Progress: Schools Teaching Your 10-Year-Old Child About Oral Sex

To slow down sex among youth, you would have to shut down every reality show, teen mag/rags, and tele-novella. These shows have basically said to kids its OK to screw like bunnies, drink like fish, and tattoo your arses off.

Notice how often teens and preteens are using the word, "HOT". Hot to these kids means wide open sex, heavy drinking, and drugs.

worldcurmudgen; Not to mention most of the commercials on the boob tube.....biggest and most successful marketing tool ever - sensuality and sex.

The boob tube is not forced on anyone... if it disturbs you, turn it off...

Matthew, you forgot to mention all the rest.......I don't watch the t.v.....so that's a moot point. I work in the field of catching child molesters so for good reason I don't need to see it glorified for our youngsters nor taught, or thought about being taught, by anyone unless it's their parents or someone reliable and competent. (Without ulterior motives)

There is nothing that justifies teachers having to teach this so, WTF? Not even a "law" or organization.

K: I would say that the established fact of 11 and 12 year old US girls having babies is justification enough. You are free to disagree.

Lastly, I don't see much glorification of child molestation on TV nor do I see glorification of child molestation taught at schools, nor do I see anyone suggesting that we should be established programs in schools that glorify child molestation. You seem to be way off point here.

Any idea why TV spends so much time and energy using sex to sell most any product you can imagine? Because it works. People buy things when they are advertised in a sexual way. If they didn't, advertisers would stop using that approach. Same reason why we still see that damn gecko in ads... people love him. Don't blame the boob tube for giving people what they want...

What is being discussed here is oral sex and 10 year olds.......guess you didn't take any Anatomy & Physiology classes, huh.

I have taken and taught A&P, in addition to Human Sexuality... You may be dubious of my background, but that doesn't change the reality... I notice you didn't take me up on the opportunity to verify...

What is being discussed here is oral sex and 10 year olds...

Actually Kathleen, you are wrong about that. According to the seeded article, oral sex would not be discussed until the sixth grade ("and by the sixth grade, the draft document states that students should, “Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration; using the penis, fingers, tongue or objects.”") These kids are having sex and knowing the difference between oral and genital sex is an important distinction to those who are sexually active.

No matthew...it seems you need a little readind comphrension....using your own quote....

"and by the sixth grade, the draft document states that students should, “Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration; using the penis, fingers, tongue or objects.”

It does not say they will be learning it in the sixth grade it says that they should know it...what comes before the sixth....the fifth.....If you truly are a teacher no wonder students are having so much trouble today.

It states that in the fifth grade students would be expected to know that there are different types of sexual intercourse. No more specifics than that. So, NO, it in no way states that the specific issues in question would be covered in a fifth grade curriculum. Rather, it makes quite clear that the 5th graders would be expected to have a very general knowledge (as described above). Moreover, the article is talking about proposals to be discussed by parents, administrators and teachers. In no way does this suggest the final curriculum. I thought this point was dealt with very early on in this seed...

“and by the sixth grade”

In this statement BY is a preposition meaning before, not later than, or sooner than

In other words “and before the sixth grade” “not later than entering the sixth grade” “sooner than the sixth grade”

Or did they not teach sentence structure when you were in school there junior.

By the sixth grade could mean by the beginning, middle or end of the six grade. As written, you cannot state that it requires those topics be covered before the sixth grade. Most standards that are developed for schools use the terminology, 'by the fifth grade' to refer to those skills or topics that are expected by the time that grade is completed.

If you go back and read the original article that describes the full proposal, you will see that my description is quite consistent. Here is a snippet:

It lays out sex education topics foreach grade, K through 12. In the first grade, children would be taught that human beings can love people of the same gender; in second grade, kids are taught not to make fun of people by calling them "gay" or "queer."

By fifth grade, they are taught there are several types of intercourse, and by the sixth grade, the draft document states that students should, "Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration; using the penis, fingers, tongue or objects."

As with any text, interpretation can vary, but this text is not inconsistent with what I posted. They mention a grade and then describe what is taught in it...

http://www.krtv.com/news/helena-schools-draft-sex-ed-document-causing-controversy/

That's right, parental control has been replaced with parental permissiveness and apathy.

This story is yet another case for supporting home schooling and private schools...

Remember, your tax money is going to be spent on this type of "education" in the public schools.....

General,

TELL ME ABOUT IT! It's my state! My taxes! WTF, over?

I learned about sex the old fashioned way: In a clubhouse with my friends and a few Penthouses 'borrowed' from their fathers' stash.

So how long before you realized everything you'd learned from the magazines was crap?

