An Objective View of the Tea Party Movement

I'll preface this by saying that I've never attended a Tea Party demonstration. I do like the initial principles that were espoused by the Tea Party: limiting government, promoting free enterprise, and protecting individual freedom. I am skeptical about where this movement may be headed, given the philosophical predilictions of those who have jumped on board with the Tea Partiers in recent months.

Anyway, I'm going to take a look at the Tea Party, where it can do a lot of good, and what it needs to do to avoid being "hijacked" by people who don't understand the true principles of the movement.

Let's be real, here...the Tea Party Movement is too large to be considered a bunch of "fringe right-wing wingnuts". This movement is something that has appeal to conservatives, libertarians, and third-way/centrist Democrats who saw the prosperity that came with the 1990's and the continuation of non-expansionist government policy.

There are those who think that it is a racist movement, since it is anti-Obama. I'm a bit tired of this rhetoric. As long as Obama is black, there will always be someone who claims any attempt to push back against his agenda is rooted in some kind of blatantly racist motive. Since Obama will always be black, there will always be someone who pulls the race card to discredit the push-back.

While I'm sure there are those who may hold such sentiments within the movement (as there are in all political parties), it is an obviously small minority. There are too many people who favor the Tea Party principles that it isn't some kind of tiny fringe group who happen to make a lot of noise. Get over it, race-baiters, the Tea Party principles of good, limited government are more in line with Ron Paul than with Pat Robertson, despite what others may want you to think.

While many may knock Sarah Palin, she said some things that many people across the majority of the political spectrum (except for dedicated "progressives"). In fact, I was watching MSNBC after Palin's speech, and they had the always-thinking Lionel talking about what Palin said. I do not remember who was hosting the post-speech commentary, but I know it was someone who was a part of the left (I think it was Ed Schultz, but I could be wrong). However, Lionel told the host that in Palin's speech "she said things that, if it wasn't Sarah Palin saying them, you would agree with."

Palin's general stance on the fact that government should roll back it's size and scope is one that many, many people can agree with. Given Palin's populist appeal, she can be a lightning rod for the Tea Party Movement to push forward with more support.

The movement (and using Palin as a lightning rod) is not without faults, though.

First of all, the Tea Party Movement (in principle) should really have nothing to do with religion. However, using Palin as a lightning rod will naturally attract a lot of social conservatives. The same social conservatives who supported the Republicans who allowed government spending and budget deficits to expand on their watch for 6 years under George W. Bush. If we want to move in a different direction, we have to change fiscal thinking and reduce government's size and scope. This will require moving away from the social issues, as they are not part of the Tea Party's principles.

There are those who want to push very "Christian" ideals in the Tea Party (I guess sensing an opportunity to "start over and get it right" in their opinion). Some of the ideas I've heard tossed around have involved pushing Christianity in schools (or "keeping God in school"). I've found this to be odd, because all through my 13 years of primary education, I only found "God" to be a part of school twice...once, in Kindergarten, at a Lutheran school...and the other in 8th grade, at a Catholic school. The rest of the time, I was in public school, and I don't remember there being a God to remove...so how can we put him back if he wasn't there in the first place?

OK, obviously I was going for a little humor there, but the point is made. We can teach kids the basic morals of civilized society (which yes, I do believe are derived from religious beliefs of many different kinds...which goes to show you that religions aren't as different as some may think). Most of the people who are pushing these things are new to the Tea Party, and see it as some kind of new conservative party, instead of a push for fundamental change in governmental philosophy back to the foundation set by our founding fathers.

Secondly, the Tea Partiers must recognize that the Republicans are jumping on board because the concepts of limited government and personal freedom (sound familiar libertarians?) are part of the core of conservatism (see the Reagan quote in the subtitle of this blog)...which the Republicans moved away from over the past decade or so. They know to win back the populous, they need to adopt these aspects of the Tea Party. However, those who hold true to the Tea Party's principles need to make the politicians move to them, and not the inverse.

See, if they move towards the Republican Party in it's current state, you're moving towards such politicians as Tom Tancredo (whose stance on immigration is more than just anti-illegal immigrant), the hardline SoCons (who want to ban gay marriage and all abortions, as well as bring about more theocratic philosophy), and RINOs.

