Oh Denise, thank you so much for the laugh!

Zogby may not "push poll" elections, but dear GOD that was the most slanted, pre-determined outcome, loaded language poll I've EVER seen!

"The CDC says NO condom is 100% effective, therefore should we be wasting our time teaching our precious youth about faulty products?" (paraphrasing here, I'm can't cut and paste from Adobe)

I LOVE how they alternate questions pointing out how GOOD abstinence programs are and how HORRIBLE comprehensive programs are...they're as intellectually bankrupt as you, Denise!

Small wonder 50% of the respondents change their minds about abstinence programs after listening to this claptrap!

For those of you who don't think this poll is valid, I urge you to do the following. Call the Board of Education. Ask about the "comprehensive sex education" curriculum taught in Fayette schools. Ask if it includes discussions of flavored condoms.
Ask if it includes discussions on how to throw a mutual masturbation party.
When they tell you the answer to the above two questions is "no", ask why not since didn't they know Zogby polls say that these are key lessons in a comprehensive sex education course?. Count how many times the person on the other end of the phone laughs! Or heck, be lazy and just ask your high school student if these topics are taught in class!

I notice that once again you're attempting to conflate the most popular component of comprehensive sex education (Abstinence should be taught) with your shrill, unpopular, extremist position (Abstinence is the ONLY thing that should be taught) to justify your "findings". You do love those apples-to-oranguatuans comparisons, dontcha?
______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

Now you're an expert pollster?!?!?

John Zogby describes himself as a liberal Democrat and is a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post (HuffPo), where he is described as “the hottest pollster in the United States today.”

"All hail Zogby, the maverick predictor who beat us all," proclaimed the Washington Post in November 1996 after Zogby alone called that presidential election with pinpoint accuracy.

In his post election 2000 review, the acclaimed Godfrey Sperling, columnist for the Christian Science Monitor called John Zogby "Champion Pollster.”

He has been praised as "the most accurate pollster" (Seattle Post Intelligencer, Cleveland Plain Dealer, USA Today), "respected" and "pioneering" (Albany Times Union), "the pace setter in the polling business" (New York Post), and "the big winner in 1996" (Campaigns and Elections, L. Brent Bozell, and the O'Leary/Kamber Report).

_______________________

I read a lot of polls and yours is so different from the others - what makes your answers so different (and accurate)?

JZ: "We poll only likely voters who are different from just all adults. In addition, we poll all day long - 9am to 9pm local time (to the region we're calling). Finally, we apply weighting for party identification to ensure that there is no built-in Democratic bias in our sampling."

JZ: "We are independent and nonpartisan. I am personally a Democrat, but the firm does a lot of work for media (like Reuters America, New York Post, St. Louis Post Dispatch, etc.) and we work for both parties."

JZ: "The margin of sampling error means that if we do the same poll 100 times, in 95 cases out of 100, we will get the same results plus or minus a certain percentage. Generally, a sample of 400 gives you an MOE of +/-5%, 600 gets you +/-4%, 1000 gets +/-3%. We need to be sure our sampling is random and scientific. It all relates to probability and statistics. If there are a million marbles in a jar, some black and some white - how best do I determine the number of each color, short of counting every marble? If I draw 1000 out at random, chances are I will get the same numbers of each 95 times out of 100 within a margin of error of +/-3%. However, there are other sources of survey error - e.g. how questions are phrased, etc."

How can polls be so accurate when you only ask such a small number of people?

JZ: "It's pure probability and statistics. The same theory is involved as when you take a blood test and the clinician draws only a small sample rather than draining all the blood out of your body."

JZ: "Phone numbers are chosen purely by random, ensuring that every household in the US (or wherever we are polling) have as much chance of being selected as any other. With tens of millions of adults in the US, it is still rather easy to be missed - but stay in there and maybe stay home more often. You probably have more of a chance of being called than having a visit by Ed McMahon."