Lord, you just don't get it. Grim and his bunch of creepers STILL believe that crap. That is why they oppose teaching kids facts at an age when they are (in fact) becoming sexually active (which they blame on media, liberals or anyone but the kids / parents). They are still OK with denial or accepting that everything they read in penthouse forum was true...

Jeez Grim, didn't you seed this tripe once or twice already?

I started reading penthouse forum when I was in elementary school (9 or 10 - so it's reasonable to assume that kids that age are interested I was.) . I used to find them in my dad's toolbox in the shed. Now, just recently I went looking to buy one at a store and can't find one. Is it still in print? I don't like to read porn online. The whole point of reading a book like FORUM is the people around you can't tell what you are doing.

Matthew, Grim Creeper, I believe, was telling it like it was for him. No fault in telling the truth.

Sure, but if we now know better, shouldn't we be doing better? Or should we forget how our knowledge has progressed and just keep making the same mistakes over and over...? Sound like a good plan to you?

The women were real -- and that was good enough for me.

so looking at naked pictures of real women is a good enough approach to sex education for you? I thought so and this was the reason for my post.

Any questions Kathleen?

Avoid unwanted pregnancies....have oral/anal sex!!!!!!

But look out for those STD's!!!

I'm surprised former President Bill "eatin ' ain't cheatin'" Clinton isn't a guest speaker at these schools.

He must be busy flying off to Korea for some Pyong Yang Tang again.

He must be busy flying off to Korea for some Pyong Yang Tang again.

And Richard Curtis is trying "cream of sumyungboy."

good one ;)

Dont forget the twins- Fuk Me and Fuk U.

Not to be confused with cream of sum yun gai

Picture a 4th grade girl working a Big Stick Popsicle which has always been an inocent act. Most anyone can form a visual of that. In the not so distant future, the boys will take one look at the size of that Popsicle and a new psychiatric term will be born........Popsicle Envy.

Robyn 5.2

Avoid unwanted pregnancies....have oral/anal sex!!!!!!

But look out for those STD's!!!

The whole idea is to encourage safe approaches so that whatever choices (yes, this is a free country when it comes to sex) people make (as kids or adults) will be pursued SAFELY. Do you get it now? SAFELY... Without education, how can we expect them to make such decisions?

Please tell me you don't think Montana and Tennessee are near each other geographically.

I was born and raised in Montana, and I really don't believe the intent of this course is to encourage kids to engage that behavior. It's probably intended to educate them that STD's etc, can still occur and that abstinance is the only safe choice.

Please tell me you don't think Montana and Tennessee are near each other geographically.

Of course, I've been to both states and about half of the others. But, if I'm not mistaken, they are close politically.

'

I've never been to TN, so I'm not sure. I'm in Idaho now, and Montana is more liberal comparatively speaking.

Hey Fiery me too, meaning I am in Ideho now!

Hello fellow Idahoan!

Hello potato head ;]

I used to live in Moscow... the most right leaning of the liberal university cities in the USA... bad meth problems, lots of kids having sex and babies... basically because there was nothing for them to do AND the southern Idahoan mormons didn't want to deal responsibly with drug/sex education.

Hmm I do not know about that, but what I have noticed they do get married early. Meth is bad all over, I lived in Hawaii YUK very bad there.

Idhaho... largest public school class sizes and highest rate of teacher suggested ADHD diagnoses... hmmmm...

It just became worse this year. Education is the first thing cut and they hacked it.

So true Matthew, the school tried getting me to put my daughter on Ritilan when she was in 2nd grade. She was the most mellow kid ever...never had any problems focusing. She just had an awful teacher.

I was teaching at the U of I and got out as soon as I could... loved fishing the upper reaches of he St. Joe, but not worth it when I considered the rest of the package...

The giggle when they're in high school too. Hell, my grandparents would probably giggle right now.

These people think their kids are little darling angels that aren't curious about sex if not completely knowing about it at 10?

When I was 10, I first learned about oral sex -- from the media when they were talking about Bill Clinton. Guess what? I didn't have oral sex for another 8 years. And I'm okay!!....as long as I take my meds lol

I didn't have oral sex for another 8 years

that must have been a very difficult 8 years for you. :-)

There's always the trial and error method

There's always the trial and error method

So is getting pregnant at 14 success or failure?

Depends on your expected outcome?

That doesn't mean we need a bunch of liberal teachers informing them of the various ways to use their plumbing.

You need the parents actually doing their jobs and talking to their kids. They should not be failing as parents.

You need the parents actually doing their jobs and talking to their kids

Agreed, if parents could present it in a clinical and not a personal way. Sadly, there are some sexually messed up parents out there who might end up passing that part of themselves to their kids. Give kids the facts and let them form their own opinions in regards to them.