So I warn the Tea Party...stick to the principles that the majority of people believe in (which is a mostly libertarian-based philosophy with some conservative elements). Keep government's size and scope in check, allow for free enterprise for all, a strong national defense that is for defensive purposes (emphasis on "defensive"), and reforms of ineffective government policies (like current immigration laws).

Otherwise, you will allow the more extreme elements that have joined your movement to allow you to continue to be marginalized by politicians and the media elite.

As for Palin for President in 2012? I doubt it. She is better in her role as a spokesperson and rally artist for a governmental philosophy, but I do not necessarily see her as a leader of a nation, as she carries a lot of negative baggage. Then again, if she can prove to me that she is a better candidate in 2012 than she was in 2008, I might change my mind. However, right now, I can't say that I could go with her as a potential presidential candidate.

On that note (2012), I would like to see Ron Paul run for President again, but that's just me :)

**Addendum To This Post - 8:16 PM**

Leslie Carbone, one of my favorite intellectuals anywhere, addresses some of my same concerns in her latest post, "The Problem With Palin", and brings up a few new issues as well.

So That Was It?

Saw the Focus on the Family ad with Tim Tebow...and the only thing I have to say is "that's it?"

All this uproar over that? Hell, I wouldn't have really had a clue as to the whole point of the commercial if I wasn't already expecting to see it. I actually missed the first few seconds of it because it was so nondescript in nature.

The ad seemed harmless enough to me. Didn't even really touch anything controversial, just highlighted the fact that Tim Tebow is a good guy and seems to love his mother. Unless there was something really controversial said in those first few seconds, I don't quite know why this ad was so controversial...unless the idea of giving a link to Focus On The Family's website is somehow subsersive and evil in and of itself.

Meh, seems like it was really much ado about nothing.

Oh yeah, and congrats to the Saints for winning the Super Bowl. A solid enough game that really had to wondering who would win until late in the 4th quarter. I know I enjoyed it.

Byrne Gets Burned

Apparently, you cannot say the following sentence in Alabama...

"I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not."

...because Byrne had to hold a press conference in front of a Piggly Wiggly to recant this statement (which is one that I happen to agree with).

Think about this image...Gubernatorial candidate...press conference...Piggly Wiggly. Yes, we MUST be in Alabama. Hehe, sorry, I do love the state of Alabama, but this whole incident feeds into a LOT of stereotypes.

You know, had he NOT recanted that statement, I would've probably been more inclined to endorse him. However, being that he was rushed to recant for fear of losing support from religious conservatives does not show me much in the way of backbone.

However, given that one of his opponents believes that all faiths except Islam should have monuments erected for them on public property, Byrne still looks to be stable.

Woman With Condoms in D.C. Can Be Arrested for Prostitution

Apparently so, as police are using anything possible to crack down on prostitution, including if a woman is carrying 3 or more condoms in her purse.

So, if a woman just likes to go out and have one night stands, and is actually trying to be responsible, or just buys a few condoms to take home to have a wild weekend with her man, she can be booked on prostitution charges? What kind of civil liberties are those???

This is why victimless crimes like prostitution shouldn't be crimes at all. It leads to stuff like this! This is a violation of a woman's right to carry something legal like condoms. It also makes women more likely to not carry protection, which can lead to unprotected sex and disease transfer and/or unwanted pregnancies.

I know some of you morally-correct people will say "well, people shouldn't be having so much sex", but that is their choice, and they shouldn't be punished for trying to be responsible about how they go about their choice.

The Difference

The difference between Republicans and conservatives. Poignant stuff, I highly suggest you read it and the article it is derived from.

Gay Marriage Passes in D.C.

This is all good and fine as far as I'm concerned, except for one thing.

Apparently, the Catholic Church is being forced by this law to extend it's adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples. If this is true, I cannot agree with this, because I do not think that a religious organization should not be subject to regulations that direct violate that church's doctrine. It's a violation of the separation of church and state, IMO, and if it is part of this legislation...I would be interested to see if it would actually hold up in the Supreme Court.

