http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/04/07/sex_ed_prosecutor_wisconsin/

I'm in a debate with my great aunt right now, which is almost always a mistake, number one. Most of her first statements were more or less lifted directly from El Douchewad's playbook (which also means she either didn't read it or is parroting Glen Beck again).

But here's the thing, I honestly don't care if the schools were teaching sex ed and some parent got all huffy; in my ethical worldview, a prosecuting attorney is required by law to uphold the laws of the state in which that practicing attorney is, you know, employed.

Hell, if sodomy is outlawed in a state, even if I roger my significant other on a thrice-nightly basis, I am required as an attorney employed by the state to uphold that law.

So what I see here is an attorney who chose willingly to ignore the law and threaten to sue school districts even though he KNOWS he is suing them counter to both his role as a district attorney, as well as an employee of the state. It's like being a prison guard and shivving an inmate - you're not really supposed to do that.

Outside of that, his argument seems fallacious to me - out of the rest of the counties, apparently his has the highest rate of STD infection and teenage pregnancies, and he's trying to eliminate any program educating people about stopping both. Which seems somewhat of an astounding contradiction to me.

He's also been quoted, apparently, on the curse of welfare mothers.

Maybe this is a "can you believe how stupid this guy is?" rather than a debate, per se, but I can see two things out of this:

One, is it the right and privilege of people in these positions to force changes to the law through judicial legislation (or as it has been previously termed, legislating from the bench)?

And two: can sex education be considered a public health requirement, rather than a personal preference?

I bring this up because in my opinion, the public policy initiatives pushing to eliminate tuberculosis in many ways strove to reduce infection vectors in the public, one of which was by pushing education to lower-class families likely to be affected by it. The net effect was a radical reduction in tuberculosis infection by an aggressive education push. However, nobody's going to run amok saying that it pushed kids to cough in each others' faces. 'Cause, you know, that'd be silly.

However, it seems that those pushing AGAINST sex education in America tend towards the hyperbolic in their argument, suggesting at all corners that upon learning that Penis A goes into Vagina B or Anus C or Mouth D, suddenly there'll be panic in the streets, fucking in the high school locker rooms, cats and dogs, living together, giant iPod touches that show you porn wherever you happen to be, and a talentless hack writer who orgasms about vampires will be a national bestseller. (Hint, only two of these are ludicrously false claims, unless you happen to be a 1970s porn aficaniado, in which case only one is false.)

Thoughts? Or am I preaching to the sexually diverse, highly liberal, snarkily outraged choir?

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!

Hahahaha...heh...heh... huh?

...oh, wait, you mean that's real?  That attorney in that article... he's serious?

How... but... logic... where... what?

To at least sort of answer your questions, Monkey, yes, I think that sex ed should be a health requirement.  Teach kids how to protect themselves.  They're going to fuck regardless, let's face it.  If this self-righteous dink thinks that teaching students how to properly protect themselves from STDs and getting pregnant will make matters worse... I'm sorry, I don't understand the correlation.  Well... okay, that's not true, I do, to a point (teach them how to avoid these pitfalls, they'll have sex ALL THE TIME), but to insinuate that it will increase "child sexual assaults" is fucking ridiculous.  Really?  Teach kids about safe sex, and suddenly teenage rape will skyrocket?  What the fuck?

I'd like to see the research on this.  No, really, the way he talks, it's as if he has proof of this somewhere.  I'd like to see him reach into the hammerspace that is his lawyer's briefcase and give us documented and reliable proof.

Wait... it doesn't exist?  Reeeeaaaaally?  This is all based on his own opinion?  WOW!

And that he's actually threatening action against those who are following the law is a crockpot of shit of another magnitude altogether.  This guy's boss needs to pull him aside and whack him upside the head with a thick-ass law book before and after reminding him what his job is supposed to be: prosecute those who are breaking the law, not those who offend your fragile sense of moral integrity.

This is made of fail.  I mean it.  Epic fail.  Three 1s rolled in a row fail.  Scoring on your own net fail.  Bear in your apartment fail.  The only phrase that hits my brain is: what the fuck, man?

I'm in agreement that this prosecutor needs to be relieved of his duties and it should seriously be considered whether he should retain his credentials.

If you tell sixteen year olds what sex is they're going to freak the fuck out and start robbing convenience stores for booze and condoms! Outlaw sex ed! In fact, outlaw education!!!!!

Really?  Teach kids about safe sex, and suddenly teenage rape will skyrocket?  What the fuck?

Well, it IS illegal for minors to have sex in Wisconsin...

If you tell sixteen year olds what sex is they're going to freak the fuck out and start robbing convenience stores for booze and condoms!

*eyes you carefully for a moment*
.....
You have... Uh... A fun personal anecdote you'd like to share, carebear?

Y'know, by this guy's reasoning, we should outlaw all TV shows as well, because if you see someone commit a crime, or read about it, it's just encouraging people to commit those crimes.

You'd have to outlaw all print media, too.  Well... no, not outlaw, simply highly regulate.  Then you have the government censoring all forms of art, because you'd have to do the same for music as well as books, movies, TV, comics, newspapers, video games, paintings, even the internet.  The whole gamut.  Lots of money wasted, all in the name of protecting people from the things that could influence them into committing crimes, not only against society, but against morality.  Well... his morality, at least.

(and this is why i shouldn't post at 4am, when I should be sleeping)

....Val, I think that's pretty much what this guy wants anyway, and if asked, "Should the government prevent indecent art from appearing in museums" he'd say yes. Books? Yes. Comics? Yes. TV? Yes. Video games? OH HELL YES. The Internet? YES YES YES!

Which is the reason, I guess, that he's got some traction in certain circles, because you should only be free to have your own opinion as long as it doesn't contradict the opinion of the morally correct*.



*whoever that is at this moment in time