We’ve seen massive problems now with the election of state court judges from special interest groups that want to affect the election…That was the reason why we went to elections in the first place, to get rid of special interests. But now they’ve come back with money, and so we have to re-examine again how we need to fix that.

- Sandra Day O’Connor
1/26/2010 Interview

From the time it started blowing money on abstinence-only education in 1981 (under the Reagan Administration) the US Government has spent from $4,000,000 (1982) to $214,300,000 (2008) every year funding this prohibitive lesson – and it adds up quickly (moreso with Bush policy funneling more taxpayer money in and finding ways to issue grants to religious organizations).

In the last thirty years abstinence-only education has cost US taxpayers almost two billion dollars – despite a lack of supporting scientific evidence and all indications that abstinence-only education causes more harm than good…

Abstinence education came of age in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It began with the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which dedicated an annual $50 million in Title V abstinence-education grants. The money had to be spent on programs that teach “abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children.” When George W. Bush took office he created a new program: Community Based Abstinence Education, or CBAE, grants. While only states could take the Title V funds, CBAE grants went directly to community groups, including faith-based organizations. During the Bush administration, funding for abstinence education more than doubled, from $80 million in 2001 to $200 million in 2007, according to figures from the Congressional Budget Office.

- The Future of Abstinence
by Sarah Kliff for NewsWeek.com
2009-10-27

While it is obvious that the organization (as with any bureaucratically-established entity) has money to blow on quixotic pursuits and self-promotion, there’s a dearth of hard science to corroborate its effectiveness… so what of the research papers which the Center for Research and Evaluation on Abstinence Education cites?

Successful abstinence maintenance was only possible among those subjects who were not already sexually experienced at study enrollment. Baseline scores regarding intercourse and general life risks already evident by seventh grade suggest that urban, school-based primary prevention interventions must occur before adolescence. Early adolescence interventions need to include both abstinence and safer sex messages.

- Keeping middle school students abstinent: outcomes of a primary prevention intervention
Marilyn J Aten, Ph.D., R.N., David M Siegel, M.D. (M.P.H.), Maisha Enaharo (M.P.H.), Peggy Auinger, M.S.
2002-01-23

This “supporting evidence” contradicts the abstinence-only aim of the CBAE grants…

Currently, there are three federal programs dedicated to funding abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Each requires eligible grantees to censor critical information that teens need to make healthy and responsible life decisions.

To receive funds under any of the federal programs, grantees must offer curricula that have as their “exclusive purpose” teaching the benefits of abstinence. In addition, recipients of abstinence-only-until-marriage dollars may not advocate contraceptive use or teach contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.

- Helping Teens Make Healthy and Responsible Decisions about Sex
ACLU 2008-06-16

Because what you don’t know … can’t help you.

Let’s turn back to the CBAE site for some guidance:

Peer-Reviewed Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Coming soon.

- CBAE Research Papers
2009-11-18

Shocking!

I have a suggestion for your Meta-Analyses section, CBAE (that holds for your parent organization, too – the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs submitted April, 2007 to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by Mathematica Policy Research.

So, why not publish that paper you’ve been holding onto for the last two years?

Is it because the programs have a statistically-insignificant effect?

$200m a year…
so what?

Abstinence-only education spending accounted for approximately 0.00007% of the 2008 US federal budget.

Do the lessons of this hamfisted and nepotistic program extend beyond the programs scaring teenagers with deliberate misinformation?

I’ll bet you a purity ring that they do.

Executive Summary: There is strong evidence that Henry “Hank” Paulson (former Goldman-Sachs CEO and, more recently, United States Treasury Secretary) took some initiative in the case of Lehman Brothers (the downfall of which is discussed extensively in Wall Street’s Naked Swindle at RollingStone.com) and rigging the game to the advantage of Goldman Sachs (a direct competitor to Lehman Brothers).

“Really?” he asked, trying to keep the shock out of his voice. Goldman is the buyer?

“Okay. I have to call you back,” Kirk said, nervously ending the conversation, and then almost shouted to Fuld and McDade, “Guys, they don’t have a client!”…

McDade, reasonably, was concerned about sharing information with a direct competitor: How mcuh did they really want to divulge? At the same time, he felt they couldn’t take a stand against a plan that he believed had originated with Paulson…

McDade, turning back to his preparations for the fast-approaching call, made his position clear: “We were told by Hank Paulson to let them in the door. We’re going to let them in the door.”