Other than that, I've got no problems with this legislation. The SoCons will be up in arms about this, but given that D.C. is a very liberal city, this wasn't exactly an unexpected outcome.

(h/t Anti-BVBL)

GOP Liberty Caucus at Odds With NRSC

At least, that is the impression I was left with from this blog post at the RLC. The blog post, put up by Aaron Biterman, is dead on with it's assessments, though.

A headline in this week’s Tampa Tribune is titled “GOP infighting shakes party”. The article talks about a familiar 2009 theme: “An increasingly fractious challenge to the Republican Party from its own conservative base could relegate the party to indefinite minority status,” says author William March.

Yes, a familiar theme from the MSM...the GOP must move to the center, the Dems must move left.

No state has more of a fight on its hands than Florida, where Republican Party Chair Jim Greer has, no doubt, acted illegally to prop up his favorite candidates and help his friends defeat his enemies. This was already clear when Greer had his cronies boot Republican Liberty Caucus members from the party in September. Now there are increasingly vocal calls for Greer to resign as party boss.

Considering that it's usually the moderate candidates who lose, and the principled candidates seemed to keep their jobs for the most part after 2006 and 2008, you'd think that the non-moderates would be given a few more opportunities. Jim Greer should lose his job...you don't kick out the guys who, with their fiscally conservative principles, actually capture the growing mood of the populous.

After knocking the NRSC for supporting moderate candidates in GOP primaries (instead of supporting the nominated candidate), the RLC goes after Karl Rove.

Whatsmore, the NRSC is now encouraging its readers to take advice from Karl Rove. In an e-mail the NRSC sent out yesterday, its Communications team forwarded an article from Karl Rove to all NRSC subscribers. Rove’s article was published in The Wall Street Journal, and the NRSC team said it’s a “WSJ Editorial You Should See”.

I saw it, and — shock! — I am not impressed.

Why is the NRSC encouraging its members to listen to Karl Rove? Rove’s name has come up in many political scandals, including the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Moreover, his strategy of “compassionate conservatism” along with his support of the Bush Doctrine are among the main reasons why Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008.

In the article, Rove says, “In Connecticut, Sen. Chris Dodd trails former Republican Rep. Rob Simmons 35% to 48% in the latest Quinnipiac poll.” Rove does not acknowledge that two other Republican candidates also poll ahead of Chris Dodd: Linda McMahon and RLC-endorsed candidate Peter Schiff. This “ignore at all costs” strategy has been something that Republican establishment candidates have been very skilled at, but has not yielded successful results.

Linda McMahon automatically gets my endorsement. Those who know me know why ;) In fact, I will add that endorsement soon (though I do think she is an excellent candidate on many issues). The blog closes out with this succinct statement.

The NRSC cannot be allowed to select Republican Senate candidates for GOP primary voters.

Registered Republicans in CA, CT, FL, IL, KY, and other states should select the best candidate to represent the state — without NRSC interference.

This is certainly a firebrand blog post with a lot of truth in it. However, the GOP needs to tread carefully. I don't know how well a conservative candidate like Chuck DeVore will do in California, where Carly Fiorina is already ahead of Barbara Boxer in early polling and the electorate tends to lean moderate-to-left in the populated areas.

I think Rubio will give Crist a run for his money in Florida. Also, I think Rand Paul should get a ton of support in his primary campaign given that he is the son of the RLC's favorite son, and he should have a great shot at taking Jim Bunning's soon-to-be-open seat.

Bottom line of advice to the NRSC (and the NRCC)...don't ignore the conservatives and the conservatarians.

Tea Partiers and Christian/Social Conservatives...Not the Same Thing

I love how some on the left automatically consider them the same thing.

Tea Partiers are more economically/fiscally conservative types. The Tea Party movement has really nothing to do with social conservatism. At it's core, it's really more of a semi-libertarian sentiment in the sense that social issues are not part of the issue (as they shouldn't be). It is a call for a reduction in government intervention in our pockets and in our lives.

Social and Christian conservatives have more of a social issue agenda. They are against gay marriage, abortion, sex education beyond abstinence, etc..., which require government intervention in many ways. While many do agree with the Tea Party movement's goals of limited government, they do favor some government intervention that many others in the Tea Party movement may not.

