If it feels good, stop and consider the consequences

Yeah, that is going to happen. And that is the major flaw in abstinence education. Teenagers (and let's be honest, those who are no longer teenagers) know that sexual conduct feels good. It is supposed to feel good: it is the way we are wired. Never the less I read today

ABSTINENCE EDUCATION: "While the state Legislature has turned its back on millions in health care grants from the federal Affordable Care Act, it appears there's an exception to the rule: Programs aimed at teaching kids to say no to sex. Appropriations authorized by the federal law give Florida $2.6 million per year from fiscal year 2010 through 2014 to fund the state's Abstinence Education Program. And the state will match those funds with nearly $2 million more." Read more at The Orlando Sentinel

So we are turning back money for health care and accepting money to teach a program that is like every other teen pregnancy program 100% effective, only when it is 100% followed. Given the strong stimulus of hormonal rush and the rather poor risk analysis of the average teenager it seems like an ill conceived proposition. True, condoms only work when used, but "no" only works when it is followed with "let's get you home then". Until teens are able to say, "You know, you are right, despite the fact that I am incredibly turned on right now, I believe that it is in the best interests of society and our future growth and development to delay this rash act," abstinence education seems to be a fairly poor investment.

A prudent approach would be to make sure that the unwanted consequence does not happen (use birth control) and to then educate about that "unwanted" yet oh so desirable activity.

Fact Check Mr. Mica

John Mica Republican Congressman from Florida and chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has posted a fact sheet listing 17 Facts outlining why the House of Representatives bears no responsibility for the FAA shutdown. Mr. Mica leads us to believe that he has no clue as to why the US Senate will not agree to his positions. His Fact states

FACT: Senate Democrats are also arguing that the House-passed extension is about a labor provision, but the fact is there is no labor provision in the extension

So why Mr. Mica does the BBC report today that it is the House that is holding up the deal? What does Mr. Mica know that he is skating around in his talking points and spin control. Could it be that the "no labor provision" is really an anti labor provision?

Or then again it might be that the House version cuts funding to airports that the Senate doesn't want cut. Read the Fact sheet and it looks like everyone is in agreement, and yet, they aren't and Mr. Mica knows it. He knows it but doesn't seem to want to come out and say it.

So what is it Mr. Mica? In clear unambiguous terms, what are you hiding?

(In subsequent news stories it seems that Mr. Mica is aware that his bill is objectionable and that the subsidy issue in Ely Nevada is the stickiest point. so the bottom line is Mr. Mica is willing to cost the American government 200 million dollars a week in revenue in order to pick a fight about subsidies totaling 16 million per year! Way to protect our pocket book, sir!)