Elections Next Tuesday

I haven't been writing here recently for a variety of reasons but mainly because of my concern about the potential impact my blogging will have on potential employment opportunities.  Due to this concern I am seriously considering suspending my blogging.  I do, however, have great love of elections and election day and will certainly be live blogging the coming election.  Here are some things to look for:

Governor

New Jersey -  The Race for Governor between Republican Chris Cristie and Democrat Jon Corzine.  Pollster.com is reporting that although the race is very close Corzine may pull out ahead.  He currently leads 40.8% to Christie's 39.1% (Daggett, an independent, is taking the rest of the vote).

Virginia - The Race for Governor between Republican Robert McDonnell and Democrat Creigh Deeds is looking like a McDonnell lock with a 12 point lead.  Virginians previously picked McDonnell over Deeds and it doesn't seem as if Deeds has been able to energize Virginians who trend Left, something not too surprising considering the bruising primary the Democrats went through earlier this year.

Ballot Initiatives

Maine - Two words: Gay Marriage.  Yeah, voting is crucial.  Although polls seem to be indicating that a blow to same-sex marriage is about to occur, Question 1 is the only major thing on the ballot and so turnout is crucial.  (For the record I'm saying 'No' on 1).

Congressional Races


New York's 23 (NY-23) - The fight between Republican Dede Scozzafava and Wanna-Be Republican (Conservative Party Candidate) Doug Hoffman has been the story.  This has allowed Democrat Bill Owens to pull out ahead.  Honestly, Talking Points Memo (TPM) has the best coverage of NY-23 I've seen.  Personally, I would have liked to see Dede Scozzafava in Congress.  I think her stances on the issues are generally in the direction the Republicans need to start moving in order to continue to stay a national party.

Other Stuff


Worcester, MA - Yep, the place where I'm currently voting is having a Mayoral Race.  I received a nice, hand lettered flier from Joe O'Brian's campaign today.  That was a nice touch.  I was already planning on casting my ballot for him but it's nice to see a bit of personal outreach.  (Occasionally, that does some good things, like get your name on a blog).  We're also voting for some other positions as described by the Telegram and Gazette.  But I don't really feel the need to go into those.

If I missed any important races (or races that you think I should have mentioned) please let me know.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics. Sphere: Related Content

Secondhand Smoking

I was recently engaged in a debate on secondhand smoke due to the recent release of a paper by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) which indicate that smoking bans could help reduce the incidence of heart attacks by 6-47% in non-smokers.  I support smoking bans and I want to share my reasoning.

While it's true that there is some difference between the smoke inhaled by smokers and secondhand smoke that difference is different only in that the smoke inhaled by smokers is typically run through a filter (in the case of cigarettes).  Secondhand smoke is a combination of the smoke inhaled by smokers and unfiltered smoke directly from burning tobacco products. (Source).  In equal quantities this makes secondhand smoke more dangerous than inhaled smoke run through a filter because secondhand smoke includes non-filtered as well as filtered smoke.

There are 250 chemicals in tobacco smoke known to be harmful, with 50 of them known carcinogens.  (Source).  Carcinogens typically act either by promoting mutations in genomic DNA resulting in altered cell growth or, by some mechanical mechanism, promoting cell growth.  In essence, the cancerous cells become 'cancerous' because they undergo rapid malignant division and growth creating tumors.  (Source: Common Knowledge)

Further, many of the harmful compounds in tobacco smoke seriously elevate the risk of other diseases.  And, secondhand smoke is known to cause heart disease, typically manifesting as a heart attack, and is known to cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

The effects of secondhand smoke are clear.  Secondhand smoke negatively affects the health of everyone exposed to it.  But, some people believe that they have the right to smoke anywhere they wish.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I will attempt to show this in several, distinct arguments.

1. Group rights trump individual rights.  No one would argue that something which is to the benefit of one individual but the detriment of everyone else could be construed to be the right by which the state should abide, i.e. what benefits the group should be held in higher esteem than that which benefits a single individual.  If this were not true than anarchy would descend in the legal realm for individuals could act with impunity against the interests of the group.

2. The right to health trumps the right of individual liberty.  If this were not true than it would not be possible that freedoms of expression could be curbed by the interests of the state.  For example, 'hate speech' could be prosecuted, for otherwise individual liberty would allow expression of that speech.