This is my country and my society and if parents are not doing the job, then I am fine with having it done in schools. This article is about querying the parents about what they want to see in the curriculum. This is the correct approach and the right wing throws scorn on it.

From the party of moral family values that produce closeted gays and legendary philanderers... yea, I'll take the progressive approach, tyvm.

That doesn't mean we need a bunch of liberal teachers informing them of the various ways to use their plumbing.

I'd like to know how you've determined the political affiliation of the teachers.

Teachers present the material given to them. The curriculum is decided by the Board of Education, who are elected by the citizens of the schools district. The BOE hires the Superintendent, who also helps to develop the curriculum.

You know spelling and music are so much more important than sex ed.

Damn, Martin!

AGREED. Hell, that's all I need to hear from my 5 year old Grandchild: "Hey papa, today I learned how the lady's Bartholin Gland pre-lubes her for penetration!"

Then papa jumps on his Harley and leaves.

So Martin are you one of those guys that get's back in line for another go after a colonoscopy?

Depends on what I leave on the lens-

Last eye scope I had they found my divorce papers-

Grimm- I agree, Just not interested in seeing what my wife had for supper the night before and tossing a good load at the starfish.

If you can tell what your wife had for dinner because you had anal sex with her - she should probably see a doctor.

Liberals often teach what they cannot do... which says much about conservatives.

Liberals often teach what they cannot do... which says much about conservatives.

That they talk smack when they have no real arguments to speak of?

LordFluffy,

Not really trying to incite an argument...more like Tourette's...meaningless and baseless, but just felt good to get it out.

LordFluffy,

You state that you are O.K. with Middle School students being indoctrinated, and I am too, but this plan begins with 5 year olds.

I have a friend with a 4 year old. She's already taught her that there are good touches and bad touches and to let mommy or daddy know if anyone helps them with a bathroom accident or help them change their clothes.

It is important to note that this 4 year old is already being courted by boys in preschool. It's innocent, but disconcerting to her parents. I keep telling her dad I'm getting him a shotgun for her 16th birthday, and have subsequently pushed that date back to sometime around tomorrow due to understanding what kids are exposed too.

I'm not imagining the education given to kindergardeners is going to be identical to that which is given to 6th graders. The article doesn't state, from the schoolboard, what will be taught to them. I'm not imagining that day one will include how to put on a condom.

Do you know more about the actual curriculum than is presented in the article or are you just objecting on presumption?

at 5 its pretty much limited to body parts and safe vs unsafe touches.

I read the curriculum...At age five they must memorize the average number of ridges on the human sphincter and discern between Major and Minor labial folds.

lordmcfluffy wrote: I also would be real surprised if there wasn't a provision for opting your child out of the classes.

that would be perfect....and i'd imagine they'd enroll them in the 'creationism' classes instead.

i personally don't have a prob with teaching young kids sex ed but can respect others who do. i do, however, have an issue with activist board of educ members (here in tx) rewriting the history to reflect their own 'facts'. let the dumbing down of america commence....

The reason Johnny can't read is because we don't want students to learn, we want them to do well on tests.

Exactly.

The U.S. public school system is in its death throes. :(

Bdobb:

Okay, that does sound a bit messed up. Do you have a link to this documentation? Where did you see it?

Actually, looking at the link to the curriculum in Comment #21, you're mistaken. They're not learning those kind of details until 5th grade, not age 5. From what I read, the Kindergarden level is just good touch/bad touch. Again, I'm really okay with that.

Yes Lord, but if Bdobb stuck with the facts, then we wouldn't have the opportunity to enjoy all of the total hyperbole and BS... This seed started as crap and went south... par for the course with Grim Creeper.

Matthew, How poignant of you, (sarc). And I quote, "This seed started as crap and went south... par for the course with Grim Creeper."LMFAO! Grim was talking about no azz sex and you made the perfect pun!, LOL! This is NOT par for the course for Grim as far as the seeded articles I've blogged on that he has posted to the Newsvine. This is a serious blog that has some morbid humor on some of the posts...that is human nature and it's called sarcasm. BTW, if you're so disgusted then why are you still here?

K. I think we will agree to disagree on this one. I find Grim's seeds to be tripe at best and I visit to make an effort to get folks to recognize tripe when they see it. I am an educator and this is a new form of education that is going to sweep the nation.