You can't lump them in as being the same. Social conservatives had a hero in George Bush, who was no patron saint of small-government conservatives. The Tea Party movement, in and of itself, has nothing to do with social issues. It is a "reduce government" movement.

Where the two overlap (in a Venn Diagram sense) is to put an end to rampant government spending, kowtowing to other nations for no reason other than "image", increases in regulation, and enviro-socialist policies. However, many in the Tea Party movement are not social or christian conservatives. They are people who simply believe that government has gone out of control with power and spending.

Someone Explain this "Ex-Gay" Thing About Steve Hunt

For instance, Ben mentions this multiple times over at NLS.

Someone care to explain this whole "ex-gay" deal? He's an ex-gay? He knows ex-gays? He believes gays can become ex-gays?

I don't know much about the guy, so a little info would be appreciated.

San Francisco Consideres Prostitution Legalization

Article at Breitbart.tv.

I've actually believed that prostitution should be legalized in the Rhode Island sense (legal behind closed doors, still bars "street walking"). The idea does appeal to my libertarian sensibilities on social issues, and if a woman feels it prudent to sell her body for sex, so be it.

I'm sure many social conservatives and proponents of the moral majority will attack this as part of the decline of Western Civilization...but then again, prostitution came long before Jesus, and it didn't cause the decline of Middle Eastern Civilization, did it?

However, I do not believe that this means the Government should provide special health benefits to these workers, either...of course, that's because I don't believe in Government-provided health care.

Podium Positions: Social Issues

My position on "social" issues.

Abortion
Two things need to happen. One...overturn Roe v. Wade, so we can go forward with the next step. That is step number two...place the legislative responsibility of this issue back in the hands of the states.

What this allows for is better representation of the people on such a bitterly divisive issue. For instance, a state like Massachusetts may allow abortion and provide funding for it and will have the support of the majority of the population. However, a state like Utah has a majority of anti-abortionists, so the will of the people in that state would be different and would probably lead to no practice of abortion within that state's borders. However, I would also not be opposed to allowing people to travel from a non-abortion state to a pro-abortion state to get an abortion if they so desire.

While I'm personally opposed to abortion, the only real federal actions I would approve of in this situation would be upholding the ban on partial-birth abortions, as that is infanticide, in my opinion.

Gay Marriage
Again, this is a state-to-state issue. What may play in socially liberal states will not play in socially conservative states. Represent the population, but as with the abortion laws, state governments must also pay attention to opinion changes and demographic shifts to keep laws up-to-date with the mood of the populous.

Socially moderate/conservative states may want to at least allow civil unions with marriage-style rights. Let the actual term "marriage" be determined by the churches, not the state.

I personally do not oppose gay marriage or civil unions, and I think that some relaxation and/or compromise in this area would be good for Republicans, who probably don't realize how much of the vote they are losing in this demographic due to their current positions, anyway. However, given the anti-homosexual opinions of many social conservatives within the party, I don't know if that will happen anytime soon.

I also believe that we have not come to a scientific consensus on whether or not homosexuality is a result of "nature" or "nurture" (I believe that both of those are roots of homosexuality, as I've seen scientific research that supports both theories), but either way we should not discriminate based on this. I don't believe it to be very Christian to do so, to be honest.

Civil Rights/Discrimination
Basically, we need to move towards putting everyone on an equal plane of treatment. It should not matter whether you are White ,Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, African, Male, Female, Transgendered, Straight, Gay, or Bisexual. "Hate Crimes" should cover crimes against any race/gender/orientation, with no extra or special punishment for crimes against certain groups.

In the workplace, we need to get to the point of hiring the best people for the job. We are in the 21st century, we do not need to place quotas based on race, gender, or orientation (though, I don't know of any place that says "you must hire X number of gays", but you get my point).

Understandably, this is not a goal that can be achieved overnight, but society needs to start moving in that direction, as it is not fair for someone to get special (or detrimental) treatment because of their race, gender, or orientation.

