Skip to main content

My angry Peyton Manning impersonation: "OMAHA!!!"

As long-time readers would know, I was born in Omaha, Nebraska, and raised in a suburb of the city. As long-time readers would also know, my politics have never exactly jived with the Cornhusker state's. That brings me to a recent article I read, which was entitled, "Omaha Parent Claims Sex Education 'Rapes Children Of Their Innocence.'" Yes, it only gets better from there.

At a recent school board meeting, an angry unidentified woman said this with regard to the school district's proposed revisions to its sex education program (which hasn't undergone any provisions in 30 years):

"Yes we need to give children an education. But the curriculum that you have, the standards you have, gives children too much information. It rapes children of their innocence."

For the record, the proposed changes are about as radical as a 5'5'', 130-lb. man wearing a winter coat in sub-zero temperatures. The new curriculum would simply inform students on both abstinence and contraception, without providing any form of the latter. It would also make mention of LGBT topics to 7th grade students, which would "center on teaching individuals to be respectful of one another, even if ideas and beliefs are different." If that's not radical enough, parents who disagree with the program can opt their child(ren) out of it.

What did some parents have to say about these run-of-the-mill proposed changes to the district's sex education program?

- "I very strongly believe that sexual education for our children should only be about a loving relationship between a man and a woman within the bounds of marriage." - Margarita Hernandez

- "Kids are going to do things... they're going to go behind their parents' backs to have sex, some of them. But there are some that are not going to do that. And just because kids want to drink, are you going to give them a bottle of alcohol to help them with alcoholism?" - Gwen Easter

That last comment has to be my favorite, for it's a prime example of false equivalence. If the program included teachers handing out condoms and birth-control pills, Ms. Easter may have a more legitimate argument, however, that's not the case. Teachers will simply be informing students on sex, as they long have, when it comes to contraception, disease, and the potential consequences from both a legal and health perspective.. It'd be the equivalent of teachers informing students on drugs and alcohol, and the potential consequences of using them, both from a legal and health perspective.

I've long found it to be comically ironic when parents adamantly criticize comprehensive sex education programs, especially if they label themselves as pro-life. Studies have long showcased that the more informed students are about each and every contraceptive option, the more likely they are to make use of contraception, which in turn decreases unwanted teenage pregnancies, and through that, decreases abortions.

As Sasha Forsen, another parent at the school board meeting, told KETV, "I believe it is our responsibility to give our children the tools that they need to make informed decisions in this changing world that we live in. I believe that this curriculum provides facts. I think we can debate morality all day long, but I think it's really important to provide facts."

I couldn't agree more. Fortunately, it appears more in the area side with Ms. Forsen rather than the before-mentioned parents on the matter. In a recently conducted telephone survey of parents in the area, it showed over 93% of them agree with the sex education program covering both abstinence and contraception, as well as 70% who believe the program should include information on LGBT matters. For the 5% who believe the program should only cover abstinence, I only have one additional thing to say: Ignorance isn't bliss; ignorance increases the odds of having kids.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/omaha-sex-education_568c862be4b0a2b6fb6dd505

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...