Matthew, again, I'm asking ,"Why are you still here? Your comment - "I am an educator and this is a new form of education that is going to sweep the nation." Prove the being an educator remark. But, you are then you probably need to be writing/e-mailing/faxing your Congressman/woman instead of wasting your time on this "tripe." LOL! I do it all the time and keep on until I get an answer. Why don't you try that. It would prove much more productive since you know the educational system......*thinking he may be a gas-blower...ummm, hot air that is. lmao

K, I don't trust folks on the web, especially those that would frequent Grim's posts. Send me an e-mail and you'll see my academic affiliation in my response. In all fairness, please list your place of employment in your e-mail. Educating politicians is a waste of time, I will stick to educating those who elect them. Since when do 'serious blogs' include morbid posts and sarcasm? I post that stuff on blogs labelled satire or sarcasm... on serious blogs I post serious contributions.

Any and all post-secondary educators should read this new (in paperback, anyway) book since the vast majority of them are leftists and won't read this one.

Hmmmm... The first one looks interesting... I abhor the recent PC based approach to 'hygenic education'. I'll give it a read. The second I've scanned and is targeted towards those who listen to Rush and Beck... Not much in the way of scholarship and very heavy on the 'radicalization issues'. My university is dominated by its business school and that school is made up of mostly right leaning conservatives. Not radical in the least. How do we generate folks with new ideas and new approaches when they are indoctrinated with the same old business concepts... The Laffer curve is a laugh... why do we still teach it in Economics classes (rather than History or mythology...). If your mind isn't expanded by your college education, you wasted your money...

need are a few more lawyers with expanded minds in government who have never worked in the real world.

Better than another uneducated carpenter or welder.

So Grim, you want to lump all Ivy league folks as having the same skills and political views? So Bush and Obama are one in the same because they both graduated from Harvard?

You want to ignore those who get their higher education at non-ivy league schools?

Most of the major discoveries (in science, economics, business, sociology...) come from folks who excelled in college. The alternative is Sarah Palin... you really want folks like that running this country? Really??? she bankrupted the small town of Wasilla singlehandedly...

When it comes to steering the future of our country, I will go with those who have more education, rather than less...

Angry Left... better than an uneducated graduate of Yale and Harvard ('W'). See, some folks can go to college and get very little out of it. I see this every day in my classes. They are the ones that wasted their money because they left in the same condition in which they arrived, intellectually stifled... amazing that W could attend two such excellent universities and get so little out of the experience.

The problem is that we have tooooooooooooooooooooo many over educated idiots in D.C. we need someone who instead of a lot of book learning have a lot of life experence.

"I think Joe Schmo would do a lot better than those who claim to know better than we do."

The problem with this statement is the first two words... your statement suggests that you would want a high school graduate to be directing the space program. Remember when Alabama wanted to just use 3.0 for pi because it was easier for kids to remember... that is what happens when joe schmo is in charge. How about we put Joe the Plumber in charge of the Department of Energy? Think he has the abilities to do the job? Really Grim? I don't believe that you understand what 'thinking' is made up of. Can you give me your definition of the word?

There are many roads to self improvement, college is one of them. Traveling outside of your home country is another. Joe Schmo pursues neither...

Turett, can you define 'over-educated'. When does enough education become too much, when you graduate from elementary school? Most universities now have outstanding international exchange programs that provide a great deal of life experience and domestic internship programs that function the same way in the USA...

The Laffer curve is a laugh

Says you. The fact is it's been confirmed time and time again all over the world. Most of the instances of supposed discreditation are based on misrepresentations of it (i.e., straw men) or when other factors swamp its effects.

... why do we still teach it in Economics classes

Maybe because it's valid? I am happy to learn it's being taught at all outside George Mason University, Hillsdale College, and the Hoover Institute at Stanford.

The idea that you want someone who's just a regular Joe running the country works until you look at regular Joes. It's the same argument as when you work in retail or a chain service industry that you would just wish one of your own would ascend to the ranks of managment. The problem is that when they do, they tend to run things differently than you imagine they would because suddenly they are faced with the same problems the old managment did an no real new ideas to fix it.

The fact of the matter is that leadership is a different skill than carpentry or plumbing or any other job that regular Joes work.

Now is it possible that a regular Joe could also be an effective leader? Sure. Is it true that some of the people in Washington are tragically out of touch with the rest of the nation? You bet your tubes. Does that mean that I want to stop electing people who go to Harvard or Yale in favor of the guy who has a 2 year degree in Restraunt Managment based on their education alone? Hell no.

Observer, how about some facts to support your statement re: the laffer curve? As a theoretical tool, it is quite logical. However, it fails to perform under empirical tests.

Read the following for a rigorous evaluation in 13 OECD countries:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20076152 Testing the validity of the Laffer curve... it only held for a portion of the countries tested, suggesting a hit and miss result of applying this theory. Ironically, tax rates are way below the threshold most conservative economists say will reduce tax revenues... So, at current tax rates, it is not very useful. At the higher rates present when 'our lord Ronald Reagan' was taxing us, it MAY have provided some useful insights.