Overview
On a federal level, most of the social issues need to be deferred back to the states. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage, due to their controversial and divisive manner, should have their legality and funding determined by the states. States whose populous support these issues can deem it legal in their state, and states whose populous do not support these issues do not have to make it legal.

We should also move anti-discrimination legislation to treat all people equally.

Handing social issues back to the states is a healthy, federalist approach to these issues that tend to be create bitterness and tension between people of different ideological standpoints. Also, it allows for smaller-scale experimentation with various types of legislation, which is a way for people to find out if certain legislative actions are feasible and functional before it gets introduced on a national level.

Watch Ron Paul Lose Any Hope of Winning the GOP Nomination

In 3...2...1...

"When facism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross..."

First of all, how many Democrats have said this? And secondly, while Ron Paul is entitled to his opinion and I'm fine with the fact that he doesn't want to pander to the evangelical vote...that's still a very stupid statement to make when you're running for the Republican Party nomination.

I'm convinced that he's pretty much giving up on a GOP nomination and looking at a Libertarian Party bid.

Faith and the GOP

I read this earlier, and I saw Sic Semper Tyrannis had posted part of it, but it bears repeating.

In a column today, Peggy Noonan talks about how a candidate's faith has risen to such levels of importance to some voters.

Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary.

But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far.

She also asks the question of if Reagan would survive in today's GOP climate...

I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I'm just not sure he'd be pure enough to make it in this party. I'm not sure he'd be considered good enough.

You know, this actually hits at the heart of what I've been saying for a long time. It's always a good thing when someone has strong morals and has their own religious beliefs, and it's even better when they're generally accepting of others beliefs or non-beliefs, as Reagan was. The belief that someone has to reach a certain level of Christian purity to be President is a bit much, in my honest opinion.

There are much more important things going on in this nation that require more than just a particular religious faith that falls within a narrow definition for a specific bloc of voters.

Excerpts from Romney's Speech Today and Thoughts

Read all the excerpts made available to the public here. Here's a few quotes from Romney's speech and my thoughts on them.

"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

This is the money quote of the whole speech, in my opinion, and the one that is most often quoted on the morning shows I listened to while making a drive from Strasburg to Woodstock to Winchester (don't ask, I do this once a week). He's telling the us all that as President, he would be beholden to the people of the United States, and not any one religion, including his own.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

Yes sir...this is correct. Romney is right on with his statement here.

"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter — on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people."

I've been preaching this for years, that despite our differences in religion, religious beliefs, place of religion in society...the vast majority of Americans share a common base of morality and moral beliefs. Romney is right in stating that our nation should focus on abiding by the common moral principles we share as Americans...not necessarily by religious principles. However, religious people share those moral principles with most non-religious people.

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

Again...another money quote. While we separate church and state, this nation was founded by people seeking religious freedom, and with deep religious conviction. To remove God from recognition by society would be to go against the beliefs of the founding fathers of our nation.

"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements."

Again, we should focus on our shared morals as Americans, not our religious agreements and disagreements. We, as Americans, are not perfect...but we're generally good people.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."

There you have it. Romney's separation of church and state. No questions about it.

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed."

Freedom of religion, and our ability to speak about our different beliefs in public without fear of imprisonment or punishment, is part of what makes this nation so great.

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

Embrace religous diversity and common morality. This is what Romney intends to do.

I think that, from these quotes and others, Romney really makes a positive leap forward. He acknowledges both the deep religious conviction that many have, and the near-universal sense of common morality amongst Americans. In fact, Romney also makes a leap forward in my own opinion of him. He's stating his beliefs, and he does it without making a plea to social and religious conservatives. In fact, he's making more of a case as to why religion is a base of his decision making, and not the sole source.

I can really respect that.

Stem Cell Revelation: Human Embryos Not Needed

Well, this bit of news certainly should kill the left-wings calls for embryonic stem cell research using human embryos, which means that the Dems lose on this one. When those who opposed it said "there have to be other ways to create stem cells, and we should pursue those ways", they weren't just blowing anti-abortion smoke.

Professor Ian Wilmut, famous for leading the team that successfully cloned sheep and gave us "Dolly" back in 1997, has decided not to pursue a license to clone human embryos.

