Sex Ed / Wealth

Sex Ed / Wealth

The LSJ ran a story / editorial by Judy Putnam today, critiquing Alice Dreger for ridiculing an ELHS abstinence based sex education lesson.  It was a clash between an intelligent, thoughtful person living in today’s world with a curriculum still mired in the 19th Century.  Ms. Dreger attended the class with her son and tweeted the proceedings with justifiable outrage, using language that is commonplace with every kid in the class, on cable TV and in every movie theater, but unmentionable in the LSJ.  The “f-bomb”?  Have you seen a stand up comedian lately?  You can find the word with some frequency in the New Yorker, etc, etc.

So they banned Ms. Dreger from the high school because she “swore” in front of students, although the article declined to say which swear words she used.  And the idea that the students she was addressing don’t use the English language in the same way she was addressing them is preposterous.  If you don’t believe me, just sneak a look at your sweet 16 year old daughter’s texts.  Or tweets.  Or chats.  Or whatever.

The real issue which the MSM generally avoids is recreational sex.  I haven’t done any research into what percentage of sexual activity in the US – at any age – is recreational as opposed to procreational.  My wild guess would be 99% recreational, 1% procreational, but I could be way off.  It might be 2% procreational.  Ms. Dreger alludes to this according to the article.  One of her tweets: “What if We Admitted to Children That Sex is Primarily About Pleasure?” This may be the real reason she has been banned from ELHS.  (Surely an arbitrary and actionable mistake on the part of the administration.)

Ms. Dreger takes issue with much of the “abstinence only” curriculum as it is being presented in sex ed classes.  From what you can determine from the article, the “abstinence only” or even the “abstinence” agenda presumes that all sexual activity outside the bonds of matrimony and not specifically for procreation is shameful, demeaning, part of a disasterous, shameful lifestyle.  One can only imagine how counterproductive that message will be with the average high school student.

Actually it should be offensive to anyone not living in the 19th Century.


Watching Chris Mathews last night was discouraging, and yet another example of how the MSM forces the delusional framework on the electorate.  The subject of wealth distribution comes up in the context of the recent passage by the house of a bill that will transfer billions of dollars to the super rich (GOP passes massive tax break for millionaires, billionaires)

Mathews is considered a liberal or a progressive.  He was addressing the income gap.  First, he cites a poll on the “opinion” of the electorate as to whether the income gap is getting bigger or smaller.  This is a question of fact, not opinion.  A poll of the electorate on whether the income gap is getting bigger or not is really measuring the effectiveness of propaganda on the electorate, not whether or not the income gap is widening.  If 75% of republican voters do not believe the income gap is getting wider, that does not mean the income gap is not getting wider.  That means wing nut propaganda has brainwashed 75% of the republican voters – totally misleading them.  The “poll” is a measure of their ignorance.  Mathews presents the argument as if there is some question as to whether government is shoveling wealth to the super rich or not.  (The implication being that because 75% of republicans don’t believe it, it might not be true)  That is no different than a poll question asking whether republicans or democrats believe the world is flat.  If 75% of republicans believe the world is flat, what does that tell you?

Chris Mathews fails to point out this obvious fact.

Then Mathews presents a question with a totally false premise:  Should the government advocate policies that transfer wealth to the poor and middle class or should the government “get out of the way”.  This question demonstrates that Mathews is a dupe of the propaganda system – or maybe part of it.  The real question is: “Should the government advocate policies that transfer wealth to the poor and middle class or should the government continue to advocate policies that transfer wealth to the super rich at an accelerating rate?”   Tax and social policy influence the distribution of wealth.  A truism.  It is a fact that the distribution of wealth for the last 20 – 30 years – through tax and social policy like the current bill – has been mostly to the super rich.  An easily ascertainable fact.

So current tax and social policy is transferring wealth to the super rich at an accelerating rate, and this has been happening for decades.  To repeat, the real question is not “Should the government get out of the way?”  The question is “Should the government continue to obstruct a fair distribution of wealth and stop implementing policies (e.g. the current bill, estimated to transfer approximately $270 billion to the super rich) that are transferring wealth to the super rich at an incredible and egregious rate?”  The answer to that is too obvious, so the question can’t be asked by the MSM.

More easily ascertainable facts on the estate tax:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 + 6 =