See also regarding the assumptions upon which the curve is based:

"The extent to which these assumptions are true beyond the scope of the underlying mathematics is unprovable, as most economics takes place in the realm of political theory with implied objectivity that is impossible to prove or completely disprove."

AND

"Other economists have questioned the utility of the Laffer Curve. According to Nobel prize laureate James Tobin, “[t]he “Laffer Curve” idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981.”

Link for above two quotes: http://finxknowledgeatcbsdu.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/laffer-curve-inside-out/

Finally, Laffer basically supported Keynesian economics and at this point the right wing is slamming Obama for continuing to follow basic principles derived from Keynes...

And you can see the effects of lowering high marginal tax rates here.

Economic Growth by Robert J. Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (MIT Press, 2004, p. 514) lists among the world’s twenty fastest-growing economies Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Botswana, Thailand, Ireland, Malayasia, Portugal, Mauritius, and Indonesia. As Table 1 shows, all these countries either had low marginal tax rates to begin with (Hong Kong) or cut their highest marginal tax rates in half between 1979 and 2002 (Botswana, Mauritius, Singapore, Portugal, etc.). This might be dismissed as a remarkable coincidence were it not for a plethora of economic studies demonstrating several ways in which high marginal tax rates can adversely affect economic performance.

Sometimes it is very difficult to tease out the effects of tax rate changes in systems that are as complex as economies, and sometimes the effects are swamped by other factors. That in and of itself does not invalidate the theory.

By the way the first link you provided was just the abstract; no results or conclusions were shown. Am I missing something?

]he “Laffer Curve” idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981.”

I wonder if he feels silly looking at the results of the capital gains tax cut--revenues did in fact double.

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.[10] (See Chart 2.) Past capital gains tax cuts have shown similar results.

From the same link:

Attempts to debunk solid theories often involve first mischaracterizing them as straw men. Critics often erroneously define supply-side economics as the belief that all tax cuts pay for themselves. They then cite tax cuts that have not fully paid for themselves as conclusive proof that supply-side economics has failed.

However, supply-side economics never contended that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Rather the Laffer Curve[8] (upon which much of the supply-side theory is based) merely formalizes the common-sense observations that:

1. Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate;
2. Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and
3. Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, they should also expect high investment taxes to discourage investment and income taxes to discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut.

Whether or not a tax cut recovers 100 percent of the lost revenue depends on the tax rate's location on the Laffer Curve. Each tax has a revenue-maximizing rate at which future tax increases will reduce revenue. (This is the peak of the Laffer Curve.) Only when tax rates are above that level will reducing the tax rate actually increase revenue. Otherwise, it will replenish only a portion of the lost revenue.

How much feedback revenue a given tax cut will generate depends on the degree to which taxpayers adjust their behavior. Cutting sales and property tax rates generally induces smaller feedback effects because taxpayers do not respond by substantially expanding their purchases or home-buying. Income taxes have a higher feedback effect. Nobel Prize-winning economist Ed Prescott has shown a strong cross-national link between lower income tax rates and higher work hours.[9] Investment taxes have the highest feedback effects because investors quickly move to avoid higher-taxed investments. Not surprisingly, history shows that higher investment taxes deeply curtail investment and consequently raise little (if any) new revenue.

Yet, using the standard set by some, even a hypothetical tax cut that provides real tax relief to millions of families and entrepreneurs and creates enough new income to recover 95 percent of the estimated revenue loss would be considered a "failure" of supply-side economics and thus merit a full repeal.

By the way the first link you provided was just the abstract; no results or conclusions were shown. Am I missing something?

The article is published by a journal that requires you to pay for the scholarship. I will not bootleg it for you. If you are interested, you can buy the entire article from JSTOR or contact the author for a reprint. That is how access to scholarship works. Scholarship is a product, just like oil or weapons... why should it be distributed for free?

I don't consider opinion pieces by the Heritage foundation to be scholarship... I don't think Laffer published his work on the Heritage Foundation webiste... In fact, he has a very impressive publication record in peer reviewed journals (you can check his wiki bio for a long list of his published work),

Interestingly, some on this seed (including the seeder himself) bemoan the effect of the highly educated on the US government. Laffer was a tenured professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, USC, Pepperdine...

Finally, the term "Laffer curve" was coined by Jude Wanniski,,, The basic concept was not new; Laffer himself says he learned it from Ibn Khaldun and John Maynard Keynes.