3. If it were true that individuals should be allowed to smoke in public places, clearly in opposition to the interest of the public health, then individuals should also be allowed to violate the public health in other ways.  The wanton spraying of other chemicals hazardous to the public health, against the interest of some individuals, should be allowed because, clearly, if the public health cannot be considered in one case it makes sense that it should not be considered in another case.  Therefore, we shouldn't regulate things like air or water quality because, really, individuals should be allowed to dump whatever chemicals they please into those two systems (air & water).

4. The exposure to secondhand smoke is inadvertent.  It might be argued that the exposure to other detriments to health is also inadvertent.  Such is the case with a virus, e.g. H1N1.  Yet, unlike a virus, there is a conscious choice inherent in secondhand smoke.  That choice is not made by the person exposed to to secondhand smoke. While the smoker him/herself choses to elevate his/her risk this choice is not made by the person exposed to secondhand smoke.  In the case of instances where a conscious choice can be made whether to be exposed to something or not exposed (e.g. certain vaccines which treat conditions not contracted at random) people should be allowed to evaluate the risks versus the benefits themselves before a choice is made for them.

I could probably think of a half dozen other arguments for smoking bans but I think those four are sufficient for now.  Suffice it to say, I support smoking bans because of three major reasons: they are in the interest of the public health, exposure to secondhand smoke does not allow the exposee a choice in the matter of exposure to harmful chemicals and the benefits of implementing such a ban (in terms of monetary cost, time spent to treat associated illnesses, and general improvement of average health) outweigh whatever costs such a ban incurs.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics. Sphere: Related Content

Gardasil: Yeah, Who Didn't See That Coming?

[Edit: This Post Updated October 16th @ 1:25 p.m., updated in blue]

The L.A. Times' Opinion published an article by Karin Klein about Gardasil.  She's been wondering about why the FDA didn't recommend that boys be vaccinated alongside girls, so have I.  Oh wait, they did.  But why isn't it being pushed in the same way that it has been pushed for girls, considering approval occurred nearly a month ago?

Let me note that the only way to eliminate the strains of HPV which cause cervical cancer from the population is to vaccinate boys as well.  This is due to the need to vaccinate a large enough proportion of the population to eliminate the disease (as was done with smallpox). 

"The cost of giving boys the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine would outweigh any health benefit, researchers say."  Wait, what?  You mean the potential to slow the spread of HPV and significantly lowering the risk of women getting cervical cancer isn't worth the (monetary) cost?

So why wasn't it a good value?  "Vaccination was considered a good value if cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $50,000 to $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, meaning the cost of the vaccine vs. the number of added years someone would gain by getting the vaccine."  So, basically, since boys can't get cervical cancer it's not worth vaccinating them even though it would almost certainly slow the spread of HPV to girls, who can get cervical cancer.

Now, you would think that it was Merck, the producer of Gardasil, who was pushing for boys not to be vaccinated wouldn't you?  I mean it makes sense, if you only vaccinate girls you will never vaccinate all of them and so you will need to keep supplying the population with vaccine so you'll continually have a cash crop.  But, Merck is actually being the responsible player here.  (Kudos to Merck).  Merck petitioned the FDA to approve the vaccine for boys to prevent genital warts.  Merck petitioned the results of the Harvard School of Public Health results which said it wasn't worth vaccinating boys.  Merck is leading the way when it comes to pointing out that HPV causes problems for men as well as women and that it's to the benefit of men to get vaccinated.

Now, some of Merck's interest is selfish (They can make a bunch of money).  But, it's interesting that it's the company which is being responsible, not the medical professionals who are putting monetary cost above societal cost.

Of course, the media has latched onto the Harvard results which came out on October 9th in the British Medical Journal (online).  It is these results which have prompted most of the media attention on Gardasil and vaccinations.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics. Sphere: Related Content

Senators Beveridge & Hoar On Mideast Military Escapades

Both Senators Beveridge and Hoar died long ago.  Their words regarding the Philippines and the problems the United States was facing regarding that nation seem to apply to the current cases of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Beveridge was a fierce imperialist while Hoar called for a cessation of the annexation of territories.