Why? Simple, they're no longer needed.

Professor Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan has discovered a way to create human embryo stem cells without the need to create life for the purpose of eventually destroying it. They have discovered a way to revert adult cells back to embryonic form.

Wilmut believes that this is the future of stem cell research, and Wilmut has decided to support this. The greatest thing about this is that this method of creating stems cells is actually easier and more efficient than fertilizing a human egg just to get the embryo and destroying it.

It is believed that cures for many diseases, as well as methods of repairing damaged tissue from heart attacks, can be found through this stem cell research.

That is research I think we can ALL get behind.

The Abstinence Uproar

(cross-posted at Daily Whackjob)

Governor Tim Kaine cut federal funding that was provided to schools that promoted abstinence-only sexual education. Conservatives (of the social variety) have been spewing various amounts of outrage. Many state this is promoting immoral behavior, encouraging promiscuity, and so forth.

However, let's be realistic here. Teenagers have been trying to find ways and reasons to have sex since the beginning of recorded history.

Should we have sex-ed programs that stress and promote abstinence? Of course! Anyone who says "we should encourage teens to have sex as early and as often as possible" would be nuts! That's something that the vast majority of us would agree with. However, we have to be smart about this and realize that abstinence-only hasn't exactly proven to be a big hit or a successful deterrent to teens doing...well, "it".

Parents should have the ability to opt their children out of sex-ed classes, and most people also agree with that.

I also believe we teach sex-ed at too young of an age. I remember being in the 3rd grade, all of 9 years old, doing diagrams of the different parts of a penis and a vagina. Even though I do believe that kids these days "grow up faster" and learn more at an earlier age than previous generations...there is no need to augment the rapid decrease in time that a child has to simply be a child. I'd say that 5th grade (normally 10-11 years old) is a good time to start with sex-ed, but go with the basics (anatomical differences, etc...)

Anything earlier than that is the responsibility of the parents to decide if their kids are mature enough to handle the subject matter at hand.

Let's be fair about this, as well...promote abstinence from the start. However, starting in late middle-school and high school, lay it out there that if you choose not to abstain from pre-marital sex, one should use protection. Teach the mechanics, talk about the risks of unsafe sex, especially with multiple partners. Talk about STD's, et cetera...pretty much common-sense stuff.

On the issue of homosexuality, I believe that children should be taught what it is and that it exists...but no moral "Yes, it's OK" or "No, it's wrong" stamp should be placed on it. There's too much gray area in terms of how people feel about homosexual relationships that to have the public schools approve or disapprove of it, that would be wrong and exclusive.

The point of my idea is that you wait until the kids are mature enough to handle the subject matter before the schools get involved. Also, I believe that this idea of mine allows for a fairly universal form of objective morality (promote abstinence or at least "waiting" until you're older, teaching safe sex habits...the things we all generally agree on). At the same time, it reduces the effect the curriculum has on the more subjective aspects of people's morals. (whether or not being gay/lesbian is OK, whether or not abstinence is the only way, etc...)

Obviously, I'm not an expert on this subject. I'm just simply attempting to apply common sense to an issue that people take so many different sides on.

Thoughts?

The Libertarian in Me Coming Out

I love these people who get outraged due to the presence of an adult-themed store in their area.

Honestly..."Citizens Against Porn"...? I understand why SWACGirl and others were looking to place restrictions on the ability of adult-themed stores to be built in their community. However, I get the feeling that they would prefer that these businesses be banned outright.

This is where I split heavily with social conservatives. I can understand keeping an adult-themed store a certain distance away from schools, churches, and playgrounds...kids will find their own way to get pornography, we shouldn't make it easier or more enticing.

BUT, it's still a legitimate business. I don't see anything wrong with their existence. Many married couples use pornography to spice up their sex lives, too. Most of these businesses are discreet in their appearance (a good example of this would be either Pamela's Secrets or Hole In The Wall in Harrisonburg, you'd have to look two or three times to recognize what it is).

As I said, there's nothing wrong with keeping these businesses, and their adult themes, away from schools, churches, etc..., but to carry the opinion that they should all be banned and burned to the ground is a bit overboard.