Finally, the term "Laffer curve" was coined by Jude Wanniski,,, The basic concept was not new; Laffer himself says he learned it from Ibn Khaldun and John Maynard Keynes.

Yes, indeed. I have a copy of The Way the World Works right here beside me. A fascinating work that challenges at every turn. I think I should re-read it, as a matter of fact. (And try not to remember that Wanniski defended that butcher Saddam Husein)

The article is published by a journal that requires you to pay for the scholarship.

Still, the conclusion would have been interesting to see.

I don't consider opinion pieces by the Heritage foundation to be scholarship..

Are you saying that because it is not a published study in a peer reviewed journal that the data is suspect? Did capital gains receipts not in fact double after the rate was lowered?

For a bit more formal reference I can point you here. It shows what has happened to countries that have lowered marginal rates and to those who didn't.

Why did so many other countries so dramatically reduce marginal tax rates? Perhaps they were influenced by new economic analysis and evidence from optimal tax theorists, new growth economics (see economic growth), and supply-side economics. But the sheer force of example may well have been more persuasive. Political authorities saw that other national governments fared better by having tax collectors claim a medium share of a rapidly growing economy (a low marginal tax) rather than trying to extract a large share of a stagnant economy (a high average tax). East Asia, Ireland, Russia, and India are a few of the economies that began expanding impressively after their governments sharply reduced marginal tax rates.

Economic Growth by Robert J. Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (MIT Press, 2004, p. 514) lists among the world’s twenty fastest-growing economies Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Botswana, Thailand, Ireland, Malayasia, Portugal, Mauritius, and Indonesia. As Table 1 shows, all these countries either had low marginal tax rates to begin with (Hong Kong) or cut their highest marginal tax rates in half between 1979 and 2002 (Botswana, Mauritius, Singapore, Portugal, etc.). This might be dismissed as a remarkable coincidence were it not for a plethora of economic studies demonstrating several ways in which high marginal tax rates can adversely affect economic performance.

Numerous studies, ably surveyed by Karabegovic et. al. (2004), have found that high marginal tax rates reduce people’s willingness to work up to their potential, to take entrepreneurial risks, and to create and expand a new business: “The evidence from economic research indicates that ... high and increasing marginal taxes have serious negative consequences on economic growth, labor supply, and capital formation” (p. 15).

The study I cited (and yes, peer reviewed work has much more credibility than opinion pieces about peer reviewed work, which is what you cited on THF website) does an unbiased comparison of thirteen countries. Worked in some, not in others. Your study does not control for many variables. For example, many of the countries you mention are not free-market capitalistic systems like ours. Don't you think this might have an impact?

Martin,

Me thinks you may be getting a call from a comedy talent scout!!!!!

yes there should be education for all the children who have half ass parents that don't take the time or have the time to educate them

Yes, but age 10 is not "age approriate."

yes observer the last time I checked it was against the law-called El Porno!

I don't think too many people disagree that sex education for children is a good thing. Even if the parents try to educate their children about sex, the kids will often rather hear it through the school system if they feel awkward about being taught by their parents.

The objection is focused primarily on the age of the children and the scope of the information being provided. If there wasn't something of real concern to the parents, the School Board meeting they had in Helena would not have been packed by a full house of irate parents threatening to move their children to another district.

And after all, THEY are the parents, and should have the final say based upon the will of the majority.

bdobb-- agreed the objections mostly centers on the age factor yet i've seen seeds where ppl have been vehemently against teaching their high school kids. i think there should be an opt out.

Zenkarma,

That works for me. Sounds like a good compromise. But the kids do need the education from some source...parents or the school system.

The Observer wrote: Yes, but age 10 is not "age approriate."

We have plenty of records of 11 year old girls having babies in the USA. I would rather use the facts to tell us what is age appropriate, rather than some asshat's opinion. If American girls are getting pregnant at 11 and 12, then age 10 most certainly is appropriate. Are you saying we should wait until after they are pregnant? yea, that is a great plan.

Matt,

My kids' childhood is not going to be taken away because of some extreme.

I sure hope you give your kid the information he/she needs to protect themselves. Otherwise you might find your kids childhood taken away by some extreme outside the classroom.

The message to 10 year olds should be they're much too young to have sex.

The message to 10 year olds should be they're much too young to have sex.

That is what the message is. That's why we need to tell kids that touching someone elses privates counts as sex.

If you don't think ten-year-olds are playing, "show me yours, I'll show you mine," then you don't remember what it's like to be ten.

The message to 10 year olds should be they're much too young to have sex.

Which, from what I read, is part of the curriculum.

You can't teach them this lesson with silence or keeping them in the dark about what sex actually is.

