16
It’s time to blog, old school style
Over at WorldNetDaily, Kevin McCullough is yet another nut extremely preoccupied by condoms and related matters:
It was no secret that condom use in America under her husband’s leadership was at an all time … er … high. A lot of things were: the flow of pornography, teen pregnancy, abortion and, yes, the use of, discussion of, demonstrations in public schools of … condoms.
Ah Kevin, Kevin, Kevin. There’s something we need to tell you, and it goes a little something like this: SADLY, NO!
Teen pregnancy rates have reached historic lows dropping 25 percent from 1990 to 1999. The birth rate dropped 19 percent and the abortion rate was down 39 percent in this age group.
That’s gotta hurt we don’t care where you come from.
What else happened in the 1990s?
The pregnancy rate for unmarried women has continuously declined through the 1990s.
Damn Clenis!
All of which explains why when we see Kevin write this:
Does she know that the entire teen portion of Planned Parenthood’s website ? which continues to be promoted in most public schools through the local PP clinics ? encourages massive sexual experimentation? Sometimes directly promoting such ventures to children as young as 6 years of age?
We tend to think he’s pulling it out of his ass.
Update: Kevin replies and the wanking continues here (or scroll up.)
melior said,
January 17, 2005 at 1:05
Why, back when I was a kid, no one even knew what those damn things were for!
It’s about time we stopped those evil-doers who are trying to make the US like the Netherlands… if our teen pregancy rate wasn’t 7x theirs where would all the cute white babies to adopt come from?
Thlayli said,
January 17, 2005 at 5:49
We tend to think he’s pulling it out of his ass.
Hell, when you’re reading WorldNutDaily, you just assume that right off the top.
doghouse riley said,
January 17, 2005 at 9:07
Sorta like reading Hal Lindsay…the arguement never changes, but the dates get moved when necessary or convenient.
The benchmarks of the “rising flow [huh huh] of pornography” would seem mostly to be a phenomenon of Republican administrations: Eisenhower (Lady Chatterley), Nixon [I Am Curious (Yellow); Deep Throat crossing over into the mainstream], and Reagan, especially, when porn drove the VCR market and sex moved to cable. Blame the Clennis? for internet porn if you will, but that was a matter of a billion-dollar business expanding into a new market, not a sudden awakening of long-repressed desires run amok.
Janice said,
January 17, 2005 at 9:09
But Clinton was a Vile Adulterer who defiled the Oval Office, so all Bad Things either began or got worse during his Administration. And if the CDC disagrees, then they are Evil and Not of The Lord.
merl said,
January 17, 2005 at 9:53
There are actually brain dead people who believe everything they read at World Nut Daily, unfortunatly, I know some of them and they vote.
Dorothy said,
January 17, 2005 at 17:22
I suppose the World Net Daily readers would be very distressed to learn that the porn industry pretty much sets the standards for consumer video products.
Will it be VHS or Betamax? Let’s wait and see what the porn industry chooses to use.
VHS or DVD? What’s the porn industry doing?
Next standard among the several proposed at CES this year? Heck, the porn industry releases over 11,000 video titles a year. The Hollywood studios won’t make a move until the porn kings have settled on a technology.
As porn goes, so goes the entertainment industry. But since the US has blinders on when it comes to porn, we have very little market research and direction in this area.
heydave said,
January 17, 2005 at 18:38
I just love it when you get all old school snarky on these bastards!
mythago said,
January 17, 2005 at 19:45
I would not make the assumption that WorldNetDaily readers eschew porn. They just like it to be, you know, under-the-counter.
doghouse riley said,
January 17, 2005 at 20:13
Yeah, it’s like our Morals Czar sez, it’s better to be a hypocrite than have no values at all.
Andrew McManama said,
January 17, 2005 at 22:12
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1004/nosports.html
Do this one next, SEB!
Sadly, No! said,
January 17, 2005 at 23:06
Do this one next, SEB!
I need fifty dollars to make you holler
I get paid to do the wild thing
Anonymous said,
January 17, 2005 at 23:20
that landover baptist comment is just confusing.
swifferBoat said,
January 17, 2005 at 23:27
I suppose the World Net Daily readers would be very distressed to learn that the porn industry pretty much sets the standards for consumer video products.
Pornography drives many technologies into acceptance, if not into existence in the first place. And art for that matter. Maybe all of civlization. Hell, we probably owe our evolved state to the advanced manual dexterity achieved by monkeys through incessant masturbation.
Keith said,
January 17, 2005 at 23:29
If he was really pulling it out of his ass, I’d expect a better quality than that. In fact, I think its being pulled from thin air.
mdhatter said,
January 17, 2005 at 23:30
Don’t blame the Clenis, Blame Al Gore. He invented Internets pornography.
ronjazz said,
January 17, 2005 at 23:37
Facts don’t fit the Bushco agenda, so they must be ignored or lied over, that’s the new morality of the rightwing idiocracy. While they think they have won, sort of like cheating during a football game or something, no civilization (term loosely applied) can survive by ignoring facts and reality. This has been proven throughout history, and always some dumb fuckers try it anyway. They are the main reason mankind has made such poor progress as people over the past 30,000 years or so. Technology has progressed, but not humans. Just making bigger, more lethal clubs for battle.
alkali said,
January 17, 2005 at 23:57
Disclaimer: speculation that Mr. McCullough is “pulling it out of his ass” should not be read as an endorsement of massive sexual experimentation, particularly by children as young as 6 years of age.