Senator Beveridge said "The military situation, past, present, and prospective, is no reason for abandonment. Our campaign has been as perfect as possible with the force at hand. We have been delayed, first, by a failure to comprehend the immensity of our acquisition; and, second, by insufficient force; and, third, by our efforts for peace...We attempted a great task with insufficient means; we became impatient that it was not finished before it could fairly be commenced; and I pray we may not add that other element of disaster, pausing in the work before it is thoroughly and forever done. That is the gravest mistake we could possibly make, and that is the only danger before us...Mr. President, reluctantly and only from a sense of duty am I forced to say that American opposition to the war has been the chief factor in prolonging it...

We must act on the situation as it exists, not as we would wish it. I have talked with hundreds of...people, getting their views as to the practical workings of self-government. The great majority simply do not understand any participation in any government whatever. The most enlightened among them declare that self-government will succeed because the employers of labor will compel their employees to vote as their employer wills and that this will insure intelligent voting. I was assured that we could depend upon good men always being in office because the officials who constitute the government will nominate their successors, choose those among the people who will do the voting, and determine how and where elections will be held.

The most ardent advocate of self-government that I met was anxious that I should know that such a government would be tranquil because, as he said, if anyone criticized it, the government would shoot the offender. A few of them have a sort of verbal understanding of the democratic theory, but the above are the examples of the ideas of the practical workings of self-government entertained by the aristocracy, the rich planters and traders, and heavy employers of labor, the men who would run the government..."

Meanwhile, Senator Hoar said "If a strong people try to govern a weak one against its will, the home government will get despotic, too...If you try to deprive even a savage or a barbarian of his just rights you can never do it without becoming a savage or a barbarian yourself.

Gentlemen talk about sentimentalities, about idealism. They like practical statesmanship better. But, Mr. President, this whole debate for the last four years has been a debate between two kinds of sentimentality. There has been practical statesmanship in plenty on both sides.

You also, my imperialistic friends, have had your ideals and your sentimentalities. One is that the flag shall never be hauled down where it has once floated. Another is that you will not talk or reason with a people with arms in their hands. Another is that sovereignty over an unwilling people may be bought with gold. And another is that sovereignty may be got by force of arms, as the booty of battle or the spoils of victory.

What has been the practical statesmanship which comes from your ideals and your sentimentalities? You have wasted six hundred millions of treasure. You have sacrificed nearly ten thousand American lives-the flower of our youth. You have devastated provinces. You have slain uncounted thousands of the people you desire to benefit. You have established reconcentration camps. Your generals are coming home from their harvest, bringing their sheaves with them, in the shape of thousands of sick and wounded and insane to drag out their miserable lives, wreaked in body and mind. You make the American flag in the eyes of numerous people the emblem of sacrilege in Christian churches, and of the burning of human dwellings, and of the horror of the water torture...

Your practical statesmanship has succeeded in converting a people who three years ago were ready to kiss the hem of the garment of the American and to welcome him as a liberator, who thronged after your men when they landed on those islands with benediction and gratitude, into sullen and irreconcilable enemies, possessed of a hatred which centuries cannot eradicate."

While not all of what they said applies to Iraq and Afghanistan, most of what I've included in this post is, in some way, relevant.  And, while not all the specific measures are the same, many of the same measures still matter.

It is hard to say what lessons we should take from these two Senator's speeches on the Philippines but let us at least acknowledge that the subjects are, more or less, the same then as today.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics. Sphere: Related Content

Abstinence Education Theory - Review III

'What is the purpose of abstinence education theory?' According to our Federal Government it is to "deliver...the message that abstinence is the surest way to avoid out–of–wedlock pregnancy and STDs."  That, I think, is a pretty good definition of what we mean when we discuss abstinence education theory.  On one hand, this issue does not adequately address the issue which many fundamentalists consider 'the issue' for abstinence education theory, the health and safety of the eternal soul.  On the other hand, inclusion of religion both violates the Constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion and ignores the problem inherent in 'knowledge of God.'  So, for the purposes of this argument I'll ignore the implications of religion.

I'm not clear why the out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a big concern. In 2007, "the birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend begun years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older...for a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband."

Really, it doesn't seem as if abstinence education can hope to reverse this trend, especially considering abstinence education focuses on teens whereas three-quarters of the women are older than teens.  It seems as though out-of-wedlock pregnancy is becoming an accepted norm, rather than staying a shameful deviant.  Whether or not this is 'good' for the country is hard to say, and certainly outside the scope of this inquiry.