- How Paulson gave Goldman the Lehman heads-up
by Felix Salmon
2009-10-21

via Rolling Stone

Think Paulson retained some nice stock options from his time as CEO?

… A couple of US senators have introduced legislation to eliminate the federal tax deduction on advertising for prescription-drugs. This could affect marketing budgets and the bottom line of many BDA’s to the tune of millions, and as I say in the chapter devoted to health care advertising in my latest opus… The Ubiquitous Persuaders, US drug companies spend three times as much on marketing as they do on research and development. Which is why drugs cost a fortune… No, not the ones you buy at your Columbian 7/11, the ones you get at your local fucking pharmacy.

No other country in the world allows DTC [direct-to-consumer] advertising, and it’s a huge fucking cash cow for Madison Avenue. But don’t worry guys… The legislation will go nowhere. When the K Street lobbyists flex their muscles and the fucktard senators are reminded where their re-election war chests get filled. It’ll just fucking fade away.

- Is that white shit up your nose a tax deduction?
by George Parker
2009-10-22

More on this story at Ad Age

AdScam manages to offend the sensibilities of any puritanically-minded English speaker while shedding some light on the ridiculous frauds and scams perpetrated every day by both advertising agencies and law-making elites… great stuff, if you can handle the occasional half-naked Kate Moss pic, the swearing, the near-constant rants, the drunkeness, and the daily ad industry gossip.

Shame on you, senators Al Franken, Sherrod Brown, and Sheldon Whitehouse – it’s one thing to admit you’re in bed with the pharmaceutical corporations but it’s something else entirely to give them a tax deduction that effectively rewards their predatory disinformation campaigns: you did both, so let’s hear your fucking apology to the American people.

Government, beyond its role of defending voluntary arrangements against force and fraud, only makes the effects of scarcity worse. It substitutes decisions by people with worse information and incentives, backed by the power of coercion, for decisions by people with better information and incentives. That is why it is actually government “solutions” that increase the influence of greedy bastards in society. After all, “greedy bastard” is an excellent description of someone who demands power over others without cost or their willing consent; and falsely blames others to gain it.

- Greedy-Bastard Economics
by Gary Galles for Mises.org
2009-10-06

Was this event conspicuously missing from anyone else’s history textbook?

The federal judge assigned to the case was Julius Hoffman (no relation to Abbie – who, along with Jerry, would (un)affectionately nickname him “Julie”) – a particularly conservative seventy-four-year-old Republican millionaire with investments in the defense industry. Judge Hoffman set the scene for the circus that would follow by restricting the defendants’ questions during jury selection – particularly those relating to the Vietnam War – and attempting to jail four lawyers for contempt because they withdrew from the case before the trial begin.

The defendants, meanwhile, recognized that the trial presented a golden opportunity to publicize their views. Their strategy was to offend and disrupt proceedings so that any obtained conviction would not stand on appeal, and – against the backdrop of Judge Hoffman’s obstinate and obvious bias – they (particularly Abbie and Jerry) employed guerilla theatre-like tactics to maximum effect.

- 24th September 1969 – the Chicago Conspiracy Trial Begins
On This Deity
2009-09-24

via Dangerous Minds

The government of our democracy consists of self-serving elitists who strive to portray themselves as public servants.

For them no distortion is too extreme to declare fact, no act of violence is too reprehensible to order; these are men who will sacrifice others for the sake of their personal gain, bleed the coffers of the charitable dry, and send innocents to die on the many battlefields of wars declared for the sake of profiteering – all while they proclaim their personal righteousness and god-fearing humility.

Should they grasp for too much and be exposed for their crimes they will – without fail – fall back upon their only defense: we voted for them.

- Unknown

How often are the elections “too close to count” – and how different are those in the running?

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers.

- Why is Marijuana Illegal? by Pete Guither

The topic in question – marijuana legality – takes a backseat to the blow-by-blow account of what happens when corporate interests intersect with legislation. Definitely an article worth reading for those interested in how prohibitions and regulatory leniency come into being.