_______________________

You can see HuffPo for more info, if you'd like.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby

_______________________

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning [or, in this case, de-funding of abstinence education]. The term is also sometimes used incorrectly to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants.

One way to distinguish between push polling as a tactic and polls which legitimately seek information is the sample size. Genuine polls make do with small, representative samples, whereas push polls can be very large, like any other mass marketing effort.

True push polls tend to be very short, with only a handful of questions, so as to make as many calls as possible. Any data obtained (if used at all) is secondary in importance to negatively impacting the targeted candidate [or, in this case, funding for abstinence education].

The main advantage of push polls is that they are an effective way of maligning an opponent ("pushing" voters away) while avoiding responsibility for the distorted or false information used in the push poll.

_______________________

More to come!

Goodness! It appears Denise's slimy push poll trying to confuse people about Abstinence-ONLY education is getting quite a bit of attention!

Unlike Denise, I have respect for copyright laws, so rather than cut and paste a lengthy discussion how intellectually bankrupt this poll is, I invite you to click HERE

______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

Apparently Ms. Conner got her quote from here. Now whether or not Ms. Conner should have linked to the actual page vs. a more general outline like the HP site, is a matter of debate but she did provide a link for more info.

Unlike Denise, I have respect for copyright laws

Nice little ad hominem attack there on Ms. Conner, Ms. Fredi Phelps. Guess you've never heard of something called "fair use"? Now here's a link to an official government site which says the following:

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations;
...

Ms. Conner's quotes are quite legitimate because they are for "purposes of illustration or comment." Now that I've debunked that lie from Rice Maggot with an official government source I'll be moving on....

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!

The polling data itself has integrity - it's the way that the information was manipulated by the NAEA that has created a possible misinterpretation.

Is that about right?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

I've been reading that the Zogby folks were NOT paid to do an "opinion poll", they were paid to conduct a "message poll", which is what political organizations do to test the effectiveness of the combination of various sorts of messages. (Think: Bush on Social Security, Hilary on health care, etc).

Normally, the results are NEVER made public. Zogby said they were surprised that this Abstinence-ONLY group released the results, but there was nothing wrong with that...it's just not normally done.

Speculation I've been reading tonight is that this poll was released (with it's pre-determined outcome) in a last ditch effort by the Christianists who are desperately trying to get Title V (welfare for Abstinence-ONLY "teachers") renewed in Congress before the funding expires on June 30th.

Left unsaid of course, is the simple fact that
ABSTINENCE-ONLY SEX EDUCATION PROGRAMS DO NOT WORK

We live in interesting times!
______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

As you are well aware you and I have very different political views. Regardless, I bet I know one area we can agree (well, a lot more than one but one in this area specifically).

I have learned over the years that polls (and statistics) are:

1) Easily manipulated
2) Unreliable and
3) Used by every person with an agenda that hopes to 'sway' others in to believing that their view is the 'norm' and should be adopted by others.

The reality is, if we can ever get where we need to be intellectually and educationally in this country, we will have people who are smart enough and have enough conviction to make these polls obsolete.

As in most things, when it comes to sex education, I am an eclectic. I think we need an approach that talks about all of the aspects ranging from abstinence to safe sex practices and birth control. I also think that age appropriate eduction is critical. Regardless, I think every parent is obligated to have heart to heart discussions about sex with heir child as they deem appropriate.

One of the reasons I am not embraced by all conservatives is that I am socially more liberal than most of them. Unlike most Republicans, the fact that we even have a plank in the platform that says what the 'government's position on abortion' should be, offends me. I have always been confused as to how a party that supports state's rights and personal liberty would feel that abortion should even be a political or government issue. I digress.

Help me understand something - what is the difference in a 'Christianist' and a 'Christian' to you?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

Doesn't mean a thing!
Stop trying to hide sex from teenagers. They already know!
At least tell them how and when.

I noticed you wrote:
"This type of poll that you relied on does not allow parents to distinguish among the methods used; therefore, its results are misleading."

This is simply not true.

