i remember years ago when i was in utah all of the people were preaching abstinence to the kids. at the time, and apparently for a long time before, utah had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the US. i remember talking to kids, i was one myself at the time, and they were all having sex and a lot were taking drugs and drinking. telling young people not to have sex is useless, actually from what i remember from my youth telling then not to do something was a sure fire way to guarentee that they would do it. the only thing that you can do is arm them with some common sence especially when it comes to sex education. any religous belief has no place in science which must be objective but i think that more and more around the world these things, reports and studies, are being doctored for political benefit. right now in ireland, dublin specifically, we are having a debate about the best place to put a new childrens hospital, but as our Taoiseach (prime minister) has promised it to his area the best place for the hospital will be over looked for political benefit.
Slán
~M


>There was an excellent article in The New Yorker two or three weeks ago about how the Bush administration has applied ideological litmus tests to scientific research and reports. For example, the conclusion of a study on global warming actually being rewritten (guess how?) before it was released. For another, the administration is holding up a vaccine that will prevent a type of cervical cancer that results from an STD. The thwarting of a clinically proven cancer preventative is quite astonishing, probably unprecedented. Why did this happen? Because the view of social conservatives who have such an influence on this administration is it might encourage teenaged girls to have sex. The only message or solution they want to consider is abstinence. Similarly, they have thwarted the distribution of condoms in Africa -- gosh, no population growth problem there -- in favor of funding abstinence awareness programs in Africa. There were many examples, all of them appalling. The
>author's thesis is that this subversion of the scientific method is new. Earlier Presidents, of both parties, took the view that science should, for the most part at least, be beyond ideology. Not this one.
>
>The illustration facing the first page of the article was terrific. President Bush is standing in front of a blackboard covered with mathematical equations and the like, erasing them.
>
>
>>Why even bother. You've posted some of the best links I've seen and all you get is comments like Dan's about "oh here you go beating a dead horse to death again".
>>
>>To me, starting a war on false pretenses is pretty dam*ing evidence. But who am I to speak up.
>>
>>And it seems to me that having a lawyer for the oil industry editing scientific documents on global warming is slightly out there. That's on top of the political appointee to Nasa who told the scientists they should lessen the amount of times they discuss the big bank theory since it cuts down on the time available to discuss "intelligent design". But it's only the environment.
>>
>>And we have this piece of paper called the constitution that discusses something called "separation of church and state". And we now have some religious groups sharing in govt money. All of whom seem to be part of the christian right.
>>
>>>http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm
>>>
>>>>>We have a president who brought us to war on false pretenses. Costing thousands of lives. Did you hear the Delta guy mention WWIII the other day?
>>>>
>>>>No. How about a link?
>>>>