It is sufficient, for our purposes, to say that out-of-wedlock pregnancy, while certainly stopped by abstinence, is rapidly becoming an accepted norm and it doesn't make sense that a major initiative via abstinence education will work to effectively reverse this trend.  So, when we ask ourselves what the is purpose of abstinence education theory we must eventually come around to the conclusion that the most pressing concern for the public is the spread of STDs.  Certainly, diseases such as HIV/AIDS, which could be largely stopped by abstinence on behalf of those infected, should have already become extinct before now if abstinence education theory had worked.  Yet, the spread of HIV/AIDS goes on unabated.

From a public health standpoint, abstinence education theory would implement an action (abstinence) which would work to stop the spread of STDs more effectively than any alternative if it effectively conveyed the message and motivated people to action (or, I guess, lack thereof).  If it is at all effective then it is worth continuing abstinence education but if it is not at all effective than perhaps we ought to move in new directions when confronting the STD threat.  As is said, 'the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'

Anyone want to chime in with thoughts on abstinence education theory or any of the points I made about it over the last three posts?

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics. Sphere: Related Content

Abstinence Education Theory - Review II

Yesterday, I began a review of abstinence education theory as an intro into the new policy analysis side of this blog.  Admittedly, my review, up to this point, has centered on weak arguments and focused in on the ambiguity of grammatical usage, i.e. disproving a conclusion through targeting its premises.  Okay, today, I'm focusing on misinformation of one particular type.  In particular, I want to address the issue of myths about contraception being widespread, as recently demonstrated in the UK (or easily available on a laughable enterprise like Yahoo! Answers (Possible NSFW Link)).

Much of abstinence education theory is aimed at teenagers.  The education geared towards abstinence is, at least in some places, not supplemented with basic information on pregnancy and conception.  If history tells us anything it tells us that people have this driving urge to reproduce and we just won't be able to stop that from happening (nor should we).   But really, we do need to be more conscientious of making sure people are informed of basic information about the human body and the reproductive system.

The question we should concern ourselves with is how to effectively deliver this information.  One of the main points I want to get across is that 'what you don't know can't hurt you' is not an effective approach to sexual relations.  When one in five British women are listing bizarre uses of kitchen utensils as birth control methods we, Americans, should look at our own society, which probably isn't so different from Britain on this count, and reassess what and how we are informing our citizens.  It's not that the focus should be on birth control methods.  But, when we assess what demographics, what populations are most susceptible to contracting and spreading sexually transmitted diseases it follows that we should look harder at the groups who are ignorant than the ones who are knowledgeable.

Admittedly, knowledge doesn't solve everything.  By all counts Ted Kaczynski was a pretty knowledgeable guy but he did commit some horrific crimes.  So, we cannot necessarily say that people by having knowledge will necessarily make good choices.  People are, unfortunately, likely to "use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity." But, it is hard to say that ignorance does not play some sort of role in acting malignantly.  Certainly, people must make choices and those choices are necessarily contributed to not only by social convention and pressure but also knowledge or absence thereof.  

Further, it is necessary that in discussing the subject of abstinence education theory we also discuss the only marginally related factors of social networks and other peer-to-peer interactions.  These areas contribute substantially to the decisions of teens.  When discussing these issues in-depth we come to the realization that such seemingly unrelated factors such as truth versus perception must also be discussed and somehow a coherent view of these factors must be conveyed to teenagers.  It is a common error to believe that the perception of something is the same as the reality of that same thing.  There are some things in our control, some things which we can act upon with certainty, those things are our perceptions.  Those things we cannot control, those things which we err when acting upon are that which we call the perceptions others craft for themselves or others, namely reputation.  Reputations are not reality, they are but amalgamations of opinions, others' opinions.