Poll respondants were given the following statements:

Statement 1: Abstinence from sexual intercourse is best for teens. Sex ed classes should not provide information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraception.

Statement 2: Abstinence from sexual intercourse is best for teens, but some teens do not abstain, so sex ed classes should provide information on condoms and other contraception.

Statement 3: Abstinence from sexual intercourse is not the most important thing. Sex ed classes should focus on teaching teens how to make responsible decisions about sex.

Pretty straightforward and unambiguous.

The results for high school:
16 percent chose Statement 1
54 percent chose Statement 2
30 percent chose Statement 3

84% of America disagrees with your abstinence-only notions, Denise.

Speaking of spinning, I noticed you once again attempted to conflate the very popular "Abstinence is the best thing to teach teens" with your lightly regarded "Abstinence ONLY is the best thing to teach teens". Bad Denise!

I also noticed you added the same tiresome links in your seemingly neverending battle to demonize homosexuality. Sheesh, Denise, it's not like sexual orientation is a choice! Hey did you see the annual Gallup poll this past Wednesday indicating that acceptance of homosexual behavior is at an all-time high in America?

Good news for gay folks.
Not so good news for extremist homophobes like you.

LINK: Gay Tolerance in US Reaching Record Marks

What?!!! No names other than "extremist homophobe"? You're doing better. That therapy must be working.

"Poll respondants [sic]" were not shown actual "comprehensive" materials or the presentation of those materials, such as the condom role-playing.

I again quote your own source: 62% of Americans believe that “abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage is the expected standard for all school-age children."

"Abstinence ONLY is the best thing to teach teens." That's true if teens (and adults) want to prevent disease (according to the CDC) and other consequences. Abstinence courses do teach contraception methods, but that is not their main emphasis.

"demonize homosexuality" -- The pictures, which are from "gay" friendly sites, speak for themselves and are for those who do not care to visit Piedmont Park during "Gay" Pride Days. I let their actions speak for themselves. The more knowledge that people have the better informed they can be.

BTW, I wonder if any new pictures and videos are online of Gay Day at Disney? I see that YouTube has quite a selection.

"Why I’m not going to Gay Days this year" written by a "42 year old gay man living in Orlando," the Founder/Webmaster of WDWinfo.com ("The Internet's Largest Unofficial On-Line Guide to Walt Disney World")

It's really no surprise that acceptance may be gaining since "gay" activists are entrenched in public schools and universities and any opposing voice is silenced. I do wonder why marriage "rights" aren't that popular when voters have a say.

"And highly religious Americans who attend church weekly (33 percent) are less likely to say it's an acceptable lifestyle than those who seldom or never attend church (74 percent)."

When the church attendance of mainstream media journalists is evaluated, they overwhelmingly come in the "seldom or never" category. I wonder how Democrats would do in a similar evaluation?

Again, I say, "Ignorance is NOT bliss."

16% Denise.
16%.

You can attempt to spin it however you like, ooooh they don't get to review the materials, woe is me!

The fact remains: People WANT their children educated with a comprehensive sex education curriculum.

You can throw all the one-off anecdotal horror stories out there all you like, and harangue us on why you feel this is the end of civilization as we know it...but it doesn't change the underlying attitude of America.

84% agree with the Basmatis and Mixers of the world.
16% agree with the Denise Connors of the world.

Less than one in five endorse your "Ignorance Is Bliss" position.

I misread and misinterpreted nothing. Your post above is a classic example of your inability to recognize anyone's opinion but your own.

Of course I disagree with your interpretation though

I read it like this:

Statements one and two both begin with:

"Abstinence from sexual intercourse is best for teens"
The results for high school:
16 percent chose Statement 1
54 percent chose Statement 2

That means, in my opinion, that 70% agree that ""Abstinence from sexual intercourse is best for teens"

The second statement acknowledges that kids may not abstain and therefore should be made aware of birth control and STD controls. (I would call them 'realists')

Statement three does not disqualify abstinence, it just does not feel it is THE most important thing that should be taught.