Hmmm.... the obeserver writes that, 'he message to 10 year olds should be they're much too young to have sex.'... great idea, but its not working!!! Very young girls ARE having sex and ARE having babies. Your denial seems unable to stop them. I'd say education is a better approach. Of course right wingers don't want educated folks, but rather folks who, like W and Palin, use their 'gut instincts'... don't think it worked for Bristol...

In the curriculum, I especially like how in grade 6 the children are taught that marriage is between two "people", and a few lines down they are taught that no person has the right to impose values upon them. Talk about hypocrisy! By conveniently sidestepping the legal Montana definition of marriage between a man and a woman, they are imposing their values by way of omission.

Talk about hypocrisy! By conveniently sidestepping the legal Montana definition of marriage between a man and a woman, they are imposing their values by way of omission.

isn't a law saying marriage is between a man and a woman also imposing a value..??

It may be, as other laws are based on imposing values as well. We teach our children based upon the rule of law. If laws were void of values, we would not have laws against polygamy...or how about marriage and incest between two consenting adults?

Or how about incest between two possums and a tortoise? Or a houseplant and six albino boa constrictors! Or fetuses, if you let two women get married the next thing you'll have is a law letting gorillas rape fetuses with houseplants! Dear lord. Agent57, why would you want that to happen?

Because, as Bdobb points out, the only thing preventing laws to legalize incest and child rape are puritanical Christian values. There is simply no other reason to keep those things criminal.

isn't a law saying marriage is between a man and a woman also imposing a value..??

No, that's more like teaching a sensible definition.

Taken to its illogical conclusion, why not let people marry their pets?

I'm surprised there aren't people in San Francisco protesting for that right.

I never understood what the big fuss was about considering no one, not even the government, can stop two gay adults from living with each other.

Talk about hypocrisy! By conveniently sidestepping the legal Montana definition of marriage between a man and a woman, they are imposing their values by way of omission.

no they are leaving that moral definition to the parents.

BJK--

Taken to its illogical conclusion, why not let people marry their pets?

Are you suggesting that the only legal justification for criminalizing animal abuse is its condemnation by christian conservative value? And as such, de-criminalizing anything that is also condemned by those values, like gay marriage, would require similar legalization for the animal rape?

That is such blatant equivocation. Does it not occur to you that there may be many many reasons to outlaw behavior that harms people or animals against their will or in the absence of their legally recognized consent? Or that the nature of an activity that is voluntarily engaged in by two consenting adults is fundamentally different from one involving a person or animal, that is not able to give legal consent?

How does that work? Let's see. In the Bible:

• Gawd says I shouldn't sleep with animals.
• and Gawd says not to pick fruit off a tree until it's 7 years old.
• So if I decide that it's probably okay to pick fruit off a younger tree ... I'm really saying that sex with sheep is okay too!!!!

Taken to its illogical conclusion, why not let people marry their pets?

You do understand the concept of "consenting adult" don't you? Do you know any animals that can discernably give consent to marry?

This is a tired, well refuted argument that gets trotted out again and again and shot down again and again, adding nothing to the conversation.

I never understood what the big fuss was about considering no one, not even the government, can stop two gay adults from living with each other.

They can, however, deny one half of a gay couple to make decisions on behalf of the other one in case of emergency, like straight, married couples can. The government can deny a survivor ownership of property, contesting wills and insisting that it go to a family member even if the couple left everything to one another. The government can deny any number of privledges that are afforded to straight couples.

Do you think that people have been protesting because they just want to be able to use a wedding registry?

Do you know any animals that can discernably give consent to marry?

Considering that dogs/cats/hamsters are more concerned with food and shelter, I doubt they'd really care :P

They can, however, deny one half of a gay couple to make decisions on behalf of the other one in case of emergency, like straight, married couples can. The government can deny a survivor ownership of property, contesting wills and insisting that it go to a family member even if the couple left everything to one another.

In the first case, an advanced directive is legally binding. Anyone over age 18 (and definitely over age 21) can assign power of attorney to any other adult of sound mind.

Power of Attorney is the basis of "Do Not Resuscitate" orders. Every hospital I've ever dealt with follows these orders if they meet those prerequisites.

In the second example, I think you're repeating an urban legend. If a will signed by a gay person is somehow less legally binding than one signed by a heterosexual adult, then the entire concept of writing a will is a sham.

At which point, everyone should protest.

The government can deny any number of privledges that are afforded to straight couples.

Aside from marital status on income tax forms, I'm not sure what other privileges the government can deny, and more to the point, enforce.

Do you think that people have been protesting because they just want to be able to use a wedding registry?

With some people, you never know.

I mean, Larry King has been married seven times.

