everytime someone disagreed with me….

    Anyway, I think that debate is healthy for an intelligent blog such as this one, as long as the participants remember the point.

  22. ashley said on December 6, 2004 at 12:55 am

    To Brian:

    a)I’m an msnbc man

    Sorry ’bout that. I’m not a fan of any of the cable news channels anymore. CNN no longer promotes their news, they promote their personalities. I miss Bernie Kalb.

    b) the “preganant pause” line wasn’t mine

    Sorry again. Great line, Danny.

    c) as far as worthy expenditures of bandwidth, I would tend not to blindly trust the judgement of a person who expends 4000+ characters & spaces each week on the characters and plotlines of a tv series…. but nonetheless

    Point taken. I just really, really like that show, and I like discussing it. To me, this is the most real thing on television. “Reality TV” just means “we’re too cheap to hire writers”.

    First time caller: I appreciate your remarks, but please read the wikipedia link I posted to the definition of a troll. I remember the old Scientology v. everyone wars in the early/mid ’90s. I know what a troll is. The term is more an indicator of intent rather than viciousness.

  23. first-time caller said on December 6, 2004 at 10:23 am

    Fair enough. But how do you decide intent?