You are right in the notion that only 16% feel that Abstinence ONLY Sex ed classes should not provide information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraception.

It comes down to this:

70% think that Abstinence is best for teens and 30% disagree.

84% think that some measure of birth control should be taught 16% disagree.

Of course - that's just how I read the DATA.

(Personally, I would be in the #2 voting group)

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

I'm a little tired of the evangelical theory that it is ok to fail, we will forgive you every time. Call a spud a potato!
Most evangelical preachers are former thugs, drunks, wife beaters, and ill-educated people. They learned how to con.

It take a lot of character,but forgiveness helps you a lot more than the offender.

Most evangelical preachers are former thugs, drunks, wife beaters, and ill-educated people. They learned how to con.

Some have learned how to repent. But if you focus on them, it could make you feel guilty yourself?

Dollar likes no one who is religious, just one of his many quirks.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Thanks for your comments! You are, of course, correct. Abstinence works, it's abstinence-based sex education that is a dismal failure. I've corrected my original blog post.

Insofar as "shoveling federal tax dollars" goes, I think I can safely say that you and I both would agree to a point that we think federal tax dollars should be used to "promote the general welfare", as outlined in the Constitution. Where we differ, I suspect, is my insistence that these dollars be supplied free of religious taint. I'm a great supporter of the Establishment Clause.

I see you also want to teach teens about abortion as well. I think we'd differ there insofar as approach, given your affiliation with the so-called "crisis pregnancy centers". As an aside, here's how I would imagine a so-called "crisis pregnancy center" worker would describe an appendectomy to someone seeking help for an inflamed appendix:

"They're going to slice open your guts with a razor sharp knife! You'll bleed like a stuck pig for a while...there's no telling HOW much blood you'll lose! Then they'll pull out your steaming guts and eviscarate you....and if they're not careful, you'll get an infection and die a slow horrible death from perotinitis....and all the state-of-the-art medications in the world cannot guarantee that you'll survive! Bwhahahahahah!"

Now, technically, the above statements are true. But are they relevant to the situation? The same holds true, in my mind, with these centers and their gross mischaracterization of the abortion process.

Finally, I'm not sure where you are coming from with your pregnant woman choice scenario above. In my mind, if a pregnant woman comes to you, all the birth control in the world isn't gonna help her now....ditto abstinence lectures. That horse has left the barn.

It's keeping women from getting pregnant that is the ultimate goal. In my mind, a comprehensive sex education course does a verfiably statistically better job of doing so than an abstinence-based curriculum.

Do you remember the scene in "Animal House" where Tim Matheson (as Eric "Otter" Stratton) was discussing his upcoming date that he expected to be a truly "religious" experience? .."Oh God! ..Oh God! ..Oh God!"

Okay, I can hear the PC-police helicopter hovering overhead, but it was a very funny scene, and when you talk about evangelical girls losing their virginity, that's the scene that comes to mind. (BTW, PC stands for political correctness in this case.)

Evangelicals lose their virginity earlier when they do, but they have sex before marriage less often overall. Not sure it makes your point. Are you saying that it's better if your children are non-religious? If so, it does not support your argument. The article points out that:

"Partly, the problem lies in the definition of evangelical. Because of the explosion of megachurches, vast numbers of people who don't identify with mainstream denominations now call themselves evangelical. The demographic includes more teenagers of a lower socioeconomic class, who are more likely to have had sex at a younger age. It also includes African-American Protestant teenagers, who are vastly more likely to be sexually active."

You are promoting a spurious correlation here bas.

"After controlling for all factors (family satisfaction, popularity, income), religion matters much less than religiosity. Among the mass of typically promiscuous teenagers in the book, one group stands out: the 16 percent of American teens who describe religion as "extremely important" in their lives. When these guys pledge, they mean it. One study found that the pledge works better if not everyone in school takes it. The ideal conditions are a group of pledgers who form a self-conscious minority that perceives itself as special, even embattled."