For all we know, he did it for the gifts :P

If a will signed by a gay person is somehow less legally binding than one signed by a heterosexual adult, then the entire concept of writing a will is a sham.
At which point, everyone should protest.

On the one hand you're right, if a will is filed you can't contest it without some reason. But a will is supposed to, as the name implies, recognize the wishes of the deceased and reflect their will as to what to do with their worldly goods.

If there is any flaw in it, one can contest the will. Also, it can be contested on the basis that the person who filed it wasn't in sound mind.

I went looking for examples and there were two that I found that were significant. In the first case, a man didn't have a will as such, but wrote a note that he gave to his partner during a party, in front of witnesses. The note stated that he wanted his partner to have all of his goods because he wasn't interested in his family having them. The fact that the note didn't comprise a legally binding will wasn't in dispute, but it did mean that after the man died, his partner had no legal basis to claim ownership.

There is a provision in Coloroado state law that allows for such documentation to act as a will, but the man's partner is currently having to fight to have the note recognized against a family the man didn't really care about.

The second involved two men who'd been living together for years, shared a farm together and got a will drawn up but the signature wasn't done in the presence of witnesses. This means that the family had reason to contest the will and is attempting to deprive the man's partner of his property, including his home.

The immediate response, I imagine, is that since the legal formalities were not observed or observed incorrectly, then it's okay that the families are taking things away from the deceased people's partners. After all, they should have had things in order.

But that's the point. If they were married, they would be legally family. They'd be the next of kin and even if the will was in dispute, they'd be in better legal territory sometimes to just keep the house they are living in and have been for some time. They would be better protected, sharing the same legal privledges that my wife and I share after the civil ceremony we completed two years ago which involved signing a piece of paper before witnesses.

The sort of objections aren't peculiar to gay couples; heterosexual couple that weren't legally married might have the same issues. But the heterosexual couple has the right to marry and thus eliminate a lot of the problems. The homosexual couple does not have that right. And that's what at issue.

Aside from marital status on income tax forms, I'm not sure what other privileges the government can deny, and more to the point, enforce.

Child custody rights, power of attorney in case of injury or medical emergency, spousal privledge in courts of law, Social Security benefits, pensions... everything that comes with legal recognition of marriage. Here's a list.

With some people, you never know.

Cute. I don't think people who've been protesting for years for the same rights as hetero couples have might find it so.

Good food Little Doc Ela. I will never forget when the "boom" happened either. All of a sudden kids where have oral sex on the buses in malls all over it was terrible. I ask my son about this I think he was around 12, I told him that is was too early for type of SEXual conduct. He needed to mature a little more. That whatever he was letting THOSE girls do to him guess what, they have done to others and they may have diseases. Not just the girl cutie thing either.

I have had many discussions regarding sex with my son pros and cons. I never told him false stories like it would fall off or he would grow hair on his palms. That would be stupid to lie to your kids and then when they find out you lied... oh boy.

All of a sudden kids where have oral sex on the buses in malls all over it was terrible.

On buses and at shopping malls...Yuck!!!

That would be a stretch, even in San Francisco :P

Wow Mike. That's a courageous admission. Right from the front-lines of parenthood, that's where we get the straight story. Thank you Mike. And I'm so sorry that you are so disconnected from the realities of your son's life. My father was a horrible father too and I know it haunts him to this day how little influence he actually had on me. You'll get through it I'm sure. They grow up so fast. Only 6th grade and he's already relying on visualizing baseball games to take his mind off those dirty thoughts.

Good job, Mike.

Mike,

You had a retort painstakingly created under duress of an inadequate supply of gray cells with enormous gaps in each synapse.

WHAT?

Bdobb - to Warchief #1, translation = Mike had a smart-azz reply but was under such pressure because his brain wasn't up to the task (lack of brain cells). His brain has disconnected from his cognitive thinking. no synapse function = no cognitive thought....worth mentioning anyway. *I'll take the money and run, whoo Lord! ...Steve Miller Band. Now, Bdobb, play nice....lol

Wow a gay agenda person pops up in this thread! Can you explain to me what the gay agenda is and how people are recruited to turn gay?

You may just have some ground breaking research that you need to share with the world.

Thats easy. Teach children that being gay is a normal healthy alternative to traditional relationships as early as possible.

Then the children will all turn gay? This is the first I have heard of this.

Perhaps you are confusing teaching tolerance of others with sex education.

Now schools what to teach them hardcore porn. Oh how I hate our liberal left wing democratic godless socialist progressive government.

Good grief, over react much?

Jonathan--

Oh how I hate our liberal left wing democratic godless socialist progressive government.

You hate democratic government?