The problem when we discuss abstinence education theory is not necessarily the theory itself, or that which opposes the theory, but, rather, the very implementation of the theory.  It is well and good to recognize the wisdom of Freud's insight into man's motivation being sexuality but that is a far step removed from controlling that motivation.  Many smokers recognize that smoking is bad for their health but that in itself is not enough to stop them from smoking.  It is an effort of personal will that allows smokers to stop smoking alongside other innumerable factors.  Abstinence theory seeks to impart that 'effort of personal will' in teenagers in order to motivate them to stop having sexual relations.  Abstinence theory seeks to create and control some of those other innumerable factors which will allow teenagers to abstain from sexual relations.  This is well and good, in theory, but it must be hard for smokers to quit when their families smoke or cigarettes are handed out free on street corners.  So too will it be hard to impart that 'effort' on teenagers who themselves are responding to the most basic and pure of biological urges.  It is hard for reason to conquer desire.  It is harder still to explain why what one perceives as reasonable is reasonable and should be conquering the alternatives.  That, in a word, is the problem with abstinence education theory.  It is unable to control the message and because of this it is unable to control the action and so there will always be teenagers having sexual relations.

Natch Greyes provides commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics. Sphere: Related Content

The Abstinence Clearing House

I'd make excuses about not updating recently but like my good friend Byron I'm trying to balance my political commentary with the possibility of not annoying potential employers. Of course, to kick this off I'm going to comment on a post on 'The Abstinence Clearing House Blog.' It's not that I disagree with the idea behind 'Abstinence Education' that prompts me to publish these comments, it's just that I think rational discussion on this, and many other issues, has been hijacked by people who aren't willing to question their beliefs and biases and make adjustments to their public advocacies which will maximize the benefit to the majority of people. The fundamental feature of government which we must keep in mind, a one of the philosophical bases of our great Republic, is that government must serve people and do whatever is most beneficial to the majority of people rather than allow, for instance, people to make decisions based on what is to the benefit of the stronger. It is not that I do not recognize that benefiting the stronger, the majority party in power is not a valid governmental politic but that doing simply what appears best may, in fact, be detrimental not necessarily because of what is desired but because of what is derived from what is desired.

Now that I've gotten the esoteric argument out of my system, let me begin by saying 'The Abstinence Clearinghouse Blog' came to my attention via FailBlog, in this post. As a result, I visited the site to discover this post which is written by Dr. Allen Unruh, a Chiropractor in South Dakota.

Dr. Unruh makes quite a show of displaying ambiguous usage of language and subtle rhetorical tricks to persuade the reader of his points. The first I spotted was "Public policy should always encourage moral restraint and responsibility. It’s the foundation of freedom." If we follow traditional English grammatical usage the "it" in second sentence of Dr. Unruh's statement refers back to "public policy" in the first sentence. Ergo, we find "[Public policy is] the foundation of freedom." Well, obviously. But, public policy is also the foundation of all things which are inherent in governance. Of course, being savy readers we understand that Dr. Unruh means to say that "moral restraint" and "responsibility" are the foundations of freedom. But really, what do "moral restraint" and "responsibility" have to do with "freedom?" Can we really say Ronald Regan was a bad president because he ate too many jelly beans? What I mean by that, of course, is to question how we are relating the two variables, the two premises, with the conclusion. How does "moral restraint" and "responsibility" translate into "freedom."

Next, he says "Too many young people have bought the lie that ecstasy and utopia are only found in temporary emotional highs. When the low comes back they search for another fix." Again, we have a problem with the usage of language. Clearly, "low" in the second sentence can only refer back to the first sentence's "highs," (which can be concluded from the opposition of these two terms). Yet, "they search for another fix" is highly ambiguous. Clearly, "they" means "many young people" but "another fix" is simply difficult to understand. "Fix" in this context is meant to convey a sense of action, it is, in essence, a verb. But, "another" implies that there was both 'a prior fix' and there is probably 'an alternative.' Thus, when considering the first sentence we find that 'have bought' is the passive verb and that this is to what 'fix' must refer back. This opens the possibility that 'many young people who search for another fix' search for an alternative to 'ecstasy and utopia.' Of course, Dr. Unruh doesn't mean for his words to be interpreted this way but he leaves this open as a possible interpretation.

Then he says, "The principles of teaching abstinence are the only proven and tested ways to promote a life of success, health and happiness." So, what are "the principles of teaching abstinence?" I'd like to know because I'd like "a life of success, health and happiness." You know, this makes me think of my grandfather. He's had a successful life, he's been sick all of three times and is, by far, the happiest person I know. I don't recall my grandfather following the "principles of teaching abstinence." So, I am forced to conclude that either he really isn't successful, healthy and happy or Dr. Unruh is deeply confused about what it means to be successful, healthy and happy. Faced with the evidence of a healthy family life, monetary gain, medical evidence and wide-ranging social engagement it follows that my grandfather really is everything I described. Therefore, Dr. Unruh doesn't know about success, health and happiness. (I could insert a joke about Sophists here but I'll refrain).