So you see, Denise needs your kids to NOT pledge to help assure that her kids actually keep the pledge of abstinence. We all have purpose bas.

"I recently spent a year among some evangelical teenagers who belong to this elite minority, and I can attest to the inhuman discipline they exert over their hormones. They can spend all evening sitting on the couch holding hands and nothing more. They can date for a year, be alone numerous times in a car or at the movies, and still stick to what's known in the Christian youth literature as "side hugs," to avoid excessive touching."

Interesting Article from Slate Magazine indeed.

__________________________________________________________________
The New Kids
Democrats on Terrorism

What a dreamer you are!
If you don't count the ignorant, black, rich, and trodden down people, then the Christians are less sexy. (or should I have used the "p" word?)
Like saying: if you don't get pregnant, then you won't have a baby

Mixer said:
Evangelicals lose their virginity earlier when they do, but they have sex before marriage less often overall. Not sure it makes your point.

You see, Mixer, comments like that above drive me off the deep end. I point out, with documentation via a link, that evangelicals girls lose their virginity on average earlier than the overall population of teenage girls. You blithely reply that they have sex before marriage less often overall. Do you have facts to back up your assertation?

According to the article, not only do evangelical girls lose their virginity faster, the percentage of evangelical girls having 3 or more sex partners by their 17th birthday is much higher (13% or so to 8%)!!

Mixer said:
You are promoting a spurious correlation here bas.

The heck I am. I'm more than willing to concede that 16% of the evangelical sample remain "super virgins" until married. Perhaps they are the future religious leaders and/or clinic bombers of tomorrow. Nonetheless, to cavalierly dismiss 84% of the survey sample because they don't support your pre-defined conclusions is, in my mind anyway, what is "spurious". Your reasoning calls to mind this imperfect analogy: Overall, US military deaths last year were way down, if you exclude Iraq.

I didn't intend to send you to the deep end. I apologize. I could be cute and say that abstinence works 100% of the time. That's a fact you know - there has only been one pregnancy out of the billions and billions in instances of abstinence.

That would take you over the deep end.

Okay, let me try to clarify:

The MEAN (let’s call it average for purposes of this discussion) age at which 'evangelicals' lose their virginity is lower (I agree with that statement).

The argument however is whether the FREQUENCY of premarital sex is lower (when all other socioeconomic and racial factors are equal) between ‘Evangelicals’ or the 'Secular kids'(Non-‘Christianists’).

The spurious correlation occurs when you include multiple variables as one sample group in your "N" (sample base), bas. The article in Slate magazine even recognizes this flaw in its informal research. You would never pass this 'error' off as a research project - even in an undergraduate research program.

The TRUE correlation in this article, and all others I have read on this topic, is that lower socioeconomic students have sex more frequently than higher socioeconomic groups. To compound your error, the researcher also includes minorities and other variables that affect the data. Regardless, it becomes spurious when you realize the fact that MOST evangelicals are from a lower socioeconomic class and therefore you have introduced an inescapable variable that contaminates the sample.

Please allow me to provide you with this example:

Rapes increase when Ice Cream sales Increase; therefore, statistically, Ice Cream causes rape.

The first half of the statement above (Rapes Increase With and Increase in Ice Cream Sales) is a stone cold fact.

The second part of the statement is completely erroneous and unrelated. It is what in statistics is called a spurious correlation.

Rape increases in the summer time during hot weather. Ice cream sales increase in the summer time during hot weather. The TRUE correlation is that during hot summer months both ice cream sales and rapes increase. The true connection is the time of year. In hot weather people are outside more, wear fewer clothes and stay out later at night. In hot weather people eat more ice-cream while they are out. The true relationship is not between ice cream and rape, but rather hot weather and rape, and hot weather and ice-cream.

In your article, your example, as "Slate" pointed out, the socioeconomic and race factors skew the results to the point that you are making a spurious correlation by connecting premarital sex by 'self described religion' rather than by socioeconomic and racial factors.