Hoosier X said,
January 18, 2005 at 0:06
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine! That will put the Liberal Media in its place!
Stupid liberals! I can make up facts that are as good as your real ones! So there!
parsec said,
January 18, 2005 at 0:08
Who needs facts when you practice Triumph-of-the-Will(TM)?
pbg said,
January 18, 2005 at 0:26
I like that phrase ‘massive sexual experimentation.’ Is that, like, sex with female bodybuilders?
Ian Gillespie said,
January 18, 2005 at 0:26
When the above wacko claims that Planned Parenthood “encourages massive sexual experimentation… to children as young as 6 years of age”, he is probably refering to the following:
Parent-Child Communication
“Talking with your son or daughter about sex.”
Ringel, Marcia.
The Female Patient Supplement, s16, 1999: 6-10.
The author argues that parents should not let embarrassment interfere with educating their children about sex, and offers recommendations on the best ways to provide this information. She explains that discussing sex with children is not the same as condoning it and urges parents to share and explain their personal values about sex with their children. In addition, she advocates an ongoing dialog about sexuality, beginning when children are five or six years old and continuing through the teenage years. Topics that require special attention include homosexuality, birth control and emergency contraception, and sexual relationships. A list of resources is provided to assist parents in educating their children about sex.
This is from an “Educators’ Update”, a series of abstracts of recent articles on sexual behaviour.
The full (lengthy) text can be found here…
http://tinyurl.com/5uyj2
This is the only reference to either “six years old” OR “6 years old” OR “six year olds” OR “6 year olds” on the entire Planned Parenthood website.
lonestar said,
January 18, 2005 at 0:35
Of course he’s pulling it out of his ass… That’s the closest point to his brain, since that’s where his head is.
Avedon said,
January 18, 2005 at 1:16
You have to admit, there were more blow-jobs in government documents while Clinton was president.
Daddy-O said,
January 18, 2005 at 2:44
Sometimes directly promoting such ventures to children as young as 6 years of age?
PP DOES encourage parents to explain anything at all about sex that kids ask them about. But this is going a little too far.
Only someone with an overactive imagination would deduce one from the other.
Me? I’m teaching my five-year-old daughter whatever she asks me about. I trust PP. It only makes sense.
If she turns into some sort of prostitute porn star, I can always become a conservative in my old age and rage and make up lies about PP. Until that happens…
Good God, it makes my head hurt just being aware of these pathetic assholes. What rock did they crawl out from under? What has happened to my country?
They belong in jail or at least hauled into court every time they slander someone. If only.
Jimbo said,
January 18, 2005 at 6:12
No, it’s true about PP. My daughter just turned 6 and I bought her a big box of condoms, all colors and flavors. The folks at PP call it the “Junior Starter Variety Pack”.
It’s on their website.
sister of ye said,
January 18, 2005 at 7:45
Anyone who is around kids knows they are curious critters, and some of that curiosity will be about sex. It’s perfectly reasonable, and healthy, to deal with their questions in a way appropriate with their age and maturity.
Maybe if these right-wing moralists either a) had kids of their own, or b) dealt with them themselves instead of having nannies raise them, they’d have a clue.
Jim said,
January 18, 2005 at 19:42
Too bad Kevin’s parents weren’t practicing contraception the night he was conceived.
Stentor said,
January 18, 2005 at 23:05
Yes, and here’s the really important contradistinction that most right-wingers/bible-thumpers overlook, discussing sex with children is not the same as condoning it. What is it with these idiots? Just because I talk about murder doesn’t mean I approve of it, just because I talk about terrorism doesn’t mean I approve of it, just because I talk about fisting doesn’t mean I approve of it. So why do these people lump the two just because it involves a frank discussion of sexuality with their children? They’re too embarrassed to discuss it with their children because they’re a bunch of hung-up, sexually repressed, prudish Victorians! Who should have had sexual education rammed down their throats so they wouldn’t feel so goddamned uncomfortable about it. I swear, sometimes the only way you can make people learn something is to beat them over the fucking head with it!
(: Tom :) said,
January 19, 2005 at 1:07
Seb: it looks like you might have left an italics html tag open at the end of this post. Everything else below it is in italics when I look at it in Firefox.
And you are absolutely right on; the wrongwingnuts are divinely inspired and Koresh puts this kind of stuff up their bum all the time. If you don’t believe me, check out FReeperville or Little Green Fascists - but bring something to clean up with afterwards…
Paul Lyon said,
January 20, 2005 at 5:30
I read the article on the Landover Babtist Site:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1004/nosports.html
I have only one question: is this for real?
It looks like a satire some liberal with a bit too much to drink wrote up one day to make fun of the Christian Right. If it is not a satire, it is deserving of wider recogntion as evidence that these folks are even more crazy than one might have, naively, supposed.
WKD said,
January 20, 2005 at 9:10
It’s satire. Brought to you by some of the folks at whitehouse.org, as I understand it.