Next is said "Where is the evidence that young people can play Russian Roulette with their lives and hope for the best. Are the odds in their favor." First, the second sentence really seems to be taking the form of a question so it's hard to understand the period at the end. Secondly, to play Russian Roulette you necessarily play 'for your life,' i.e. you have a 1/6th chance of losing your life, i.e. dying. So, it's not really a question of evidence there. But, I suppose one could wonder how one could play for Russian Roulette and "hope for the best." Again, Dr. Unruh is ambiguous in that he does not define "the best." Does this mean winning the game and dying or does this mean losing the game and living? If he defined "the best" perhaps it would be possible to show evidence that young people or, people in general, can play and "hope for the best."

Perhaps the most ambiguous and confusing paragraph in the entire post is the following:

"A kid believes the “resist the establishment lie” and starts smoking, his friends say, Let’s go to marijuana, how about crack cocaine? The highs are higher and last longer, They can’t go to a party without booze, and the faster they drink they may win a contest. Their inhibitions are now weak and why not engage in promiscuous sex, or go along with the craze of “Hooking up.” After all, it’s all fun. “Man is motivated by pleasure,” said Freud and the only purpose of life is “sexual gratification.” “If it feels good do it,” becomes their worldview. But loose women usually fall apart. Deep down they’re pretty shallow."

Let's begin at the beginning of the paragraph. What is the "'resist the establishment lie'"? And how does it relate to "smoking"? (I will maintain that there should be a period after "smoking" and the 'h' in "his" should be capitalized, otherwise the sentence makes no sense to me unless it is to be understood as "A kid believes the 'resist the establishment lie' and starts smoking, his friends say." (Yet, there are obvious problems with understanding the usage of the clause "his friends say" in this context).) Further, the usage of "they may" is inconsistent with the context of the rest of the sentence. Dr. Unruh clearly means "the more likely they will" when he uses "they may." The word "may" in the present context makes little sense if it cannot be understood as 'more likely.' Then, we need to separate the next sentence into: "Their inhibitions are now weak. Why not engage in promiscuous sex or join in the craze of 'hooking up?'" The corrections I propose allow this sentence to make logical sense. One problem does still exist, however, and that is the repetition inherent in saying both "promiscuous sex" and "hooking up" as both phrases mean the same thing. Next, the quote from Freud is fine except it seems as if Dr. Unruh himself proposes "the only purpose of life is 'sexual gratification'." It seems more likely that it is Freud and not Dr. Unruh who proposes this 'purpose' yet it is impossible to tell via grammatical usage. The last real problem with this paragraph is the sudden shift in subject. Dr. Unruh goes from "his" and "'Man'" (though 'man' is an ambiguous term in the context of historical interpretation) to 'women.' Unless the subjects Dr. Unruh is writing about suddenly change gender the comments on 'women' do not follow from the rest of what he is saying.

Then Dr. Unruh begins to discuss GPS and uses it as a metaphor for abstinence. He says "Without a GPS, teaching them their decisions they make at a whim can affect them the rest of their lives, they will end up in ruin." As far as I understand it he means to say "Without a GPS, teaching them [young people] the decisions they make on a whim can affect the rest of their lives...[is not possible]. They will end up in ruin." Note that my interpretation is substantially different from the text as written. I have to say that I find it hard to believe that sexual relations is the only context in which young people can learn that decisions they make on a whim can affect the rest of their lives. I'm almost positive that some other context exists.

I could continue in this vein but I think everyone gets my idea. It's hard to make a good argument when your language doesn't really nail down solid ideas. I know that I have had (and still have) problems with this and it was through the kindness of certain Professors that I was able to make substantial improvements. In light of that fact, I'd like to offer to help Dr. Unruh (or anyone else for that matter) with proof reading and language usage. While I know it won't necessarily make the debate about abstinence (or any other issue) rational and geared towards the betterment of everyone it will, at least, elevate the debate to an intelligible level.

Natch Greyes provides commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics. Sphere: Related Content