Even the conclusion of your article says that the religious aspect has an effect on abstention after pointing out that their results may well have been skewed due to race and socioeconomic factors.

Finally I leave you with this:

"Spurious Relation (or Correlation) (a) A situation in which measures of two or more variables are statistically related (they cover) but are not in fact causally linked—usually because the statistical relation is caused by a third variable. When the effects of the third variable are removed, they are said to have been partialed out. See confound, lurking variable."

I hope this help clarify my position of why I feel you chose a ‘poor article’ to bolster your opinion.

PS- I spoke with some people from the McIntosh graduation. You should not feel bad about the speaker- she does NOT have a speech impediment or a physical deformity. She is the new Personnel Director for Fayette County and I have heard one bad thing after another about her.

Pre-Marital Sex Demographic

American sexual Behavior: Among Teens Who Have Not Had Sex, Morals Is the Number-One Reason

The New Kids

Democrats on Terrorism

Hello, Mixer. Thanks for the well-thought out reply.

I've got a question for you.

You said: The argument however is whether the FREQUENCY of premarital sex is lower (when all other socioeconomic and racial factors are equal) between ‘Evangelicals’ or the 'Secular kids'(Non-‘Christianists’).

Now, I re-read all my posts in this thread. I'm certain that *I* did not bring up the argument about "FREQUENCY" of pre-marital sex. You were the one that brought it up, ascribed this position to me, then proceeded to demolish your own argument. That's perilously close to a straw-man fallacy.

*I* don't have a position one way or another as to whether or not evangelical girls are more sexually active than their heathen counterparts. I'd like to see some research (usual caveat: from reputable institutions) backing up the claims of various organizations.

I read your links, but quite honestly, the second one is just an abstract listing the table of contents. I can't accept it's conclusion at face value about morals and teens and abstinence without a peek at the underlying data...it's just a one sentence conclusion.

It's an interesting topic in any event, one we'll have to explore further.

I made an inference and an assumption and I could be wrong.

After reading the bogging between you and Denise about abstinence, followed by the added thread in this blog about having an ‘extra special’ chat with Evangelical children, I ASSUMED that you were asserting that 'Christianists', in this case 'Evangelicals', are more likely to engage in premarital sex.

If that was not your intention, I stand corrected.

I do think the point worth making is that we should always strive to be that top few percent in whatever we do if we desire success.

Since the number one reason given, in most studies, for those who abstain from premarital sex is ‘moral values’, we should attempt to teach moral values, be they Christian or otherwise if we indeed hope our children will abstain.

I suppose if we have enough parents around like Anna Walker Vogt it really won’t help.

The opposite of teaching abstinence

____________________________________________________________________

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

I'm more than willing to concede that 16% of the evangelical sample remain "super virgins" until married. Perhaps they are the future religious leaders and/or clinic bombers of tomorrow

The writings of a misguided, sick and twisted individual. I surmise that if you lose your virginity early it will prevent one from bombing Abortion Clinics Could this angry and hateful individual be the next Unibomber?

Bas.... They're Abortion Clinics not just clinics. Be specific.... Abortion Clinics get bombed. Car and pet clinics do not. Abortion Clinics are where murder takes place. Murder from your "virgin bombers" and murder from those that kill unwanted children. And both are very, very, wrong.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Could someone explain the difference for me please between a virgin and a super-virgin?

Isn’t it a little like being pregnant? Either you are, or you are not. Is there a 'mid-grade'?

The New Kids

Democrats on Terrorism

I believe it was Bas who said something about stats could be made to be misleading. You accurately point out that it matters which groups you study and what starting point you are measuring from and to. I work with some disadvantaged groups and, in some cases, we rejoice for even a small amount of progress.

Guilt? About having sex? WHY? I'm glad people didn't feel so guilty that they stopped doing it before I was conceived.

This sounds very "American" as the US is a lot more hung-up on sexuality than most any non-Muslim country. Strong religious influence here that doesn't exist to near the degree elsewhere.

NUK